Posted on 11/06/2007 12:06:23 PM PST by pissant
During the question-and-answer session of his town hall meeting in Hampton Tuesday night, U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., received a question about his thoughts on global warming.
McCain appeared to recognize the man who fielded the question, Sam Witherbee of the non-partisan environmental action group Carbon Coalition, and asked him whether the group felt he had a strong position on the issue. Wetherbee replied, "Yeah, you've been pretty good."
In an interview after the event, McCain said he didn't understand why more Republican presidential candidates aren't more outspoken on climate change.
"I think young Americans are deeply concerned about [this issue] and people in New Hampshire are environmentally-concious," McCain said, adding that he's been hearing about this issue from Granite State voters since his presidential campaign in 2000.
New Hampshire voters, both Republican and Democrat, have a reputation for requiring a strong environmental record from their politicians. In a state where tourism is a major industry, protecting the lakes, streams and forests is key to the economy.
For those Republican voters looking for a candidate willing to aggressively reduce carbon emissions, they don't have many to choose from, said Ted Leach, a New Hampshire Republican and co-chairman of the Carbon Coalition.
"They're not addressing it. I have no idea why," said Leach.
The Carbon Coalition does not endorse candidates, but instead pushes presidential hopefuls to make global warming a top issue in his or her administration and to outline a specific action plan to reduce carbon emissions to be implemented in the first 150 days of office.
Leach said he thinks Republicans who do not have solid plans to reduce carbon emissions are overlooking a large contingency of the party. He pointed to a resolution passed by 164 towns this winter at their annual town meetings calling on government to take action on the issue.
He attributed Republicans' reluctance to put forth specific policies on global warming to former Democratic Vice President Al Gore, who is seen by many as the de facto spokesman for the issue.
"The best thing that's happened in global warming is Al Gore's ‘Inconvenient Truth.' The worst thing that's happened in global warming is Al Gore did it," said Leach.
The Carbon Coalition's sister group, Clean Air, Cool Planet, last week held a Global Warming and Energy Solutions Conference in Manchester. McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee were the only Republican presidential candidates to attend and both received good reviews from the activists there.
McCain has also received the endorsement of the Republicans for Environmental Protection. In a speech earlier this month, president Martha Marks commended McCain's record on conservation and climate change.
"Senator McCain is the only Republican candidate in this year's race who shows he understands the connection between conservative values and environmental stewardship," she said. "Unfortunately, in today's political world, for a conservative Republican to take bold stands on such issues as climate change and natural resource stewardship is also truly courageous."
McCain and Huckabee are both for a federally mandated cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emission. McCain is in favor of joining the Kyoto treaty, as long as India and China are involved, and Huckabee said he wants America to stop using fossil fuels completely and as soon as possible. While there are some positions these candidates hold that do not fit with the Carbon Coalition's platform, Leach said they have the best positions of the Republican candidates in the presidential pack.
A look at former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's past comments in New Hampshire shows he is against government mandates to reduce carbon emissions in favor of a free-market approach. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has also said he favors giving companies incentives to move toward cleaner energy technologies. Giuliani, Romney and former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson have all expressed interest in investing in domestic carbon based energy, like clean coal and expanded drilling for oil.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has told New Hampshire voters that states should take the lead in reducing carbon emissions and has indicated there needs to be more study on the causes of climate change. Thompson is on the fence when it comes to the causes of global warming as well. On his Web site it states, "While we don't know for certain how or why climate change is occurring, it makes sense to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy."
This continued skepticism about global warming and its causes from Republicans is something that irks Leach.
"I think they are very uninformed on the issue," he said. "A lot of them preface [their position on global warming] with, ‘Well, if global warming is real we should be addressing it,' or ‘Yeah, there is global warming occurring but I'm not so sure it's man induced.' Those are the arguments from 10 years ago. ... It's just denial. It's just a way to get off that topic as quickly as they can."
none whatsoever. It is the equivalent of Algore saying the worst invention ever was the internal combustion engine.
That’s about what I thought. Truly frightening.
These fools think that because they legislate something, it will happen. It’s as if they think they can say “Oh, we’ll just encourage energy conservation, wind and solar energy, puppies, and kittens, and do away with fossil fuels, with no change in living standards”, and POOF!, it will happen.
Wasn’t Huck the Lt. Gov under a Democrat gov who took over for Bill Clinton? Is it possible he is just a nice guy who accidentally found himself in the wrong party?
Next thing you know he will be calling for ‘windfall’ taxes...
The liberal MSM must really think Social Conservatives are stupid. They keep pitching and pimping the Huckster hoping somebody will buy.
To be added please FReepmail me or OB1KNOB.
Are there any indications that he even begins to fathom what that means, industrially/economically?
I have seen no indication that the huckster fathoms that the sun rises in the east, unless tyson chicken tells him it does.
The ability to differentiate between agenda driven junk science and reality is a major litmus test for potential public serpents.
Is anybody really surprised that Huck failed the test? The only question is whether he really believes it or if he knows it’s BS and just goes along because he thinks it’s for the “greater good”.
Memo to Leach: Al Gore's mockumentary was wrong. It grossly exagerrated the threat of global warming in many ways.
The problem is fraudulent science. Al Gore is peddling it, and it is not 'denial' to correct that flawed science.
The real science on CO2 and climate change is this:
1. The earth's climate has changed and evolved throughout the history of the earth. Natural climate change is ongoing.
2. CO2 has been rising in the atmosphere. The natural CO2 carbon cycle is larger than man's inputs, but the rise in CO2 from 290ppm a century ago to 380ppm today is due to man's activities.
3. The claims of what CO2 doubling will do to temps is based on climate models. Those models cannot really be verified until after the fact. There are reasons to suspect the models might not be right: CO2 increases alone are responsible for only 25% of estimated warming, the rest is due to 'feedbacks'; those feedbacks have to do with water vapor and cloud cover; studies have shown that the feedback assumptions, eg, cloud changes are at best uncertain and are likely wrong.
4. Claims of dramatic sea level rise are simply wrong, because (a) artic sea ice melting has no effect on sea level (b) IPCC estimates show net increase of antartica ice mass even with major warming and antaritca temperatures have not risen (c) greenland like cannot lose its ice sheet for many centuries.
5. the GCM, general circulation models, are fairly crude.
6. The 'scenarios' are based on a doubling of CO2. The amount of fossil fuels required to take us to that amount is 16 times the amount of fossil fuels used in the last century. Will we even be able to find that amount of fossil fuels to burn? Peak oil suggests that we are already past the 1/2 way point for oil use, and even if not, the cost of fossil fuels will prohibit large increases.
7. CO2 impacts temperature based on the log of CO2 concentration, according to IPCC on an equation 5.35(ln C/C0) where C-final CO2 conc., C0=orig CO2 conc. What this means is that if temperature rose by T based on a previous 30% increase in CO2, the next 30% increase in CO2 would cause another temp T rise. Well, the rise from 290ppm to 380ppm has coincided with a 0.6C rise in the past century. To extrapolate that would lead to a 1.8C rise for doubling of CO2, a bit below the IPCC mean estimates. Moreover, doubling is an unlikely scenario (see #6), and we are more likely to see another 30% rise only, in the next 50 years.
8. The AGW alarmists claim that higher temperatures means bad things to climate and weather. There is no real evidence to justify these claims. Studies have shown no correlation between higher temperatures and larger temperature variations. IPCC points to studies that are dubious wrt cause and effect. Furthermore, while AGW alarmists have claimed that habitat and species extinction might occur, in fact we see these impacts are clear results: CO2 rise creates plant fertilization effect; temperature and CO2 rise increases precipitation overall; both these effects help bio-sphere productivity, ie more plant and animal life; bio-diversity increases with these trends.
9. Sea rise is exagerrated by Al Gore. Actual annual sea level rise measured in recent years is a mere 1.2mm/year! It has not accelerated in recent years and claims otherwise are speculations not based on facts.
SUMMARY: CO2 has a real impact on earth's climate. That impact is much less than estimates that are used to feed AGW fearmongers claim. We know these lower estimates are wrong based on various scientific data and results. However, the IPCC 'consensus' crowd ignores contrary data and evidence, thus creating a 'groupthink' effect that amplifies incorrect conclusions about global warming and climate change.
Al Gore is wrong to say the debate is over. Both his claims and conclusions are wildly overstated and further science is required to determine exactly what the real impact of CO2 on climate will be.
“The ability to differentiate between agenda driven junk science and reality is a major litmus test for potential public serpents.
Is anybody really surprised that Huck failed the test?”
NO, but I dont know anyone even in the GOP who passes.
It’s not enough to be like Rush and say “it’s all hocus pocus phoney-baloney” you have to be able to make a convincing case beyond a ‘he said she said’ type argument.
Only a few folks, like Sen Inhofe, are engaged.
See previous post. We need a statement of what is real and what is not real to better calibrate the right answer.
Even if AGW was a serious problem, cap and trade is wrong, btw. It doesnt work and is a tool for corruption.
Drive the environmentalists nuts:
Propose this simply and 100% correct solution to global warming - build 400 nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power has zero CO2 emissions.
It keeps our energy costs at home.
It is safe.
It is environmentally friendly.
And it is cost-effective.
But best of all, it debunks the lie that the only solution to global warming is ‘less energy’ or some hugely expensive renewable boondoggle. No its not.
In fairness the the GOP POTUS candidates, most of them are just playing junk science Judo. The wishy washy independent voters who have been bludgeoned with MSM Global Warming alarmism might not vote for a candidate who simply calls it a scam.
So instead its...”Yes, Global Warming yada, yada, yada...we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, encourage technology and domestic alternative energy sources...”
I agree, but if the GOP doesnt tackle it headon, or if there is no a high-profile indepedent rebuttal to the ‘consensus’ scam, then, like you said, the unwashed masses will believe the MSM alarmism and the GOP pols will be forced to go along and/or lose support and/or races.
The only thing going for us is people’s inherent selfishness in not paying the huge bill the AGW alarmism crisis will cost.
So we pay for boondoggles like ethanol that dont do much but not the real ‘cure’ which will have to be large carbon tax or (the corrupt wrong way) cap-and-trade scam.
The only real solution that is affordable is this:
Build 400 nuclear power plants in the next 40 years, replacing coal for our electricity generation.
I think that is what Newt was doing with his book. Effectively taking control and going on the offense against Socialists and saying to the left “Hey look, if you are serious about this issue, we need to build more nuclear plants.”
The leftists obviously don’t believe their own BS, otherwise they would be on the nuclear energy bandwagon.
Perhaps because most Republican candidates realize it is a massive black hole where intelligent science gets sucked into the vortex? Hmmmm? Because it is a fraud perpetrated on the gullible, the ignorant, and the deluded?
They're not addressing the plight of the growing polar bear populations, growing glaciers, or reduced temperatures in the southern hemisphere, either, but this dimbulb fails to notice that. Sheeesh!
I note and appreciate your use of sneer quotes around the words “consensus” and “scenarios”. LOL, and thanks!
This pandering even contradicts what's on Governor Huckabee's campaign website: We have to explore, we have to conserve, and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass.
Correct on the first part, and personally he is a nice guy, but it was no accident he ended up in the GOP party. It was by his design, knowing that the democratic governor that was crooked and ultimately was convicted and left office would leave a bad taste in the electorate mouth, and would be ripe to vote a Republican with "values" into office. He's shrewed. That's why he's able to convince so many GOP voters that he's "the real deal". He's the Slick Willy talker of the GOP.
No sale : )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.