Romney – Believer In Mad-Made Global Warming

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

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?

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.

(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.