Skip to comments.The GOP and Global Warming
Posted on 10/20/2011 4:39:44 PM PDT by bkopto
"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," Mitt Romney told a crowd supporters at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire. "It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."
Immediately the "See! He's a RINO emails" began to flow in, but Romney is just saying what every serious GOP contender will have to say, and what the best voice conservatives have on the subject, AEI's Steven Hayward says. (Here's a recent Weekly Standard piece from Hayward that updates the surveys the climate change debate as it presently stands, including the rout of the alarmists, but I hope he produces a mock Q-and-A for all the GOP contenders to study and posts it at Powerline.)
The responsible, conservative answer is to review the controversy over the climate change scandals, the majority opinion --that the planet is warming some but we don't know how much, that humans contribute to the warming, but we don't know by how much, and that we don't know if it will be harmful or if there's anything we can do about it-- and a cautious preference for reducing greenhouse gases but not via a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system that cannot work even if it was necessary because the world's biggest emitters aren't buying it nor should they.
Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney are all first tier candidates who will take some variation on this position, and I suspect even some of the movement candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich will as well, though Michele Bachmann's position may force them towards the passionate anti-warming camp, but this would be a mistake. The GOP cannot be captured by the folks who say the planet can't be warming anymore than it can throw in with those who say it is headed towards catastrophe. On this subject, as with so many others, the vast majority of voters want common sense and a declaration that whatever the case, climate change won't be an issue that is allowed to kill jobs or energy production even as the scientific community continues to try and repair its collective reputation and come to a better understanding of the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions.
One more interesting point: The Politico team following Romney yesterday didn't pick up on the Romney's global warming answer even though versions of it spread quickly through the rightroots. Just as with Sarah Palin's alleged dig at Romney the day before excited the MSM for a few hours and turned out to be no story at all, the first few days of the campaign have shown that there are so many traffic-addicts eager to spread a damaging story that it will be necessary to check every alleged major gaffe and controversy thoroughly before believing it.
Don’t anyone be fooled by Hugh Hewitt. He is a GOP tool and a Romney lover.
One of many reasons to kick Mittens to the curb.
I loved that money shot quote "Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney are all first tier candidates"
Their COMBINED TOTAL DRAW in Republican polls is something like 22% @@@@!!!!!#!!!KL#L!LOLROTFLMAOPMP
I’m not voting for Romney. Period.
Bye Hugh, you clearly have lost all touch with reality.
Bye Hugh, you clearly have lost all touch with reality.
I see Huge Screwitt is shilling for his favorite POS Mittens. He can blow. There is no reason for a GOP candidate to jump on the Global Warming hoax unless they are working to pick up a 5th wife, i.e.; Gingrich and Pelosi.
I like Huge, but he has always been a Romneybot.
I do wish they’d put global warming in one if these debates so these candidates can show their cards.
Huntsman is a first tier candidate??? Stopped reading there.
Any candidate who is stupid enough to buy into the Anthropogenic Global Warming scam is too stupid to be within a mile of the 'football'.
First, and aside from all the fraud, data massaging, and grant pandering done by the proponents of the theory, the "science" is far from settled, with over 31,000 scientists willing to put their name on a petition to NOT enter into any accords based on the theory because the science is not "settled".
While one or two folks might stray from a "consensus", 31,000 is an awful large part of the herd to stray from anything allegedly "settled".
Second, there is/was a profit to be made scare-mongering the public, and that was done, in spades.
Third, data requested for review by other scientists, something not unusual in scientific enquiry, was either "not available", edited, or otherwise corrupted in favor of the theory. Missing data points (from weather station closures) were 'averaged in', giving warmer results than a northern latitude continental climate weather station might ordinarily give. All these 'tricks' of methodology create questions about the conclusion that the planet is or was warming, and are far from determining the cause thereof, provided such did or does exist. Current temperature data have shown flat to cooling temperatures.
Attribution to human activity does not fit along with previous patterns of cooling and warming, because that human activity could not have taken place in that distant past.
Indications are that CO2 increase associated with warming is a trailing indicator, and not a forcing one. (correlation, but not causation).
Any candidate worth my vote will understand these things, at least conceptually, and have the guts to at least disavow the alleged consensus, and resist nation-killing restrictions based on such shaky science whether those proposed restrictions be self-imposed or otherwise.
This was written back in June. Hewitt makes some points worth considering.
Pugh Hewitt, your opinion on AGW stinks to high heaven. Mitt is wrong, and so are you, and BTW, AGW is NOT the majority opinion.
Negates all that follows!
First off-this article is from June, so not sure what it has to do with what’s happening now.
Second-Hugh Hewitt’s analysis is correct about as often as Dick Morris-even less so when he’s clearly shilling for his favored candidate. Hugh has been “all in” for Romney since 2007, so no surprise he would downplay the fact that Romney buys into one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated.
Third-Hugh conveniently fails to mention that many of Romney’s advisers as Mass gov on this issue are environmental extremists and that he sought to implement a cap & trade system for Mass.
Bottom line-as with so many other issues, Romney CANNOT be trusted on this. I don’t believe he would do anything to reverse the job-killing EPA regs that are destroying our country. And he certainly wont lift a finger or expend any political capital to have us go after our own energy. This is a good reminder of yet another reason not to consider voting for Romney.
Believes in global warming
Supported a mandatory and government central run health care scheme.
Supports outright amnesty while having the gall to criticize Perry who has a more hard-line stance on this issue.
Yeah- He's a RINO or a unprincipled liar, because that's the only options unless you think he's got amnesia or suffers from some sort of split personality order. lol
He is simply changing his tune to fit the more conservative views now that he's running nationally vs. in Mass. Having the GOP approval, a well lubed political apparatus behind him and lots of money, he can sort of reinvent himself sort of the way Kerry tried until the Swift Boat Vets sunk him.
There are two Romneys:
The one that they are trying to sell him as, and the one he’s been for his entire political career.
I usually enjoy Hewitt’s radio show, but when he starts shilling for Romney, I switch channels.
This global warming nonsense is just another place where Romney has missed it, and Hewitt dutifully tries to spin it as a good move on Romney’s part.
Many folks have that “electable” myth in their head.
1. It’s better to go down standing than on ones knees. The electable choice gives you someone that pushes or agrees with all the liberal causes anyhow and outside of the Republican party being happy because they won, those that are conservative are no better off with a Bush vs. a Clinton.
2. The goal should be to sell the Conservative message, to find a candidate that has some chance of winning but isn’t a complete sell out to the meaning of “conservative.” We have enough Arlen Specters. If the time is wrong and the stars simply don’t line up, lose with dignity and wait for when conditions are right.
Stop with the “electable” crap.
I agree -Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney -
what do these looooosers have in common?
all indorsed by mclame AND DEMONRATS!
all are considered “moderate”
all love some form of GOVT. Health care
ALL have some praise for O’bummer and his czar’s
NO HUGH they do not! Why would they have to admit something that is not proven. Nevermind. Appease, appease, appease. That will win for us. Jackass.
This is one of the most absurd things I have ever read.
AGW is non-mysterious. It is possible to know the truth. Enormous progress towards truth has been made in the past two years. To advocate speaking lies because it will please voters is WORSE than promoting the lies directly.
I’m looking for the candidate who says the science is not settled on global warming, offhandedly acknowledges the fact that CO2 has increased in the atmosphere, probably due to burning of fossil fuels, etc., but is unwilling to spend another dime of taxpayer funds on it and is unwilling to tolerate a single EPA regulation based on CO2 generation, until it becomes much clearer that we even have a problem.
Because if we really do have a problem, it’s so far into the future that we can afford to let future generations do something about it, and we have plenty of other problems that constitute a far higher claim on taxpayer funding today.
Someone needs to rein in this nonsense, and soon. Australia has already taken a huge plunge over this cliff. We certainly don’t need to follow along...
Besides, by the end of 8 years of the next Republican President’s term in 2021, it might even be obvious that the recent abatement of warming marked a turnaround to cooling rather than a pause in the warming, as some of the people who put more stock in the sun’s role in all this seem to be thinking. By that time Romney will look like a moron on the subject, but so will most of the Washington establishment, so he’ll have plenty of company.
This entire scam is based on the reality that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels. But most of what has been built upon that reality is pure fantasy strewn about by power-hungry politicians and the people hanging on their coattails with their hands out.
Which progress are we talking about? The CERN Institute?
I agree. Electing Romney is a depressing thought. Might as well elect Hillary. It’s time to stand up and be counted. If not now, when?