At a town hall meeting in Mancester, New Hampshire today, Romney said,
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.
That means he agrees with the UN but disagrees with over 31,000 bona-fide American scientist who have signed this petition:
PetitionProject.orgThis statement obviously doesn’t bode well for the prospect that Romney would rein in the EPA and its endangerment finding and economy-killing greenhouse gas regulations.
Romney’s never been at the top of my list but this takes him off the list.
In contrast; at an event in Manchester last week, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, also running for president, said that climate change is “the newest excuse to take control of lives” by “left-wing intellectuals.”
Read the Reuters article here
Interesting gambit by Romney to appear to be the only adult in the field. He is hoping that Limbaugh, Hannity etc. attack his stand so he can demolish their arguments with fact. For example the petition above is a widely recognized misrepresentation. Just think about why only .3% of the 10 million graduates signed that petition. That is the definition of fringe. On the other hand 98% of climate scientists acknowledge Romney is correct. Just a thought!?
I’m not sure where you are getting your facts but the petition was not distributed to the scientist that signed the way you make it sound. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if your facts were correct if this petition were presented to college graduates considering the stance academia takes and passes to their students.
I would love to see Romney debate Limbaugh on “man caused” global warming.
You think he comes off as the only adult because he drinks the Kool-Aid of which you drink.
Where did you get this 98% of climate scientists acknowledge Romney is correct stat? Many of the main early proponents of man made global warming have reversed their stance.
Thanks. There are many links showing 97-98% of experts in the field and for analysing the petition. Here’s some I just found: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/10/812714/-Global-Warming-Petition-Project
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/
My main point is that this could be a clever way of taking the wind out of the sails of Pawlenty and Huntsman, the only real competition Romney currently has. No professional Republicans have stood up successfully to Limbaugh yet. If Romney does then he has earned the title of front runner.
You send me to dailykos, c’mon.
And Skeptical Science (which would be a good thing but…
their tagline: Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
The way they manipulate their numbers reminds me of many findings related to the measurements of the pyramids.
I don’t disagree that the world is warming, it goes through cycles. What I question is the significance of man in that equation.
And a comment from that very sight:
“Instead of questioning the credentials of people on a list, even if 50% were found out to be incorrect, that still leaves a significant number of scientists who disagree with the findings of the IPCC. As a geologist with over 35 years of experience, I can assure you that over 80% of my colleagues have a serious doubt about the findings of the IPCC.”
But if we were counting credentials here’s a link for you on the dubious qualifications of the “scientist” that signed and reviewed the IPCC Report. http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
As a matter of fact there is now quite a lot of information questioning the validity of “man made” global climate change.
I’ve watched the GW pitch and read related science for the past twenty years and I’ve never seen anything near the way it’s been indoctrinated to the populace.
But I guess my main point would be, do you honestly think we can afford to destroy our way of life (and country) for a theory that is not 100% fact. Just look at the millions of deaths caused by malaria as a result of the DDT ban by those who care so much.
I don’t need to rewrite what I’ve written in other post but if you don’t understand the agenda that is behind GW then you are just naive.
You’re drinking Gore-Aid and the debate in the scientific community is far from over.
One thing I can guarantee you without any doubt or hesitation, Romney would be torn to shreds in a GW debate with Rush.
AND a real conservative would understand that the best candidate would agree with the majority of what Rush says and not need or feel the need to “best him”. The best candidate would not even think that way but would rather have Rush’s support.
That’s a lot to digest. My point about GW was that there is no debate in the scientific community of climate scientists and that should give you pause. Please understand the scientific peer review process is designed to eliminate flawed theories and collusion within an entire field is unthinkable. It seems to me that we have different world views. I tend to be positive and hopeful. I can understand why you might see that as naive. Let me gracefully exit this conversation with the hope that Limbaugh does debate this issue with Romney. I think we both should wish for the results of that debate.
Although I appreciate the discourse, this has been kind of a weird exchange on many levels but let me just say:
1. The Global Warming debate is not over, by far, and day by day the case for man made global warming becomes weaker. Do some research. Climatologists are coming out of the closet.
2. Rush Limbaugh does not debate candidates, he talks with or interviews them. Granted, he ask tough questions and as a result certain points may be debated. Just yesterday Rush said he thought we had learned and understood that GW was a hoax and found it disturbing to hear what Romney said; pretty much writing Romney off.
I for one hope Romney will not be the GOP candidate. He appears to be a government can take care of the problem kinda guy. I like Reagan’s view, “government cannot solve the problem, government is the problem”.
The private sector in this country needs government to get out of the way so they can run with the ball, as it is the government thinks it’s their ball and if you want to play you must play by their rules.
Of course, any GOP candidate will be preferable to what we now have. Obama and his ilk must leave or the transformation of this country will truly result in an unrecognizable America.
For many of us that transformation has already taken place, four more years and what America once was will only be a memory.
So, considering the election, you want to know what scares me. Trump running as an Independent. It’s not so much Trump as it would be the stolen votes.
You’ve made another interesting point about an independent candidacy. Granted that both parties have gotten us into this poor state. The Reps have proven that that an unregulated economy is dangerous and tax cuts fail to create jobs while causing the deficit. The Dems are complicit. I think we need a national debate about the role of Gov’t and the right balance. Then work on solutions for the most fundamental and pressing problems. If Congress continues to fail I see no alternative to a third party for people like me that are disgusted with ideological rhetoric and demand results.