Polling shows the public largely siding with scientists on climate change. GOPers' new tack on climate science

Some leading conservatives have a new talking point on climate science: They’re not qualified to talk about it.

House Speaker John Boehner became the latest top Republican to try that tack Thursday, seeking to deflect an issue that has given Democrats an opening to brand the GOP as “anti-science.”


“Listen, I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change,” Boehner told reporters when asked about the science behind climate change. “But I am astute to understand that every proposal that has come out of this administration to deal with climate change involves hurting our economy and killing American jobs.”

( Also on POLITICO: In states, cap and trade lives on)

Similarly, Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott has offered the response “I am not a scientist” on multiple occasions when the topic has come up lately. Even the conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch, who have put big money into fighting President Barack Obama’s energy and climate policies, disclaimed any pretense at scientific know-how when wealthy climate activist Tom Steyer challenged them to a debate on climate change.

“We are not experts on climate change,” Koch spokeswoman Melissa Cohlmia said in an email to The Wichita Eagle this month. She added, “The debate should take place among the scientific community, examining all points of view and void of politics, personal attacks and partisan agendas.”

It’s a new twist on a strategy some Republican leaders adopted last year, in which they sought to make jobs and the economy their main staging ground for attacking Obama’s climate agenda.

( PHOTOS: Climate skeptics in Congress)

Of course, some conservatives still scoff at the consensus among mainstream climate scientists that the Earth is warming, in large part because of human causes, and that potentially devastating consequences await. The best known may be Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who wrote a book branding the whole idea a “hoax” and a “conspiracy.” But House Science Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) also dove into the issue at a hearing Thursday, arguing that the debate on climate science is “not settled.”

“The president says there is no debate,” Smith said. “Actually, the debate has just begun.”

But other Republicans appear to have softened their views.

Scott, for example, had said in 2011 that he’s not convinced “there’s any man-made climate change.” Now he’s facing a tough fight for reelection — in one of seven races nationwide where Steyer is aiming to make climate change a litmus test for voters.

( Also on POLITICO: Bloomberg: Cities hold key to climate)

Another reason for the change in tone could be Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio’s recent struggles over the topic. After taking a public pummeling, Rubio had to clarify remarks this month in which he told ABC News that “I don’t agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate.”

Other Republicans got the message, one GOP political consultant surmised.

“You don’t want what happened to Marco Rubio happen to you,” the consultant said. “And so the viewpoint of politicians is there’s no upside to being dragged into the quicksand of climate change science. It’s the easy way out of a sophisticated conversation.”

Polling also shows the public largely siding with scientists on the reality of climate change and the human impact, while the issue of climate change still lags far behind issues like the economy, jobs and Obamacare. “So what’s the point of a politician diving into climate science?” the GOP consultant asked.

Conservative Republican energy consultant Mike McKenna was more dubious about the talking point.

“Political guys have been training members to say it because they are afraid of the issue,” he said. “Issue staffers think it is ridiculous.”

Liberals have noticed the tactic. The website DailyKos labeled Scott’s new stance “climate-change-mutism” this week, while ThinkProgress quoted climate researchers as saying it’s the job of leaders like Boehner to understand the science.

Of course, this is not the first time a politician has used the I’m-no-expert gambit to try to skirt a troublesome issue. Obama earned his own backlash after a 2008 presidential campaign forum where he said the question of when life begins was “above my pay grade.”

Still, environmentalists say the science issue poses special perils for Republicans who oppose Obama’s climate policies.

Attacking the research “looks less and less politically successful because you look like some kind of throwback,” said David Goldston, a former Republican chief of staff on the House Science Committee who is now director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “So that’s fallen off the charts.”

Of course, Republicans are still eager to argue that Obama’s policies will devastate the economy, kill jobs and cause huge spikes in energy prices. Expect that debate to heat up after the administration unveils its landmark greenhouse gas rules for existing power plants on Monday.

While climate change and environmental policies overall have become more partisan, Goldston said skeptics are on the defensive.

“They’re going to try all sorts of economic arguments, where we think it’s easier and easier to prove that those arguments don’t hold any weight,” he said.

Erica Martinson and Lauren French contributed to this report.