A question about climate change/global warming.

Romney draws early fire from conservatives over views on climate change

His views about climate change in particular put him at odds with many in his party’s base.

“Bye-bye, nomination,” Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday on his radio talk show after playing a clip of Romney’s climate remark. “Another one down. We’re in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax, and we still have presidential candidates that want to buy into it.”

Then came the Club for Growth, which issued a white paper criticizing Romney. “Governor Romney’s regulatory record as governor contains some flaws,” the report said, “including a significant one — his support of ‘global warming’ policies.”

And Conservatives4Palin.com, a blog run by some of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s more active supporters, posted an item charging that Romney is “simpatico” with President Obama after he “totally bought into the man-made global warming hoax.”

All this criticism, even though Romney's position on mitigating climate change is predictably weak and muddy:

“I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer,” he said. “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. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past, but I believe we contribute to that.”

Romney added that “it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.” He also said he does not support a cap-and-trade policy, saying it would put American companies at a competitive disadvantage in the world. “We don’t call it ‘America warming,’ ” he said. “We call it ‘global warming.’ ”

But it was his line that “humans contribute” that sparked the conservative backlash.

It does seem that the right has backed off on denying that the globe is warming, with them now just saying it's not man-made.

either way better weather proof your house or rent

can someone tell me when the first "cooling center" opened in the u.s.? were they common out west and i just never knew about them? cuz whenever they mention on the news that cooling centers are open in various cities it makes me think of dystopian sci-fi books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_center

We had them after Hurricane Charley hit--hurricanes tend to soak up every bit of atmospheric moisture when they hit, so there was nothing to protect us from the horrid effects of South Florida's summer sun. Also, we didn't get power back everywhere for a few weeks.

Sorry, about the long quote here, but this is so mind boggling I had to share it. This is the full transcript of the caller on Rush Limbaugh's show that generated the quote in the WashPo article about Mitt Romney that I posted yesterday. It's like arguing with a doorknob.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Mike in Hanover, New Hampshire. Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network. Great to have you here.

CALLER: Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh.

RUSH: Hi.

CALLER: I was actually quoted by you yesterday. I was the person who asked Mr. Romney at the town hall meeting about his position on global warming. And you, unlike almost everybody else, actually did me the courtesy of quoting some of my questions before you gave the answer. Anyway, I read the transcript that you provided, I read the transcript of your show yesterday --

RUSH: Yes.

CALLER: -- and just had a few comments on it.

RUSH: Go ahead. Fire away.

CALLER: Well, sir, first of all --

RUSH: Let me first, by the way, here's his question. This is the guy who asked Mitt Romney at his announcement meeting, the question was, "Nearly all other candidates suggest that there's no scientific consensus on climate change. Some insist it's not even occurring. We can't have a meaningful discussion about solutions until there's agreement about the problem. Will you, sir, state now that under a Romney administration, global warming will be accepted as reality, and this reality will form the foundation for all climate energy policies?" That's the question and you're the guy that asked it.

CALLER: Right. Right.

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: Prior to that question, however, I provided a bit of context. If you don't mind I'd like to read that piece, too. First of all, I wanted to specify the difference between policy and science. I said that how to deal with climate change is a policy issue; science of climate change is not. Anyway, my question was not about policy, that is, how do we mitigate global warming, do we do cap and trade or carbon credits or whatever, but it was about the recognitions of science. And I specifically quoted from a 2010 National Academy of Sciences report, and two quotes here. The first is, they concluded -- and, by the way, the National Academy of Sciences, as you know, is considered the Supreme Court of science in this country. It was founded in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln, and it's charged with giving the Congress unbiased scientific information. Now, their conclusion was, quote, "A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems."

RUSH: Then they've lost all credibility. It's a bogus claim.

CALLER: Let me go on. They then went on to say, "Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found wrong is vanishingly small. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities. And then I asked my question, so that's the context of the question. Your response was that there was evidence even in the last year that established this whole premise of manmade global warming is a hoax.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: I don't know where you're getting the hoax from, sir. I mean I'm looking at --

RUSH: It's called the University of East Anglia in England and the Hadley Centre for Climate Change Research where they basically made it all up, pure and simple. It's a hoax. There's nothing true about it.

END TRANSCRIPT

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060811/content/01125112.guest.html

!

he is funny

4 tornadoes in Maine this year - I'm just sayin' - don't be hatin' on the global warmin! aint suualy no 'nadoes in lobsterland!

well, if anybody would know, it'd be rush

here's a hilarious chart:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/07/238287/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MediaMatters1.png

no surprises with fox, but to me the bigger story is WTF CBS? WTF NBC? WTF ABC? WTF CNN? and to a lesser extent, WTF MSNBC. it's not so much that fox has way more anti-environment people on their shows in comparison to supporters, it's more that the other channels don't even cover the issue.

There's a new report out that's being proclaimed by deniers as evidence that we're about to enter an ice age, and that all of climate change is really just solar cycles that we can't control (instead of something that has to do with CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere).

It's already being headlined at Fox as "Global Warming Be Damned, We Might Be Headed for a mini-Ice Age"

For those that care, here's the inevitable debunking that won't get covered:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/15/246202/sun-hibernation-deniers/

they basically made it all up

Yeah, basically. I want an asteroid to hit Rush Limbaugh.

One of the many frustrations of this debate is illustrated by that Rush caller: the difference between denying the science and denying it's happening at all. Even if these asshats deny the science, that shouldn't preclude them from working on solutions to what's happening. They can blame it on natural cycles, they can blame in on Jesus, but, man, something is clearly happening. The radical temperature and weather fluctuations here over the past two weeks have been scarier than some old coot predicting the Rapture.

stumbled across a recent article at FrumForum called "Confessions of a Climate Change Convert", which contains a nice little nugget that might be useful when debating a scientific/policy issue with people who don't care to discuss science or policy:

"I’d argue that conservatives and libertarians should strongly support regulation to reduce carbon pollution, since pollution by one entity invariably infringes upon the rights of others (including property rights), and no entity has a constitutional right to pollute."

no entity has a constitutional right to pollute.

Except cigarette smokers.

I think the conservative stance on any pollution is "my right to make a profit trumps your rights, because it's not really pollution, and you're being a whiner about it."

man, WHY did i start reading through the comments section below that article??

*SLAMS CARDOOR ON HEAD REPEATEDLY*

http://cosy.com/Science/CO2-pineGrowth100120_400.gif

Of course, as part of this guy's study, I'm sure he imposed drought or flood conditions on the high ppm plants

"look here, if climate change takes place in my garage and i control the temperature and amount of water the plants get, everything's gonna be fine!"

"Only the profound retardation of government school K-12 math and science education can explain how so many are duped by this GlobalStatistStupidity against the very molecule upon which all life is built and without double digit concentrations of which life would have been very unlikely to have gotten a toehold on the planet .

From what I’ve observed , you can get a PhD in climate science without ever learning how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball"

looooooooooooooooool

These fucking people! It's like saying 'Oxygen is important for us to breathe, therefore it's OK if we pump up the O2 in ther atmosphere."

Even though pure oxygen is toxic over long periods, and has a tendency to make things spontaneously combust.

http://climateconference.heartland.org/

how much oil money do these guys get for showing up?

During an appearance on "Fox & Friends" on Tuesday morning, Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty acknowledged the reality of climate change, but expressed skepticism that humans contribute to the environmental process.

"There's always been climate change, but until recently people were worried as much about global cooling," he said when asked to define his position on the issue. "The reality of it is the science indicates that most of it, if not all of it, is caused by natural causes and as to the potential human contribution to that, there's a great scientific dispute about that very issue."

drop dead

I'm sure the hosts on Fox and Friends vigorously contested his invocation on the widely debunked "global cooling" meme. People like Pawlenty that say things like "until recently people were worried as much about global cooling" are really just revealing that they can't distinguish between legitimate scientists and media sensationalists, because the people that were "worried" about global cooling were overwhelmingly the latter.

Of course, I doubt he even believes most of what he's saying. He recognizes that being anti-environment is now a litmus teat de conservatives.

Uh, iPhone fail, but I kind of like "litmus teat de conservatives" better tbh

Anyway, not sure what to do when presidential candidates repeat widely debunked lies, and rarely get called out on it. Post-fact society, here we come (are?)

uh http://www.grist.org/i/assets/usa_today_sun_ilovecharts_tumblr

no way that wasnt on purpose

like, there's no reason to have that hand there lol

incredible

the sun is watching footage of a supernova

like, there's no reason to have that hand there lol

yeah, i thought the same thing! maybe the sun is supposed to be leaning on a pole (lol) after a long run or something?

My cock does not go up to 130-degrees. :(

xpost maybe the sun is indicating the current temperature?

Wonder if there's an accompanying graphic of a moon shot.

Seems Luke a really heavyhanded way to indicate the temperature. Pointing would be just fine, rather than a sweaty deathgrip!

Luke=like

Wow, looks like someone took the idea of 'boiling-hot cum' literally.

lol

Dear Lord Monckton

My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:

"In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House ... In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage."

I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".

I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.

David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments

it'll be interesting to see how he attempts to talk himself out of this one, but he will try, doubtlessly.

Americans are more likely to attribute the increased severity of natural disasters to global climate change than to signs of apocalyptic biblical prophecy.

• Nearly 6-in-10 (58%) Americans say that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of global climate change, compared to 44% of Americans who say that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of what the Bible calls the 'end times.' -White evangelical Protestants and Republicans are an exception to this pattern:
• Among White evangelicals, 67% believe that natural disasters are evidence of what the Bible calls the 'end times' compared to 52% who see it as evidence of global climate change.
• Among Republicans, 52% believe that natural disasters are evidence of what the Bible calls the 'end times' compared to 41% who see it as evidence of global climate change.

http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=519

i guess i'm supposed to be happy that overall, slightly more Americans attribute the increased severity of recent natural disasters to science rather than Catbeast, but http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/images/2006/10/19/dmu_head_in_hands_315x420.jpg

Sorry to spam multiple threads, but if I can even get one person to participate in this I think it's worth it.

Some of you may have heard about the Tar Sands protests at the White House, running every day from Aug 20th - Sept. 3rd. 322 arrests have been made so far.

The media coverage is starting to pick up steam:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/08/tar-sands-xl-keystone-pipeline-protest.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/why-far-off-canadian-tar-sands-have-become-a-make-or-break-issue-for-obama-with-enviros.php?ref=fpb
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61837.html#ixzz1W4D5RzZZ

If any of you are willing to join me on Sept. 3rd, here's a pretty detailed account of what you're in for:

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/adam-maynard-we-shall-overcome-tar-sands/
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/update-from-legal-support-team/

"Processing once we arrived at the jailhouse was relatively painless. One by one they snapped off our plastic cuffs and led us to a long table staffed with officers who had us fill out paperwork for our release. Because of the low severity of our crime – we were charged with failure to obey a lawful order (aka get off the sidewalk) – and the benevolence of the Park Police, we were granted a “post and forfeit” release. Under these terms we could pay a $100 fine instead of staying overnight in jail and arranging a date in court. Thankfully we were instructed to have cash on us beforehand, and we were all out of police custody by 2:00 or so. Not so bad considering arrests had started around 11:30. I also want to make a point of saying that the DC Park Police were courteous and professional throughout the process, and I hope they spend my $100 wisely."

After being relative assholes on the first day (the Park Police decided to try to deter future protesters by holding them for 2 days overnight in jail), all of the protesters are now getting charged with "Failure to Obey" (a traffic charge less than a misdemeanor) and a "post and forfeit" release, which entails a $100 fine and an immediate release.

Sept. 3rd is the last day of the protests, and will probably have the most people and the most coverage. If any of you want to kick it in the paddywagon with me for an hour or so on the 3rd I'd welcome your company. Or, of course, if you can make it on any other day, even just to register your support (no arrest/fine), please do.

Join your friends on the right wing in interpreting the interpretations of'Climategate II'.

Jesus fucking christ. Reading stuff like that makes my head explode. I've want to bitterly rant at length but I'm iphoning it so I'll save it for later.

*sounds of people removing bookmark from thread*

Wow, it didn't even take them 24 hours (via Washington Monthly/Steve Benen)

A Koch-financed study of climate data, which many on the right agreed to accept no matter the outcome, just concluded that global warming is real and the scientific consensus is legit.

But it snowed yesterday in parts of the Northeast, so we once again have to deal with nonsense like this:

From Eric Bolling’s Twitter feed:

“Hey A Gore…earliest snow in NYC since the Civil War…where’s your global warming now, see?:

Last night on his Fox Business program, Bolling also pointed to the snowstorm to try to rebut climate change. On-screen text during the segment read, “Global Warming: A Scam?”

Ari Fleischer, recently hired by CNN to be one of the more respectable Republican voices, went there, too.

“This is freaky. The temp is dropping & the snown is sticking like crazy. Al Gore - get rewrite”

Does every freak snow storm have to bring out the worst in climate deniers? Is all of this really necessary?

People (including my dad, who does the same) need to have the difference between "climate" and "weather" tattooed on their faces

Well, the Daily Mail is certainly an unbiased and trustworthy source.

peepee in Canada