Republican candidates on climate change

[crustylicious]

The New York Times and Washington Post today both examine the climate change positions of the GOP’s leading presidential candidates. Given the sway of Tea Party activists over the Republican Party, it’s not too surprising that the debate basically pits those who think climate change is outright fraud hatched in East Anglia against those who think climate change is happening, but that we shouldn’t do anything about it.
Tea Party favorites Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann count themselves among the lot of climate change deniers. Bachmann wants to shutter the EPA, the Times notes, while Perry has gone so far as to denounce climate scientists as participants in “one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight.” That’s a reference to the much-debunked Climategate “scandal,” which climate change deniers seized upon, arguing that some snarky emails among climate scientists in Great Britain proved that the overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of anthropogenic climate change was all a great conspiracy. Perry and Bachmann may not deny that the earth is getting warmer, but they flatly rule out any human role, and therefore adamantly oppose carbon-reducing regulations like cap and trade.
Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are emblematic of the other strain of Republican thinking on climate change.  Huntsman, who’s perhaps not coincidentally languishing in the polls, made waves when he said “All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them.” There’s nothing inherently left-wing in Huntsman’s basic respect for empirical research, but in light of the Tea Party’s Jacksonian (that is, proudly anti-elitist) tendencies, such talk isn’t going to do much to make Huntsman a real contender for the nomination. Romney, who’s reversed himself on  plenty of other issues dear to conservatives’ hearts, does stand a real chance at facing off with President Obama, and his rhetoric on climate change doesn’t differ all that much from Huntsman’s. The Post quotes Romney as saying he accepts the findings of climate scientists – and that the US must reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He goes on to say, however, that it’s called “global warming,” not “American warming,” so until developing countries like China and India sign on to a global climate change agreement, he’s not going to support unilateral action like the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill  of 2009 (a remarkably modest piece of legislation riddled with special interest giveaways that somehow got marred as an ultra-leftist bill). Huntsman (a onetime cap and trade advocate) sounds a similar note, refusing to support any meaningful action on the issue until the economic slowdown is reversed. Because, you know, climate trends are going to suspend themselves until there’s a consensus that we’re out of the economic woods.
Maybe Romney and Huntsman stop short of calling for specific policy measures because right now, they’re trying to woo skeptical GOP conservatives. Once in office, a President Romney or President Huntsman may well be able to marshal support for a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions. There may even be some measure of Nixon-goes-to-China at work. Only a Republican president, one could argue, could garner enough bipartisan support  to pass global warming legislation and convince enough Republicans that this all isn’t a money-making venture for Al Gore. Then again, as Tea Party intransigence on the debt ceiling underscored, rank-and-file conservatives in Congress are more than willing to buck establishment Republican leaders to prove their conservative bona fides. Given how deeply entrenched climate change denial is on the right, why would a global warming bill be any different?
It’s all enough to make one understand why David Jenkins of Republicans for Environmental Protection lamented to the Times on the sorry state of environmental policy among the current crop of GOP contenders.
 
http://politicsnotasusual.com/2011/08/18/republican-candidates-on-climate-change/
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/us/politics/18epa.html?_r=1&hp
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-and-romney-split-on-climate-change/2011/08/17/gIQAgawNLJ_story.html

[BUGEYE]

starting a post with  ny times and washington post  means a lot of people will not read it.
I didn't

[mcwoodduck]

The qustion is not weather we have climate change, the question is it man made climate change.  Clearly we had climate change when there were dinosaurs that roamed the earth.  As all the crusty liberals contiunue to tell us the Earth is a living thing and is constantly changing.  So back to the Man made climate change.  All the E-mails have shown that the theory is not proven, and was concocted to generate research grants.  So far the data has been shown to be flawed with artifical heat sources added to the recording data, like boiler exhaust, air conditioning exhaust, and tarmac to the temperature sensors.
 
Now if I came up with a theory and falsified data to support it, got moeny for research and then passed it around paying people to come up with the same conclusions.  You have people that are making Billions, that is with a B, Billions off the research, the whole carbon credit scam where people are taking stupid peoples money because they feel guilty for driving an SUV they need.  Since I am paying a bunch of people to not do research but screw off the are goingto shout down anyone that disagrees with the theory and show the falsified data as real results.
 
The makers of solar pannels and windmills are in it for the rebates.  Like in '79 when the tax incentices and rebates end the industry will dry up again.
 
The whole idea of the Man made global warming is to make energy expensive to move our economy into the dumper to knock us down from the only super power left and give others the ability to either equal a weaker US or become a Super power them selves.  The we go back to the Cold war of the two biggest kids on the block squaring off just different flags and the US at a huge disadvantage from with in.  It is also designed to interfeer with your personal freedom and make you reliant on government and public transportation.
If Man made climate change were true, Al Gore would have started to fly commercial, moved to a smaller house that does not use 5,000 a month in utility bills.  Clearly he is killing the planet while telling you not to but give him $ and he will give you a carbon credit to offset your usage and making a Billion.  Now I don't have a problem with Gore getting morons to give him money for no reason.  I have a problem of him using a fear tactic to take it from you and using false data. The NY Times and the Washington post are not news papers they are partisan rags that will tow the party line. 

[subdjoe]

Some of the things that the "90% of all scientists" agree with:

Space aliens will invade Earth because of man made global warming.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations


Basing policy on inaccurate models that were designed to support the prevailing theory rather than test it.  And they must favor hiding or ignoring data that contradicts the models.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

Seems like that 90% also support the lie that it has never happened before, contrary to what the geologic record shows.  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=51357

The American Southwest is prone to drought, and the summer of 2011 proved no exception, when a severe drought extended from Arizona to Florida. But a sediment core from New Mexico suggests that today’s droughts—even the 1930s Dust Bowl—are fleeting events compared to conditions of the ancient past. Hundreds of thousands of years ago, some droughts could persist for centuries. Researchers find one ancient period of warm, dry conditions especially intriguing because it was, in many ways, similar to conditions on Earth during the last 10,000 years.

Clues about this ancient period are preserved in a dry lakebed in New Mexico named Valle Grande. On May 25, 2011, the Advanced Land Imager (ALI) on NASA’s Earth Observing-1 (EO-1) satellite captured this natural-color image of the lakebed. It is an unevenly shaped expanse of beige grassland situated inside the larger Valles Caldera.

Researchers extracted a 260-foot (80-meter) sediment core from this lakebed in 2004, and published their analysis in 2011. Ancient lake muds in the core document the region’s climate between 360,000 and 550,000 years ago. During that time, glaciers advanced over North America in recurring ice ages, and conditions warmed in interglacial periods. The core includes sediments from two warm interglacials.

One interglacial covered in the sediment core that particularly interested the research team is known as Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS 11), which occurred around 400,000 years ago. Our planet’s orbit around the Sun has varied over geologic time, but the 50,000-year period comprising MIS 11 experienced an orbital configuration similar to that of the last 10,000 years and, consequently, the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth was similar.

They seem also to support wholesale faking of numbers to make things fit their preconceived conclusions:  http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

Average annual rise is about 1.8mm. These guys are adding close to 17% to that. 17% is NOT 'trivial.' And who is this elitist to say what is or is not 'worth public notice? I wonder if the "researchers" would notice if their pay or funding was cut by 17%? And if they would consider that "trivial?"

So, if 90% of scientists agree that fraud, cooked numbers, inaccurate models, and other things are acceptable, should we really follow their lead?

[mcwoodduck]

Subdjoe,
Looking at the history of the world Montana was once Jungle.  Eastern North Carolina was Ocean.  And that was before man was alive.   
The formation of Panama caused the last Ice age 10,000 years ago.
The warming of the earth by a degree in the early 1400 causes the renasiance. and ended the Viking raiders, as they were able to grow food to feed everyone and did not need to invade south to take food and money to feed everyone.  Who is to say that if the earth actually warmed it would not be a good thing and make Canada and Siberia the new bread baskets of the world and feed the starving people. 
 
 

[subdjoe]

Subdjoe,
Looking at the history of the world Montana was once Jungle.  Eastern North Carolina was Ocean.  And that was before man was alive.   
The formation of Panama caused the last Ice age 10,000 years ago.
The warming of the earth by a degree in the early 1400 causes the renasiance. and ended the Viking raiders, as they were able to grow food to feed everyone and did not need to invade south to take food and money to feed everyone.  Who is to say that if the earth actually warmed it would not be a good thing and make Canada and Siberia the new bread baskets of the world and feed the starving people.

Yep.  But the alarmists ignore all of that.  They ignore the Medieval Warm Period and draw their graphs from the coldest of the Little Ice Age in order to support the scare tactics used to further their one world order, leveler agenda. 

Here is an interesting little piece:  http://blog.american.com/2011/03/climategate-youre-not-allowed-to-do-this-in-science/

[mcwoodduck]

They also ignore the heat source and solar activity.
That is like saying we have climate change because my house is warmer this year then last, not because of the climate but because the Furnace is broken and constantly on.
Again we may have climate change, but clearly by the un scientifice method being used it is not man made.

[ironglow]

Crusty;
  All tyhe writing about a dead issue..
  Then you have the temerity to cite the NY Times and Washington Post..both of which have harbored reporter/liars in the past.
 
   It appears you are trying(fruitlessly) to convince conservatives that the pack of liars at East Anglia U. are believeable ! 
 
  That doesn't fly..among conservatives Perry and Bachmann are  scooting around at the peak of the polls..20%-29%.. while Huntsman, who has just shot himself in the foot ... is "holding his own"  at 1%...

[Sourdough]

One volcano eruption puts more CO and pollutants into the atmosphere than man has ever done.  Currently Alaska has one volcano blowing, and we have one or two minor eruptions a year, with a major eruption every five years or so.

Therefore the minor little bit of CO and pollutants man creates is so minor it is not going to have any affect on the atmosphere at all.

[ironglow]

One volcano eruption puts more CO and pollutants into the atmosphere than man has ever done.  Currently Alaska has one volcano blowing, and we have one or two minor eruptions a year, with a major eruption every five years or so.

Therefore the minor little bit of CO and pollutants man creates is so minor it is not going to have any affect on the atmosphere at all.

***********************************************************************
   Sourdough;
  According to the liberals then, with that active volcano..you should be having july in January and peopl;e should be coughing themselves to death..  Is all that happening ?

[magooch]

Heck, even I believe in climate change, but that doesn't mean that I believe it is necessarily global warming, nor that it is primarily caused by human  activity.  Like a lot of others on this forum, I've been around for just about 7 decades and I've watched and even kept records of weather.  I can prove without a doubt that some years are cooler, wetter, hotter, drier, windier, calmer, stormier and nicer than other years.  This year in these parts has generally been cooler, but quite comfortable.  This summer has been a hair cooler than average, but nothing to become alarmed about.
 
According to some of the same scientists that tout global warming, we barely somehow avoided an Ice Age, back in the Seventies.  I know I lost a lot of sleep worrying about that and I'm worrying even more about the present weather crisis--NOT!

[subdjoe]

According to some of the same scientists that tout global warming, we barely somehow avoided an Ice Age, back in the Seventies.  I know I lost a lot of sleep worrying about that and I'm worrying even more about the present weather crisis--NOT!

And using much of the same data.  But people didn't buy into that scare, so they keep renaming the scheme.  Cooling, warming, change, disruption, I'm sure that in a few years the levelers will come up with a different spin on the numbers and come up with a new name.

[mcwoodduck]

According to some of the same scientists that tout global warming, we barely somehow avoided an Ice Age, back in the Seventies.  I know I lost a lot of sleep worrying about that and I'm worrying even more about the present weather crisis--NOT!

And using much of the same data.  But people didn't buy into that scare, so they keep renaming the scheme.  Cooling, warming, change, disruption, I'm sure that in a few years the levelers will come up with a different spin on the numbers and come up with a new name.

When I first heard about Global warming it made sence to me and I kind of bought it.  When I saw the data that contra dicted the therory and they changed the name to Climate Change, where if it rains it is global warming, if it doesn't rain it is global warming, if it is hot it is global warming, if it is gold it is global warming, if .... It is global Warming.  Heck when morons like Samual Jackson blamed the EARTH QUAKE in Haiti on Global Warming.  Once everything was blamed on climate change I realized long before the Climate gate e mails that it was bogus and was designed to ruin our economy.

[crustylicious]

Published estimates based on research findings of the past 30 years for present-day global emission rates of carbon dioxide from subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from about 150 million to 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, with an average of about 200 million metric tons,
These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land use changes; these emissions accounted for some 36,300 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2008, according to an international study published in the December 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience. Even if you take the highest estimate of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions, at 270 million metric tons per year, human-emitted carbon dioxide levels are more than 130 times higher than volcanic emissions.
http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/371-7da-7-1e

[mcwoodduck]

Published estimates based on research findings of the past 30 years for present-day global emission rates of carbon dioxide from subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from about 150 million to 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, with an average of about 200 million metric tons,
These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land use changes; these emissions accounted for some 36,300 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2008, according to an international study published in the December 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience. Even if you take the highest estimate of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions, at 270 million metric tons per year, human-emitted carbon dioxide levels are more than 130 times higher than volcanic emissions.
http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/371-7da-7-1e

And you are taking the figures from people that falsified data.   They have an adgenda to promote the "Man made climate change" to increase their research grants.  Scientific con men!   
 

[subdjoe]

Published estimates based on research findings of the past 30 years for present-day global emission rates of carbon dioxide from subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from about 150 million to 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, with an average of about 200 million metric tons,
These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land use changes; these emissions accounted for some 36,300 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2008, according to an international study published in the December 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience. Even if you take the highest estimate of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions, at 270 million metric tons per year, human-emitted carbon dioxide levels are more than 130 times higher than volcanic emissions.
http://www.earthmagazine.org/earth/article/371-7da-7-1e

And you are taking the figures from people that falsified data.   They have an adgenda to promote the "Man made climate change" to increase their research grants.  Scientific con men!

I'll agree with Crusty that the numbers do work out. 

But, that has nothing at all to do with warming/cooling/change/distuption/term of the month.

There is even indication that atmospheric CO2 levels lag behind, and are a result of, warming or cooling trends, rather than a cause.