The Washington Post had a piece yesterday (6/9/11) on Mitt Romney's views on global warming. It serves as a reminder that Republican political candidates are under enormous pressure from the right-wing base of the party on this issue–any politician who's ever suggested that climate change is a problem, or backed efforts to address it, is in trouble.
This is an important thing to point out. But that doesn't mean the Post thinks climate change is important. See the article's lead sentence:
It seemed like a straightforward question on a second-tier issue: Would Mitt Romney disavow the science behind global warming?
Is the fate of the planet a "second-tier issue"?
Romney's views–"he believes the world is getting warmer and that humans are contributing to that pattern," explains the Post–aren't pleasing the far right, whom the Post gives ample space to vent:
"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 Palinâ┚¬Ã¢”ž¢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."
Prominent climate change "skeptic" Christopher Horner from the Competitive Enterprise Institute is also quoted. There's never any indication that what these people are saying is nonsense–perhaps because this is a story about politics, and facts shouldn't get in the way.
The closest thing to that kind of balancing perspective is when the Post pointed out that public opinion is divided:
Public opinion is politicized on the issue. A March Gallup poll found that 32 percent of Republicans think the effects of global warming are already being felt and 36 percent believe the rise in the Earthâ┚¬Ã¢”ž¢s temperatures is caused by humans, while 67 percent say the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated in the news.
The same survey found the opposite trend on the other side of the political fence. Sixty-two percent of Democrats polled said the effects of global warming have begun, and 71 percent said humans are causing the rising temperatures, while 22percent think the situation is exaggerated. Among independents, there was a fairly even split on those questions.
I'm not sure "politicized" is the most useful term to use here. If many more Republicans believe that Iraq had WMDs, or that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, or that the Earth is flat, are such views "politicized"–or simply inaccurate?
About Peter Hart
While Nero fiddles- Of course ignorance seems contagious within this party of would be plantation owners, all will suffer and the world will be a nasty place to live!
[...] To WaPo, Planet's Fate Is a 'Second-Tier' Issue' [...]
[...] is, of course, The Washington Post. And in this non-article, the Beltway paper shows its true colors as far as global warming, aka "climate [...]
The overwhelming evidence that our economic and environmental practices are not sustainable never really gets in the way of the Republican party. Yet there's no denying the science. An accessible explanation and one with plenty of graphs for those intellectually challenged by reasoned argument can be found in Steffan et al.'s Global Change and the Earth Systems, available at http://www.igbp.net/documents/IGBP_ExecSummary.pdf
Sad to think that these people will delay any meaningful action for their own political gain. But then, we've seen them obstruct any effort to create jobs through their political grandstanding for the wealthy, so this should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Climategate is Still the Issue
[...] Original Post By Google News FAIR [...]
[...] Climate Change, Election, Washington Post. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 [...]
It's not just the Washington Post. The entire mainstream media is ignoring the greatest and most urgent threat we face. It's unbelievable! Even liberal news organizations treat it as much less important than a host of other issues.
Meanwhile the situation keeps getting worse, and the science keeps looking more grim. According to the International Energy Agency, CO2 emissions in 2010 were a new record: 30.6 Gigatonnes. Almost every country in the world has agreed that we need to keep warming below 2 degrees C in order to avoid catastrophic effects and tipping points. But in order to do that (holding CO2 levels below 450 ppm), the total increase in emissions over the next 10 years would have to be less than last year's increase . In other words, it is now virtually impossible to avoid a situation that everyone agrees we MUST avoid. This should be making headlines around the world, but I haven't seen one mention of it in the U.S. media. The denial and ignorance is so thick you could walk on it.
To make matters worse, the 450 ppm number is based on older science. Several newer studies (based on what actually happened in the past) have found strong evidence that CO2 has more warming power (up to twice as much) as scientists had thought. If that is true, we are in even deeper trouble. And it probably is, because the predictions from the IPCC were based on models that were only run to the year 2100. This year scientists for the first time ran a few models to the year 3000, and they showed that global temperature would keep increasing at least that long, even if we completely stopped all our greenhouse gas emissions right now! Think about what that means.
Scientists have also discovered that at least 3 of the 5 worst mass extinctions of the past happened when the world heated up from increases in greenhouse gases. The worst mass extinction of all happened when there was massive volcanic activity that burned huge amounts of coal. 90% of the species in the oceans disappeared forever, as did 70% of land species. That is what we are headed for. Yet we continue to ignore it, and we do nothing.
We could avoid paying water and sewer taxes by distilling water from the air and then burning the sludge left behind with our own "natural gas." Using the air we need to breathe as a dumping ground for waste follows a time honored, established practice among humans.
We can walk upright in our own ignorance while taking advantage of the ignorance of others. Use the premise that all science is half-baked to justify the eruption of half-baked opinions. The resulting confusion is enough to keep the money coming in for any radio talk show host. Why pay attention to the science when creating different realities has so much to offer?
We on the right have not bought into the great hoax that is global warming.Mitt Romneys words were guarded.They carry no where near the importance the left is attributing to them.Of course Mitt is playing the lefts game for votes.Be assured as troubled as we are at this political strategy,you should all know he intends to do nothing along the lines of carbon taxes to achieve anything.It is called lip service.Obama talked a great line with the gay pop and did….nothing.More troubling was his attempt at Obama care on a state level(of course it failed)So is Mitt a perfect fit?No not at all.But the debate last night proved there are 7 plus people who surly would do a better job than our lost soul president.
"I think that people always took the president at his word that the commitments he made in the 2008 campaign were heartfelt and that he meant them," said Richard Socarides, president of Equality Matters. "I think what we learned about his governing style is that he is very process-oriented. He gets a plan in his mind and there is no changing course. He said at a gay pride event in 2009, 'Give me eight years.' A lot of us didn't want to wait eight years. But two years into it, he has delivered on some pretty important, incremental, pieces."
Socarides said Obama's decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act was especially important. "I think that pretty much sealed the deal for him with gay and lesbian Americans," he added.
Voters in Massachusetts like the health care plan that Mitt Romney signed into law as Governor and they like the one Barack Obama signed into law as President too…but overall they like Romneycare better than Obamacare.
53% say they support Romney's plan to 33% who are opposed while 50% say they support Obama's plan with 40% in opposition. The main reason Romney's plan is more popular is that independents narrowly support what he did on health care (45/42) while they still oppose Obama's plan (35/54). Democrats support both of the plans but unsurprisingly like Obama's (77/11) better than Romney's (67/17). Republicans likewise oppose both of the plans but do give Romney's better marks (27/57) than Obama's (7/88).
JUSTIN GILLIS // NY Times January 12, 2011
New government figures for the global climate show that 2010 was the wettest year in the historical record, and it tied 2005 as the hottest year since record-keeping began in 1880.
The new figures confirm that 2010 will go down as one of the more remarkable years in the annals of climatology. It featured prodigious snowstorms that broke seasonal records in the United States and Europe; a record-shattering summer heat wave that scorched Russia; strong floods that drove people from their homes in places like Pakistan, Australia, California and Tennessee; a severe die-off of coral reefs; and a continuation in the global trend of a warming climate.
Two agencies, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, reported Wednesday that the global average surface temperature for 2010 had tied the record set in 2005. The analyses differ slightly; in the NOAA version, the 2010 temperature was 1.12 degrees Fahrenheit above the average for the 20th century, which is 57 degrees.
It was the 34th year running that global temperatures have been above the 20th-century average; the last below-average year was 1976. The new figures show that 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since the beginning of 2001.
Global Warming a Hoax? Hhhmmmmm. Let's see. I'm not a climate scientist, not a scientist at all.
Just another working man trying to understand an important issue. Who should I believe? What should I believe? Should it be Climate Scientists who have spent their professional careers studying
the Climate, investigating, measuring, gathering empirical evidence, advancing theories? ( Knowing
enough, of course, to disregard those who are funded by Fossil Fuel Corp. and like minded Think
Tanks). Or should I listen those who claim it's all a Hoax? I think figuring out who has the most to
lose (money-wise) would be a good starting point. Concerned Scientists or Global Energy Mega-Corps. ?Whose Stock Portfolio stands to take the biggest hit if Long Term Climate Change is
taken as fact, and acted on? The scientific view is the logical choice, when using the sniff test of money. But when it comes to greedy self-interest, logic is denied.
Keltickev….No one is saying the world is not getting warmer……or colder.Though on both sides of that scale I would argue our hand in it.There are age old copper mines at the bottom of glaciers 100 feet under the ice.Obviously at the time they were in use the world was warmer.The only strange thing in the worlds climate would be if it were stagnant.There have been massive warming periods and freezing cold.Where were we then?
It is part and parcel of the lib strategy to point to a coming catastrophe and then ask for the power to fix it(Carbon taxes).We, you see- do not trust giving you the power over 1 sixth of the economy.When I hear Al Gore tell people that within 9 years a certain beach property will be under water due to global warming- then spends millions on a house there ,15 feet from high tide……..um sorry not buying it.As far as scientists…tons think it is a hoax.I follow the money trail- and that screams hoax.Take a listen to the hated lord Monckton.
As far as Obamas work with the gay coalition…..It is all lip service. Political expediency.There is no passion or push behind his words.As far as quoting Rich Socarides pa-lease.He is a white house Dem insider.What else would he say?I think Obama is somewhat well meaning.That and a dime will give you a 13 trillion dollar hole.
Rich Socarides was in the Clinton White House, he doesn't serve in the current administration. He's currently the president of Equality Matters
You really think that Obama didn't push to drop the DOMA defense? Or that he doesn't care about ending DADT? Let's see some evidence.
PS
80% of that 13 trillion dollar hole is the result of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43….
"I follow the money trail- and that screams hoax.Take a listen to the hated lord Monckton."
Lord Monckton [note: he's not actually a Lord] is listed as a "Global Warming expert" for the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based free market think-tank. The Heartland Institute frequently attacks the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change. The Heartland Institute has received over $791,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil since 1998.
Monckton is also a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change which is sponsored by numerous climate change skeptic organizations.
The sponsors of Heartland's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change had collectively received over $47 million from oil companies and right-wing foundations.
Monckton is listed as a "Chief Policy Advisor" for the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). The SPPI was until recently managed under the name "Center for Science and Public Policy Institute" by another free market think-tank called the Frontiers of Freedom. Frontiers of Freedom has received over $1 million in funding from ExxonMobil.
michael e: As far as scientistsâ┚¬Ã‚¦tons think it is a hoax.
_____________________________________________________
Something like 99% of climate scientists agree that human-influenced climate change is occurring right now, and that the consequences will likely be very serious. I don't know how big the remaining 1% of the scientists are, but I guess they could cumulatively have a mass of "tons;" so I 'spose you might be correct.
There was a very good article written about this in Skeptic magazine last year, I think. The title or tagline was something like "If 99% of climate scientists aren't enough to convince you…"