Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), New Climate Research Subcommittee Chair, Thinks Climate Science 'Arrogant'
Arizona Congressman David Schweikert of the Sixth District rejects the scientific fact of anthropogenic global warming. Rep.Schweikert (R-Ariz.) is the incoming chair of the House Science Committee’s subcommittee that oversees climate change research, The Hill reports. Schweikert is replacing fellow science denier Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment. Stewart left the science committee post in December for a slot on the House Appropriations Committee.
In a 2010 interview uncovered by Hill Heat, then-candidate Schweikert claimed the science of climate change is actually a conspiracy concocted by the “arrogant” “Al Gores of the world,” the “control freaks, the people who want to control my life, want to control my lifestyle.”
“I don’t see the data. You know, I think I have a reasonably good statistics background. And I have not sat there with pages and pages of data. But when you think about the complexity of a worldwide system and the amount of data you’d have to capture, and how you adjust for a sunspot, and how you adjust for a hurricane and I think it’s incredibly arrogant for the Al Gores of the world to stand up and say the world is coming to an end. Because as I kid I remember on the flip side when they were warning me we were going to go into an ice age. . . . I wish people would make up their mind. It’s the control freaks, the people who want to control my life, want to control my lifestyle.”
In the interview, Schweikert also implausibly claimed, “as I kid I remember on the flip side when they were warning me we were going to go into an ice age.”
In reality, the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect is a physical fact known since the 1800s. During the 1970s, scientific research on the global climate was advancing and popular coverage reflected the variety of scientific opinions about the consequences of man-made pollution on the climate, before the influence of greenhouse pollution became unmistakable by the 1980s. The only scientifically plausible systematic explanation for the rapid warming of the planetary climate since 1950 is industrial greenhouse pollution.
He has also described climate science as “folklore.”
“Understanding what part of climate change is part of a natural cycle and what part has human components is the first step.” Schweikert told the Arizona Republic during his failed 2008 candidacy. “Our elected officials must be careful to react to facts and not folklore.”
During a debate with his 2012 primary against Ben Quayle, Schweikert affirmed he does not believe in man-made global warming, the Phoenix New Times reported. Schweikert has also described the effect of greenhouse limits on coal-fired plants as having “negligible environmental benefit.”
“I’ve learned in Congress it’s not necessarily Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. It’s those that do math and those that don’t,” Schweikert said in a March, 2013 interview. “You need to make policy on facts.”
Q: Since you want to reduce the tax burden, I assume you’re against cap-and-trade?
A: Oh yeah.
Q: Which some call cap-and-tax?
A: Oh yeah.
Q: As a related question, do you think global warming is a hoax, or do you think that man is capable of doing anything about climate change at all?
A: I’m not going to say whether . . . well . . . I don’t see the data. You know, I think I have a reasonably good statistics background. And I have not sat there with pages and pages of data. But when you think about the complexity of a worldwide system and the amount of data you’d have to capture, and then how dpyou adjust for a sunspot, and how do you adjust for a hurricane this and that, and I think it’s incredibly arrogant for the Al Gores of the world to stand up and say the world is coming to an end. Because as I kid I remember the flip side where they were warning me we were going to go into an ice age.
Q: In the 1970s there were pictures of protesters carrying those signs.
A: I wish people would make up their mind. It’s the control freaks, the people who want to control my life, want to control my lifestyle. And I’m a guy, I drive a hybrid. But I drive a hybrid because I think gas prices were going to go up. I did it from economic self-interest, not because I wanted to save the planet.
Q: Yeah, I always get a kick out of thinking, gosh, they’re so worried about global warming, what if we go into another global ice age and we hadn’t protected ourselves from that!
A: It’s . . . you want to protect and love your environment. But I’ll make the argument the person that owns their private property is going to love and protect it much greater than a bureaucrat hundreds of miles away who will manage and protect that same piece of real estate.
Q: And of course you’re talking about the problem of the commons.
A: Exactly! You understand the basic economic theories. The ability to say, look, we all want a common goal. The air, we want that clean. We want the best land use. We want this and that. Then maximize the private ownership. Because a private owner will cherish and love those resources much more than a bureaucrat ever will.