ThinkProgress filed this report from Derry, New Hampshire.
It’s getting close to impossible to track Mitt Romney’s vacillating position on global warming. Appearing in Derry, New Hampshire, the Republican presidential candidate reversed last month’s stance on fighting greenhouse gases, telling a questioner that he didn’t think carbon emissions should be regulated as a pollutant
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- A Stark Message For Trump Supporters
- The Democrats’ Leading Experts
- The Siberian/Mediterranean UK Climate
- Escaping Carbon Dioxide
- Melting Greenland Update
- Disappearing Ice Causing More Ice
- Climate Misinformation From AI
- Record Heat Of 1941
- Expert Forecasting
- Manhattan To Drown Again
- Structures On Mars
- Illinois 1953 Vs. 2024
- Data Made Simple – Cold January
- Farewell To Climate Warrior Toto
- Data Made Simple – Stock Prices II
- Arctic Ice-Free By 2030
- Corals To Disappear Soon
- Earth To Become Too Hot For Humans
- Defending Misinformation
- Data Made Simple – Stock Prices
- Billionaires Buying Doomed Property
- First Female President
- “not supported by the scientific consensus”
- Cooling Is Warming
- Still Spamming And Scamming
Recent Comments
- mwhite on The Siberian/Mediterranean UK Climate
- Disillusioned on Escaping Carbon Dioxide
- Gordon Vigurs on Climate Misinformation From AI
- Bob G on The Siberian/Mediterranean UK Climate
- Mike on Disappearing Ice Causing More Ice
- Mike on Escaping Carbon Dioxide
- Mike on The Siberian/Mediterranean UK Climate
- Francis Barnett on The Siberian/Mediterranean UK Climate
- DD More on Melting Greenland Update
- arn on The Siberian/Mediterranean UK Climate
I believe in redemption. Go Mitt, go. Any republican out there is better than our current ‘situation’.
The election will not be decided upon this issue. Given the financial mess we are in, I do not think it will even be a major factor if any republican wins. That being said, I would support Mitt if he was nominated, but I will not support him for the nomination.
I hear that………
He ain’t the answer. He’ll buckle under greenie group temper tantrums, like the current President.
In fact Mr Obama will do anything to avoid greenie group temper tantrums. Not that I care very much for this behavior myself, but that’s not the way to deal with the problem.
You know what…you are right and IMHO it’s just nuts how these politicians play these games. For gosh sakes, if a reasonably conservative candidate would just come out and say “stuff it greenies – you don’t get the science you don’t get the policy options – every negative about global warming has been vastly exaggerated and the fixes you recommend will destroy the economy.”
No one – not even Michelle Bachman is talking like this but if someone stood up and pointed out how the green agenda is destroying the economy based on nothing more than a weak conjecture dressed up as “settled science” than I predict that every conservative conservative and most “independents” would get behind that message.
I used to think these greenie religious zealots would divide and conquer themselves – like the Communists did (“You aren’t a REAL Communist! You’re a FAKE communist! You don’t know what Communism is!”) – and they would shoot each other or have them sent off to the Gulag, depending on their position in the Communist Party.
The process isn’t happening quickly enough
Funny, I currently believe in “fighting greenhouse gases” and simultaneous don’t think that “carbon emissions should be regulated as a pollutant”. There is no constant reversal going on here…you can approach #1 without requiring #2.
-Scott
@Scott: “you can approach #1 without requiring #2”.
Absolutely. Not enough greenies get that, though. There are many ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without driving the economy over a cliff. Here is one way …
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/americas-atomic-folly