- Divine Carelessness vs Recklessness
- The Gold Standard, Part 7
- Preparing for the Worst
- Comet Elenin, Planet X & More
- The Fed and Common Sense
- Interview with the Devil
- The Way of Truth or Lies?
- Taking It With You
- Lincoln – Good or Evil?
- Alternative Currency
- Giving Away Our Power
- Parable of Money Systems
- To Fiat or Not Fiat
- Questioning Mormonism
- Fiat Money of the Past, Part 1
- Fiat Money of the Past, Part 2
- Fiat Money of the Past, Part 3
- Molecular Preparation
- Fiat Money of the Past, Part 4
- Fiat Money of the Past, Part 5
- My Writing Instruments
- Fiat Money of the Past, Part 6
- Romney & Hot Air
- Examining Fiat Money
- A Flawed Money System
- The Ideal Money
- A Time for All Things
- The New Greenback
- Narrowing the Focus
- People Taking Charge
- Creating Wealth
LWK links to this Romney quote asking if he is full of hot air.
“I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course,’’ Romney said. “But I believe the world’s getting warmer. 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 . . . so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.’’ Boston Globe, Jun 4, 2011
Before I comment let me remind readers that I have attacked the greens, the U.N. IPCC and numerous politicians for their distortion of facts and their desire to tax global warming out of existence as well as using it as a device to destroy capitalism.
I do not see any of that coming from Romney. Let’s take a look at what he actually said.
“I believe the world’s getting warmer.”
So do I if you look at the overall picture of the past 100 years. It has leveled off since 1998 so we cannot say where it will go next for sure.
How I differ from the global warming alarmists is that I do not see enough evidence that we have any major problem coming that we can do anything about. We may get hit by a comet in five years but should we throw all of our resources into preventing this?
No. Because the risk is not high enough to warrant this. Neither is the proven risk of global warming.
Romney continues: “I believe that humans contribute to that (global warming).”
Again I agree with him. CO2, methane and other gasses released by humans do have some warming effect. Some scientists believe half of the warming comes from human produced greenhouse gasses and others think it to be less but all acknowledge that greenhouse gasses do have some warming effect. We just cannot prove how much that is.
Romney: “I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change.”
Again I agree with him. In addition to some warming effect the addition of excessive CO2 could have other unforeseen negative effects. For instance, studies show that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is decreasing and in some large population areas have gone down an alarming rate. Oxygen levels in the seas are also decreasing. When CO2 is formed oxygen is taken from the air. Some say that this and other human effects are producing oxygen sinks that take this vital element from the atmosphere. This should be of more concern than global warming.
I agree with Romney that we just can’t sit around and do nothing. My main point of disagreement with the environmentalists is their economy destroying approach that would do much more harm than good.
If we read on in this same Boston Globe article we see that Romney qualifies his approach with some common sense. It says:
“Romney has made clear that he opposes cap-and-trade, a system that would combat climate change by limiting total emissions and forcing polluters to pay for the greenhouse gases they produce.”
This is a huge item for me and is my main reason to take alarm at the standard environmentalist approach. Some say that the core of the environmental movement is not about the environment but about destroying capitalism and nothing gives evidence to this more than the insane cap and trade movement.
The fact that Romney is not deceived by this, as was candidates John McCain, Jon Huntsman, Pawlenty, Gingrich and Gary Johnson, score points in my book.
Someone can read about global warming and absorb some wrong information and this does me no harm. But if he wants to destroy our way of life (and eventually the environment) by destroying our economy then I am ready for battle.
Again Romney is quoted:
“Americans should do more to conserve.”
When Obama says something like this I get nervous but when someone with business sense says it I can be supportive for I also support common sense conservation. I am a big believer in the Law of Economy.
The article continues:
Instead, he said yesterday, he wants to wean the country from its dependence on foreign oil by seeking alternative sources of energy… If elected, he said he would pursue more oil drilling, as well as natural gas and nuclear energy.
Well, this is a man with some sense. I would do the same if I were president.
He wants to:
(1) Wean the country from its dependence on foreign oil
I am all for that. It is crazy to depend on those who hate us for oil.
(2) Seek alternative sources of energy.
Again to do this with a common sense approach may yield high results.
(3) “He would pursue more oil drilling, as well as natural gas and nuclear energy.”
My type of guy. That is 180 degrees the opposite of the Obama approach.
Romney adds a final caveat:
“We can’t just say it’s going to be all solar and wind,’’ he said. “I love solar and wind, but they don’t drive cars. And we’re not going to all drive Chevy Volts.’’
Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey
Easy Access to all the Writings
7 thoughts on “Romney & Hot Air”
“C02 levels are the highest in the last 100,000 years”
How were the CO2 levels so high Without Man??
Conclusion, CO2 levels are not controlled by Man.
The SUN controls the temperature of the earth.
C02 levels change based on the temperature AFTER the fact.
IPCC is responsible for most of the climate MISS information.
Ask yourself why the IPCC chairman has NO climatologist credentials? What was he doing there?
For every scientist supporting IPCC you can find 10 who don’t, not reported in the press…
Many Scientist get their funding from the gov, you want money then sign… extortion common in our gov.
A better truth: http://www.nipccreport.org/
8. Just imagine I read it twice. While I am not as accomplished on this topic, I concur with your closings because they make sense. Thanks and good luck to you.
7. Great site here. Many blogs like this cover subjects that can’t be found in magazines and newspapers. I don’t know how we got by 10 years ago with just newspapers and magazines.
And is there any real scientific evidence that humans are contributing to global warming, or even that the planet has warmed up in the last 10 years or so – statistically significant evidence? It sounds to me like Romney trying to suck up to as many people as possible. But I don’t see any sincere conviction. The American Spectator had a good article on Romney today, comparing him to Nelson Rockefeller.
Is Mitt Romney the New Nelson Rockefeller?
In the world of politics it was Nelson Rockefeller who had the misfortune to have all the political assets one could possibly imagine — looks, charm, brains, energy and literally all the money he could use. Yet with all of this Rockefeller was totally unable — if not stubbornly unwilling — to understand the significance of the conservative revolution that was swirling around him as his own career unfolded. And in not understanding, much less not leading that conservative revolution Rockefeller not only failed spectacularly as a presidential candidate but made himself into a defiant symbol of resistance. He transformed himself into a man so stubbornly enamored of the liberal status quo and its supporting Establishment that his very name attached to that of his party became not simply a descriptive to conservatives but an epithet:
“The Rockefeller Republican.”
As I said the warming has reached a plateau in 1998 and has been at a standstill, but it has warmed about one degree C in the last 100 years. It is not in dispute in the scientific community that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – the thing difficult to prove is how much effect it has.
I payed a lot of attention when Rockefeller was running and listened to all his speeches and he is nothing like Romney. I didn’t want him as my president. Romney has a lot more common sense and is a lot more in tune with the good of the country rather than himself. He is not the only one who would be much better than Obama. There are a number of Republican candidates I think would make a good president. I would be pleased if Herman Cain became the nominee. It would be interesting to see how the Left would then play the race card.
“…it has warmed about one degree C in the last 100 years.”
Don’t you think that is a fairly insignificant change, in a century?
“It is not in dispute in the scientific community that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – the thing difficult to prove is how much effect it has.”
It is becoming clear that it has only a fraction of the effect claimed by the global warming hoaxists. Moreover the contribution of man is still relatively small compared to nature itself.
From a purely practical standpoint though, there is practially nothing the western world can do about it (other than wreck our economies and open the door for totalitarian regimes to become politically and militarily dominant in the world). Even if the U.S. and western Europe were to make draconian cuts the Chinese and developing world will absolutely make those cuts totally irrelevant as they ramp up their industrial production. Any thing that we do is nearly inconsequential because there are forces and nations at work over which we have no control and they will increase total CO2 production in the world, and any cuts we make will turn out to be statistically insignificant in the overshall scheme of things.
If in CO2 is what the hoaxists say,then we are doomed. There is nothing we (the civilized Western world) can do about it.
I pretty much agree with all you say here. I might add this. We can make a difference if we could switch to nuclear, nuclear fusion, Helium3 or some powerful non polluting source over the next 50 years. We could cease putting an ever increasing amount of CO2 in the air which would probably prevent real long range problems. The environmentalists always see doom within ten years which is not logical.