Romney – Believer In Mad-Made Global Warming


Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 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.”

The former Massachusetts governor fielded questions on topics ranging from the debt ceiling to abortion on his first full day of campaigning for 2012 Republican primary nomination.

Romney leads opinion polls in New Hampshire by a wide margin, and is among the top contenders nationally to win the Republican primary.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Say what you want about Romney; he’s a shrewd businessman, politician, and Presidential candidate. He well knows the unpopularity of his stance on this issue with the base electorate in the GOP primaries.

Romney may be wrong, but, again, he’s no fool. He’s no enviro-whacko. He’s no Gaia worshiper.

The point is that it’s a controversial issue. There are smart, thoughtful people on both sides of the issue.

And, no, global warming is not a “hoax.” Global warming is a controversy. This is not the same thing as a “hoax.”

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Here’s a tough question…What happens inbetween Ice Ages?
A) SUVs are invented.
B) Polar Bears die off
C) Igloos in Florida melt
D) Global Warming

In all of this nonsense I have never seen any data on how volcanoes figure into this. There’s like, 17 active sights blowing in varying degrees constantly. We get at least one big pop a year, or so. Any one of those produces as much ash and gas problems as mankind has in the last 100 years. I bet it doesn’t fit into the real plan of raising taxes. As another point, has anyone at all heard or seen anything along the lines of what they intend to do that actually fix’s even something, however small? I do agree with anyone in the belief it’s a bad idea to make messes where we work and live. Most of industry is motivated by economics and efficiency to do things we consider to be “Green” in the first place. None of the big government regulation effects nations outside our own, which is where the lion’s share of uncontrolled contamination occurs. So it seems to me about all they are really helping, is themselves to dig deeper into our wallet’s, based on lies and distorted facts for their own benefit at the consumer’s expense. Am I all wet, or do I pretty much have it right?


“Most of industry is motivated by economics and efficiency to do things we consider to be “Green” in the first place.”

If that were the case, we wouldn’t have 1,290 toxic Superfund sites to be cleaned up on the taxpayers’ dime, the fish from any randomly selected U.S. lake or river would be perfectly safe to eat, smog wouldn’t exist, and the eastern seaboard states wouldn’t be exporting tons of garbage and refuse daily to midwestern farmbelt landfills via an endless conveyer belt of diesel-burning semi trucks.

Tons of the most troublesome trash is transported overseas to the Third World daily. There are vast fields of discarded electronic components. The local groundwater is too contaminated to drink, and the sky is black with clouds of smoke from burning plastic.

Germany just planned to de-commission all of their nuclear power plants.
To merely keep up with their current energy needs (NO GROWTH at all!) they will need to emit an extra 40 million tonnes of CO2 per year!!!!

Sure, someday, down the line, Germans will have enough wind and solar in place along with cuts to usage to bring that number down.
But that is years off.
The Germans lose a bunch of TAX revenues right now, too!

Romney might be right….depending on HOW MUCH he thinks humans can do.
But the cost is so egregious to try to make a miniscule difference AND the HUMAN cost so great that the trade off is only ”logical” if you are for killing off many of earth’s poorest humans.

I don’t use the NYTimes but here’s the link:
“Brute Force: On Small Farms, Hoof Power Returns.”

In that story a man claims this:

There’s a deep environmental crisis right now, and live power is also about creating an alternative to petroleum. Grass is a solar powered resource — and you don’t need manufacturing plants or an engineering degree to make a horse go.”

The implication is that animal power is somehow inherently superior, that a tractor (and, more generally, modern technology) are at best necessary evils.

One problem is that a return to pre-industrial technology, in farming or anywhere else, would mean billions would have to die.

From this perspective, 4 or 5 billion of us are ourselves a kind of necessary evil — we can’t kill them, but boy, wouldn’t it be great if they didn’t exist.

Remember when green and the assumption of manmade global warming was a religion?
You know, before the leaked emails?

Indur Goklany, writing for the National Center for Policy Analysis, examined to what degree global warming would make worse the problems of hunger, drought, sea-level rise, disease, and threats to biodiversity.
He found:

1. By 2085, the contribution of (unmitigated) warming to the above listed problems is generally smaller than other factors unrelated to climate change.

2. More important, these risks would be lowered much more effectively and economically by reducing current and future vulnerability to climate change rather than through its mitigation.

3. Finally, adaptation would help developing countries cope with major problems now, and through 2085 and beyond, whereas generations would pass before anything less than draconian mitigation would have a discernible effect.

In other words, help poor people NOW!
Just keep doing whatever you are doing, driving the SUV, eating imported jam, whatever.
BUT, also help the poor in the developing world NOW.

If this is Romney’s solution, I’m all for it.

Romney, with the possible exception of Huntsman (who also believes the Hoax (Yes, Larry, any good scientist who’s livelihood doesn’t depend on propagating it, knows it’s a Hoax)) is the worst conceivable candidate the GOP could field.

He’s also a big believer that MA’s draconian gun laws “make us safer”.

I would rather see the current moonbat re-elected and grid locked by a GOP congress than see either of these loons get into the office. Like Lincoln, “I prefer my despotism pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

(Yes, Larry, any good scientist who’s livelihood doesn’t depend on propagating it, knows it’s a Hoax.)

Endless repetition will likely make a lot of people come to believe a statement, but it doesn’t make the statement true.

A majority of scientists have said no such thing. Unless, of course, you’re referring to a majority of scientists having connections with such specious “research” organizations as the Heritage Foundation.

Here are some follow up quotes, from a Boston Globe article.

Question: Are Pawlenty and Gingrich telling the truth — i.e. are they being sincere — in describing the “evolution” of their feelings about the global warming controversy, or are they just playing politics? As for Romney — my goodness, maybe he’s something other than a shameless panderer, after all.


“But I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that . . . so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.’’

Instead, he said yesterday, he wants to wean the country from its dependence on foreign oil by seeking alternative sources of energy, and he said Americans should do more to conserve.

“I’m told that we use almost twice as much energy per person as does a European, and more like three times as much energy as does a Japanese citizen,’’ Romney said. “We can do a lot better.’’


Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor who is toying with a presidential bid, indicated in a Time magazine interview last month that he believes climate change is occurring.


Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty recorded a radio spot in 2007 calling on Congress to take action on climate change. But last month at a debate in South Carolina, he disavowed his past position. “I don’t duck it, bob it, weave it, try to explain it away,’’ he said. “I made a mistake.’’


Former House speaker Newt Gingrich has also shifted positions on the issue. In 2007, he told PBS that the weight of evidence over time convinced him of the need to do something about global warming. The next year, he appeared with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in an ad saying Congress needed to take action on climate change.

But last month he said such concerns were overblown, telling The Telegraph of Georgia: “When I see 6,000 scientists sign something, that’s called political science. That’s not science.’’

“The planet used to be dramatically warmer when we had dinosaurs and no people,’’ he said. “To the best of my knowledge the dinosaurs weren’t driving cars.’’

So, how about it. Are Pawlenty and Gingrich sincere — or are they pandering?

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA