Mitt Romney, Republicans and Global Warming

by ishambat | June 8, 2011 at 07:51 pm
185 views | 4 Recommendations | 6 comments

Mitt Romney, a Republican candidate, has been under attack by conservatives for recognizing the reality of global warming.


What he has been under attack for is, in fact, facing reality.


A major stated Republican value is facing reality, and Mitt Romney has done that. The right-wingers haven't. Which makes Romney a far more true Republican than his opponents on the right.


It also makes him a far more real representative of another Republican value: Responsibility. The irresponsible burning of carbon fuels combined with rainforest deforestation is endangering the future of America and the rest of the world. And it is a solvable problem, whose solution is as easy as moving from one set of technologies to another -


Technologies that will give people everything they have now and much more, while vastly reducing the negative effects of economic activity on the planet.


In fact technology changes all the time. Horse and buggy were replaced with cars, and candles with light bulbs, in early 20th century. The result was vast prosperity -


A prosperity that can be realized at still greater scales through transition to high-intelligence, high-technology, high-job-creation abundant clean energy solutions.


What the right-wingers claim on this matter is a pack of lies. No, you won't have to lose your houses and your vehicles. No, you won't have to do without benefits of business and technology. People will have what they have now and much more, while destroying much less of what they can't recreate.


And their children will be able to enjoy the benefits of both the world of civilization that man has created and the world of nature that man has not.


In fact clean energy conversion is even good for the oil industry. With oil no longer being burned, it will last longer and be used to produce higher-level goods such as plastics and pharmaceuticals. This will bring the oil companies vastly more money in the long run. As for everyone else, they will have the benefit of the best of civilization and the best of nature, as economic practices shift from short-sightedness to prudence, intelligence and sustainability.


Mitt Romney, in espousing the stance of facing reality, is thus a much better and truer Republican than his opponents on the Right.


And it is only when the other Republicans likewise have faced reality that they can claim legitimacy as exponents of the values that they claim to possess.

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
Edmund Jenks

AGW - Human caused global warming and climate change has been based almost exclusively on the mathematical equations known as the "hockeystick effect" from the British based University of East Anglia.

AGW is a FRAUD because the math has been exposed the the Wikileaks style of email hacking, last November 2009, proving that the data had been purposely manipulated/shaped in order to prove a theory, gain fame, and secure large amounts of additional grant monies (follow the money).

Please read the following, become fully informed and prove to yourself the fact that because a majority of research scientists SAY something is so, doesn't make it so until the strict rules of Scientific Method make it so. The vast majority of the studies you may cite have corrupted information given to them from the discovery of BAD MATH and fraudulent data.

AGW datasets discovery: 75% of all datasets corrupted

0
ishambat

" AGW - Human caused global warming and climate change has been based almost exclusively on the mathematical equations known as the "hockeystick effect" from the British based University of East Anglia. "

Totally untrue. Scientists knew about it as early as 1950s. It became common knowledge in 1980s. Conmen denied it then, conmen are continuing to deny it now.

"

AGW is a FRAUD because the math has been exposed the the Wikileaks style of email hacking, last November 2009, proving that the data had been purposely manipulated/shaped in order to prove a theory, gain fame, and secure large amounts of additional grant monies (follow the money).

"

Bullcrap as always. There were two people at UN who did their jobs wrong. That's among tens of thousands of scientists, most of them not affiliated with UN, who have done their work with complete integrity and all came to the same conclusion.

1
jenksissuchaplonker

jenksComplete your own eduction and go a litlle deeper than the Tea Party talking points:At the request of the U.S. Congress, a special "Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years" was assembled by the National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. The Committee consisted of 12 scientists, chaired by Gerald North, from different disciplines and was tasked with explaining the current scientific information on the temperature record for the past two millennia, and identifying the main areas of uncertainty, the principal methodologies used, any problems with these approaches, and how central the debate is to the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change.The panel published its report in 2006.[95]

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes ...    Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes before about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales."[citation needed]

The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect. The report summarizes its main findings as follows:[96]

  • The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.
  • Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.
  • It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
  • Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
  • Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature before about 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.
0
The 1

I like Edmund Jenks opinions and passion on auto racing, but this climate change/global warming issue is something I've seen and believe strongly about also. The effects are tangible and are becoming more obvious everyday really. Scientific evidence can always be debated or argued, but physical changes being documented really prove what is happening. These changes happening now, can effect the earth's climate for thousands of years.

0
GkaplanMD

Tobacco companies denied smoking causes cancer.With the same zeal,  oil  and coal  have brain washed many innocent people that  global warming is  not real.The National academy of sciences predicts that within 200 years, due to overpopulation and global warming, HUMANITY will become extinct.Fortunately,  petrochemical industries  do not have enough $$ to buy the world's intelligentsia's, and this December 100 % of UN  members  agreed that global warming is the  most serious threat to human survival! Watch the documentary HOME in youtube filmed in 54 nations with IMAX, and cry!

0
gKaplanMD

Tobacco companies denied smoking causes cancer.With the same zeal,  oil  and coal  have brain washed many innocent people that  global warming is  not real.The National academy of sciences predicts that within 200 years, due to overpopulation and global warming, HUMANITY will become extinct.Fortunately,  petrochemical industries  do not have enough $$ to buy the world's intelligentsia's, and this December 100 % of UN  members  agreed that global warming is the  most serious threat to human survival! Watch the documentary HOME in youtube filmed in 54 nations with IMAX, and cry!

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

NowPublic on Facebook

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

YankeeJim
First Flagged at 2:27 AM, Jun 9, 2011 by YankeeJim

Related Stories

Recommendations (4)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from