On Global Warming, No Clear Skies For Most 2012 GOP Contenders

When news broke of Jon Huntsman’s serious consideration of a run for president last month, several conservative pundits, including the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, dismissed the former Utah governor’s chances by pointing to his moderate record on global warming, which they predicted would play poorly among the GOP’s conservative base.

Indeed, Huntsman was a vocal booster of the Western Climate Initiative, which promoted the possibility of a carbon cap-and-trade program. “Until we put a value on carbon, we are never going to be able to get serious about dealing with Climate Change long term,” Huntsman said back in 2008. “Now putting a value on carbon either suggests you get a carbon tax or you get a cap-and-trade system underway.” This is obviously a long way from the current GOP orthodoxy on climate change, which holds that any attempt to regulate carbon is, as House Speaker John Boehner puts it, “a job-killing national energy tax on struggling families and small business.”

But Huntsman is far from the only 2012 GOP contender who will have to explain past support for confronting climate change on the campaign trail. In point of fact, carbon regulation was not so verboten in the GOP just a few years ago. Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich all have supported efforts to combat climate change. “I also support cap and trade of carbon emissions,” Mike Huckabee declared in 2007, while campaigning in New Hampshire. In the same year, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin set up a “Climate Change Sub-Cabinet” to deal with the problem in her state. Of the major candidates now inching towards a run, only Haley Barbour can boast of a clean record of opposing carbon regulation, dating from Barbour’s work as a lobbyist for heavily polluting energy companies.

So as a service to GOP voters preparing their early 2012 crib sheets, here is a quick-and-dirty look–in six parts, with video and links–of how this year’s potential candidates have approached the carbon issue:

1. Tim Pawlenty

The current Tim Pawlenty line on carbon is that “cap and trade would be a disaster.” He says he wants to reduce pollution, but not in a way that would burden the economy. Here he is on Meet The Press last year.

Twas not always thus. As FactCheck.org points out, Pawlenty signed the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 in Minnesota, which called for a plan to “recommend how the state could adopt a regulatory system that imposes a cap on the aggregate air pollutant emissions of a group of sources.” The plan would also allow “for a market-based trading of these allowances.”

In early 2008, Pawlenty cut a radio ad with then-Arizona Janet Napolitano–”against the background of inspirational, New Age-style music”–that urged Congress to pass national curbs on greenhouse gases. A Star-Tribune article from the time noted put it this way:

Alex Carey, spokesman for Pawlenty, said the governor is convinced of the need for action. Pawlenty plans another clean energy package in the coming legislative session and has adopted renewable energy as his signature issue during his tenure leading the National Governors Association.

The ad campaign was funded by the green group Environmental Defense.

2. Mitt Romney

On the pre-campaign stump, Mitt Romney regularly attacks Barack Obama for pushing a cap and trade system through Congress. In late 2009, he sent out a fund-raising appeal warning that the Obama cap-and-trade plan would have “a devastating impact on hard-working families.” But the Romney view on climate change has more often been one of nuance rather than sharp contrast. Here he is in Iowa in 2007, voicing concern about man-made global warming while supporting more government subsidies for new energy sources, new efficiency standards, and a new global carbon treaty.

In his latest book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Mitt Romney pulls back a little. He is highly critical of cap and trade, a carbon tax and a new range of subsidies and standards to deal with global warming. He calls cap and trade “an energy tax that would have little or no effect on global warming.” He says the best option is probably a tax swap, which would increase taxes on carbon while off-setting the costs elsewhere, but he adds “a great deal of work remains to be done if it is to become a viable option.”

Romney also tries to deal in the book with his 2005 support, as Governor of Massachusetts, for a Northeastern regional cap-and-trade system. Romney writes that he was initially misinformed about the costs of the program he supported, which he says he thought would only raise energy bills by 3% to 5%. “When I met with the state’s major manufacturers, they produced estimates of 30 percent increases in rates,” Romney writes. “I didn’t sign on.”

That said, he cannot erase his past quotes. In 2005, he described a regional cap on carbon in much the same way as Barack Obama does today. “We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs,” he said. “I’m convinced it is good business.”

3. Newt Gingrich

In recent years, Newt Gingrich has taken to calling a federal tax on carbon “utterly irrational,” and “a Chinese full-employment act,” citing the need for global consensus on carbon regulation.

But he was once far more bullish on the U.S. leading in an effort to reduce carbon emissions. In a 2007 interview with Frontline on PBS, Gingrich said:

I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.

He also appeared in 2008 spot with Democrat Nancy Pelosi to announce “We do agree. Our country must take action to address climate change.”

Gingrich has since tried to back away from the ad, saying he was only trying to help conservatives get their ideas in the climate change debate.

4. Sarah Palin

As a Fox News pundit, Sarah Palin has been a constant, fierce critic of President Obama’s efforts to combat climate change, which she has called the “job-killing, burdensome, cap-and-trade–I call it cap-and-tax–initiative.”

But back in 2007, she was not so down on exploring a wide range of steps to combat climate change. On September 14, as governor of Alaska, she signed Administrative Order No. 238, which established an “Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet” to advise her on a wide range of possible measures to combat climate change, including “the opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Alaska sources” and the potential benefits of participating in “carbon trading markets” or “in regional, national, and international climate policy agreements and greenhouse gas registries.”

“Many scientists note that Alaska’s climate is changing,” Gov. Palin announced at the time. “We are already seeing the effects. Coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, retreating sea ice and record forest fires affect our communities and our infrastructure. Some scientists tell us to expect more changes in the future. We must begin to prepare for those changes now.” Just four months after Huntsman had joined the Western Climate Initiative in Utah, Palin added Alaska as an “observer” to the group. Palin’s decision to join came just weeks after the group had pledged to seek reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 15% from 2005 levels by 2020.

A little more than two years later, on December 9, 2009, Palin penned a scathing opinion piece in the Washington Post where she questioned the evidence of a man-made role in climate change, and declared, “any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs.”

5. Mike Huckabee

The former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has been a long-time supporter of an economy-wide cap and trade policy, calling it a “moral issue.” “We have a responsibility to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, to conserve energy, to find alternative forms of energy that are renewable and sustainable and environmentally friendly,” he said on a visit to New Hampshire in 2007.

He has since tried to distance himself from these comments, saying in a 2010 press release that it was “just not true” that he had ever supported cap and trade during the 2008 campaign, and that it would be a “serious job killer.”

6. Haley Barbour

Probably no one in the current Republican field has been more deeply involved, or influential, in the climate change debate than Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. But his influence came largely before he entered elected political office, when he was a lobbyist working for energy companies fighting carbon regulation.

On March 1, 2001, Barbour wrote a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney, calling on George W. Bush to reverse a campaign pledge and put off regulation of carbon. “A moment of truth is arriving,” Mr. Barbour wrote. ”The question is whether environmental policy still prevails over energy policy with Bush-Cheney, as it did with Clinton-Gore.” Among Barbour’s clients at the time was the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a coalition of some of the nation’s largest coal-burning electric utilities, which were also major donors to the Republican Party.

“[W]e must ask, do environmental initiatives, which would greatly exacerbate the energy problems, trump good energy policy, which the country has lacked for eight years?” Barbour wrote. Two weeks after receiving the letter, President Bush announced a reversal of policy, though he denied that he had been influenced by industry lobbying.

Since then, Barbour has maintained his opposition to carbon regulation, often leading the charge. In April of 2009, he issued a call to fellow conservatives in an opinion piece in the Washington Times. “America needs more American energy, but the Obama policy is for less American energy and more expensive energy, he wrote. “Conservatives must wage and win the argument to show voters that President Obama’s energy policies mean higher utility bills and gasoline prices.”

His message on the presidential pre-campaign trail in 2011 has been much the same.

Related Topics: haley barbour, jon huntsman, mitt romney, Sarah Palin, tim pawlenty, 2012 Election
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • http://tisias.wordpress.com tisias

    Ah.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    The kick in the a$$ is that even if you were to believe that the whole global warming thing is a complete hoax, efforts to guide the economy away from oil dependence is nevertheless utterly crucial for our national security. A thumb on the scale is the easiest down-and-dirty method to steer the market in the desired direction.

    It’s so simple that even an Alaskan Governor could figure it out!

  • deconstructiva

    What global warming?
    …according to RW world. It’s a trivial non-issue. So is creating jobs. I don’t expect “global warming” to be an issue in R ’12 debates.
    .
    But not NPR. That required a House emergency meeting.

  • deconstructiva

    …of course, IF global warming exists (which would mess up a lot of RW talking pts., as if anyone will notice), nuclear power has been suggested as a carbon-free solution …until the carbon in a reactor gets torched like at Chernobyl, minor details. (Never mind the waste and what to do when the core or spent rods melt down.) So how much might events in Japan affect the ’12 R candidates in energy debates and nukes?

  • g2-b31f1590b0e74a6d1af4639162aa7f3f

    Let’s see… first they’ve got to pander to the idiot tea-party yokels to win the nomination, and then they will have to “pivot” to appeal to millions of folks with IQ’s greater then their height in inches in order to have a prayer of defeating the Evil Kenyan in 2012.

    That’s not a happy place to be for anyone with any integrity or self-respect…

  • rdw56

    Global Warming is dead as a serious political issue. Kyoto was never implemented anyway and will soon roll off never to be replaced. The dominant issue by far will be the economy and spending. There is no support for govt programs to create ‘green jobs’ or raising energy costs thud reducing job growth. All of the GOP candidates will support reducing the role of govt in limiting domestic drilling and offering programs to drill more.. The development of natural gas drilling in shale plays in ND, PA, NY, OH, WV, TX and LA is only going to drive support for drilling higher. Thanks to the Baaken formation ND has a 4% unemployment rate and budget surplus. A lot of people want a piece of that action and there’s a lot of shale in the USA.

    As far as temps the alarmists have a slight problem. Temperatures have been flat since 1998. That’s a slight problem for the models that have been predicting warming.. Ain’t happening.

  • apr2563

    Is there nothing that Republicans wouldn’t sell their souls for in their pandering to corporate America.
    Here is what dependence on oil accomplishes.
    .
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110323/ts_yblog_thelookout/source-of-latest-gulf-oil-spill-determined
    .
    Source of latest Gulf oil spill determined
    .
    Just hours after a new sizable oil slick was discovered in the Gulf of Mexico off the Louisiana coast, a Houston-based energy company came forward to claim responsibility for the latest round of crude tainting the area.

  • deconstructiva

    …let the denials begin, as predicted, right on cue….

  • apr2563

    rdw: Drilling and fracking for natural gas may be a little more “nuanced” then you care to admit.
    Also, please link to the article that gives the data about warming you cited.
    .
    http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/21/drilling-down-on-natural-gas-fracking-concerns/
    .
    FYI:
    .
    http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html
    .

    Scientists are already seeing some of these changes occurring more quickly than they had expected. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eleven of the twelve hottest years since thermometer readings became available occurred between 1995 and 2006.

  • rdw56

    It’s not disputed 1998 was the warmest year on record since 1934. wattsupwiththat.com has a ton of good climate data. but just google warmest year on record. The warming trend that began in 1971 ended in 1998. It’s been marginally cooler since.

  • rdw56

    The drilling in North Dakota has exceeded all expectations in terms of costs and profits. It’s a major jobs producer and source of tax revenue. Many of the best sites are in poorer sections where the jobs are needed most like Western and Northern PA. Governor Corbett has made it clear he wants to attract drillers. So far warnings of disaster have been wildly overstated. After events like climategate credibility of the eco-freaks is down. It’s going to be full speed ahead.

  • http://davidnutzuki.wordpress.com mememine69

    Real planet lovers and progressives were happy about a crisis being avoided! The rest of you?
    Threatening my kids and billions of others with a DEATH BY CO2 just to get them to turn the lights out more often was not love for the planet, it was hate for humanity. Climate control fear mongering was to the left what abortion is to the right wing bible thumping neocons.

  • http://davidnutzuki.wordpress.com mememine69

    Political Support Has Gone For Climate Change:
    President Obama completely ignored the climate change crisis in his State of the Union Address and has not responded to the IPCC being cut off from it’s American main funding, by the neocons majority. Carbon mitigation steps have all been cancelled also. Politicians knew 25 more years of climate control was unsustainable. What lasted longer, witch burning or climate control?

    Scientific Consensus Has Gone:
    If unstoppable warming (death of the planet) were true, the scientists would be marching in the streets in alarm and criticizing the politicians openly for bailing on the scientific CO2 mitigation (taxes) the scientists say we need to save the planet. If this unstoppable warming crisis were true, these scientists would be on cereal boxes and CNN. They couldn’t even act like it was a crisis. And our suspicions have come true about why there were more consensus scientists than protesters. Do the math.
    The scientists say we humans are contributing less CO2 thanks to the world economy yet global CO2 levels continue to rise? Just like the “scientists” who produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemicals, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, cluster bombs, strip mining technology, Y2K, Y2Kyoto, deep sea drilling technology and now climate change?

    Media Support Has Gone:
    One would think the corporate media outlets (climate change blood), would back off of the CO2 blunder slowly but no, they went straight to humor and making fun of climate change. Every media outlet, even the NEW YORK TIMES has had at least a few light hearted and comical essays or absurd dooms day predictions to make fun of climate control. How cynical can media be? We should have seen this coming.

    Voter Support Has Vanished:
    Although politely avoided at parties, climate change is not something any reasonable person would now days vote YES to, for taxing the air to make the weather colder.
    Real planet lovers and progressives were happy about a crisis being avoided! The rest of you?

  • Paul-no not that one

    If there is any better example of how every issue has become political than this I can’t think of it.
    .
    Even science has become a partisan fight.

  • troubador222

    The interesting thing to me is the concept of cap and trade was put together by the Reagan admin and put into operation by the first Bush admin as an industry friendly solution to sulfur emissions. Now the people who wave Reagan’s picture around like he was a messiah deride the idea as a liberal concept. Go figure.

  • Matt

    Cap-and-trade is a business-friendly program that was contrived by industry itself as a means of pushing back against the specter of a flat carbon emissions tax, which is what the environmental lobby is demanding. All of these prospective GOP candidates believed in climate change and the seriousness of it, as well as supporting cap-and-trade. They only flip-flopped when it became politically expedient to do so…
    http://www.sunstateactivist.org

  • rdw56

    When you appoint Al Gore your leader what else could you expect? The fact is the science sucks. It hasn’t gotten any warmer since 1998. That’s 11 years of a flat trend. ALL of the models have been wrong.

  • rdw56

    climate change is a BS term. It’s totally meaningless. You had to abandon global warming because it stopped warming.

  • vstillwell

    Let’s see: Republicans love coal, oil and shoveling every last dollar we have into the rich sinkhole. Boy, that’s a party I can really get behind. I’m sure it will be a close election since American’s are clueless. It’s like the dumb leading the dumber around here. Gee the top 400 households have as much wealth as the bottom 60 percent of households. Why is the economy so bad? DUH! It’s poor people’s fault. It’s ACORN’s fault. It’s NPR’s fault. It’s liberal’s fault. It’s the damn Democrat’s fault. It’s the New York Time’s fault.

  • http://deniztetik.wordpress.com deniztetik

    2005 and 2010 were both warmer than 1995. You said google “warmest year on record” and guess what the first result is? 2010 tied for warmest year on record with 2005. Fail!

  • http://deniztetik.wordpress.com deniztetik

    Sorry I meant 1998.

  • afguy

    It hasn’t gotten any warmer since 1998. That’s 11 years of a flat trend. ALL of the models have been wrong.
    .
    Think it would do any good to point out to rdw the MELTING ice caps, increases in measured temperatures at Antatctica, melting of glaciers in Greenland and the resulting measured rises in sea levels due to his “lack of warming”?
    .
    Nah, didn’t think so… we’d FIRST have to figure out HOW to get his fingers out of his ears and how to open his eyes.
    .
    http://www.ehow.com/about_5365744_ice-caps-melting.html

  • 53_3

    rdw56: Attention!
    .
    “Temperatures have been flat since 1998. That’s a slight problem for the models that have been predicting warming.. Ain’t happening.
    .
    Here is some crow for you to eat:
    .
    While the claim excited comment among internet bloggers and a few politicians, the actual scientific literature gave scant attention to such short-term fluctuations, in this case probably caused by a sharp decline in solar activity.(50a) Anyone who looked at the ten-year average of air temperatures near the surface — which was what the weather statistics measured — would see that the decade 1999-2008 was substantially hotter than the decade before, which was in turn hotter than the preceding decade, and so forth back to the 1970s. Indeed all of the ten warmest years on record had come since 1997.
    .
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm#S5
    .
    The reference, 50a, is for one of many cited papes.
    .
    See ya!

  • 53_3

    rdw56: Attention!
    .
    There is an embarrassingly rich supply of embarrassment waiting for you at 15.

  • rdw56

    So while all leading experts agree the planet has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century (and NOAA says the rate has tripled since 1976) ranking the warmest years is a huge statistical challenge.

    In fact the NOAA analysis yielded two results: One data set, in use since the late 1990s, found that 2005 was slightly cooler than 1998, with 2005 being 1.04 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1880-2004 average, while 1998 was 1.12 degrees above that norm.

    The other NOAA data set and analysis technique (which will become the primary method used henceforth) puts 2005 slightly warmer than 1998. It has 2005 at 1.12 degrees above the norm and 1998 at 1.06 degrees above the norm. But the report states that “uncertainties associated with the various factors and methodologies used in data set development make 2005 statistically indistinguishable from 1998.”

    A third study

    Still another study, led by John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, paints a different picture.

    Christy said in early January that 2005 tied with 2002 for second place.

    But Christy looked at entirely different data, and the results are not conflicting, he said. Christy examined the entire “bulk” troposphere, from the surface up to about 35,000 feet. In that measurement of the atmosphere, 2005 “clearly was not the warmest,” he said in a telephone interview yesterday.

    *************************************

    I see 1998 cited most often, by a wide margin. Not that it matters. The gaps are insignificant. We do have absolutely confirmation it’s not getting warmer. If it was they’re still call it global warming. Changing the name of climate change is pure Covering their asses.

  • 53_3

    Um, rdw56:
    .
    Ever since you admitted that you don’t have to look up everything, or, even, anything at all, to support your claims, my estimation went this direction:
    . |
    . |
    .V
    .
    Ok, now that that’s out of the way, here is another embarrassment for ya:
    .
    “A lot of people want a piece of that action and there’s a lot of shale in the USA.”
    .
    Did you know, rdw56, that shale is a non-metamorphic sedimentary rock laid down at the bottom of shallow seas originally?
    .
    Did you also know that shale, in most instances, never contains oil, but instead, a moderate to high level of carbonate and organic carbon?
    .
    The proper term is oil shale.
    .
    Try to modify your approach to knowledge. You ain’t gettin’ it from the streams you are drinking from…

  • rdw56

    Duh,

    We’ve been in a 20+ year warming trend. Temps trend all of the time. Because we’ve been in a long warming trend the last 10 years WOULD have to be hotter than previous decades. But the trend STOPPED in 1998. Ergo you had to DITCH the term Global Warming.

    ALL OF THE MODELS from 1998 that predicted because of CO2 emissions it would continue to get WARMER were WRONG. WE just spent 12 years pumping more C02 into the atmosphere and it DIDN”T GET WARMER. The theory is 2002, 2003……2009 and 2010 are going to get WARMER than 1998, Didn’t happen.

  • 53_3

    rdw56 at 6.7:
    .
    “I see 1998 cited most often, by a wide margin. Not that it matters. The gaps are insignificant. We do have absolutely confirmation it’s not getting warmer. If it was they’re still call it global warming. Changing the name of climate change is pure Covering their asses.”
    .
    That is because, as I mentioned just above, that you aren’t drinking from the stream of science, and scientific literature.
    .
    Of course your “sources” are going to mention that one paper. They are all right wing and oppose the concept in principle.
    .
    Read the documentation I supplied thoroughly, also, pay particular attention to the number of times each paper is cited by another worker. You will find that you are totally, and indisputably wrong.

  • rdw56

    Afguy,

    What is your theory on why you had to dump the term global warming and replace it with climate change. You people could not be more obvious.

    BTW: Check out wattsupwiththat.com. Steve McIntyre found ANOTHER problem with the hockey stick.

    What were you thinking when you named Al Gore to run this show? The man oozes fraud.

  • 53_3

    rdw, don’t be a bonehead. Really. Caps won’t help you. Read the paper linked to and read the references.
    .
    Also, I might point out, follow my suggestion at 9.9.
    .
    You are gonna lose this battle, and lose it stupidly if you don’t…

  • 53_3

    Oh, also, look up a few tems:
    .
    secular warming
    .
    oceanic thermal tranport
    .
    historical polar temperature curve
    .
    The reason for including these is that what happens is the whole earth doesn’t get warmer, the poles get warmer and the tropics remain relatively stable, with temperate zone trends somewhere in between.
    .
    Oh. Forgive me. I just told you what secular warming was.
    .
    But never fear, look up the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Here’s the wiki link to start you on your way to real knowledge:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

  • shepherdwong

    That’s 11 years of a flat trend. ALL of the models have been wrong.
    .
    All of your beliefs are wrong. Global warming trends are measured over centuries, not years.

    The most common measure of global warming is the trend in globally averaged temperature near the Earth’s surface. Expressed as a linear trend, this temperature rose by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13 ± 0.03 °C per decade, versus 0.07 °C ± 0.02 °C per decade).

    “ALL of the models” easily accommodate fluctuations of ten years or more, especially after a temperature spike like ’98.

    Temperatures in 1998 were unusually warm because the strongest El Niño in the past century occurred during that year. Global temperature is subject to short-term fluctuations that overlay long term trends and can temporarily mask them. The relative stability in temperature from 2002 to 2009 is consistent with such an episode.

    Please stop speaking about things you don’t understand as if you understand them. Someone who is unfamiliar with you psychological disorder might mistake it for knowledge.

  • rdw56

    This battle was lost by Obama at Copenhagen. There’s nothing left but playing out the string. Kyoto is over and a dozen industrial nations lead by Japan and Canada announced they won’t be meeting on this issue again. It’s not going to be replaced. It’s over.

    Climategate is actually a bigger loss. Science, Nature and most of the other ‘peer review; outlets have followed the British Royal Society in actually enforcing their standards that all data and methodology be put on public servers for public review not this good ole boy nonsense. The days of hiding the decline are over. Both Science and Nature actually strengthened their requirements embarrassed by the climategate scandal.

    With the GOP in control of budgets there are going to be severe cuts to the federal gravy train and to the UN. Support is going to shift toward technological advances to replace fossil fuels and to agreements like Bush proposed to work with India, Japan and others on these advances. This will not be through the UN.

  • shepherdwong

    Global temperatures in the first half of the year were the hottest since records began more than a century ago, according to two of the world’s leading climate research centres.
    .
    Scientists have also released what they described as the “best evidence yet” of rising long-term temperatures. The report is the first to collate 11 different indicators – from air and sea temperatures to melting ice – each one based on between three and seven data sets, dating back to between 1850 and the 1970s.
    .
    The newly released data follows months of scrutiny of climate science after sceptics claimed leaked emails from the University of East Anglia (UEA) suggested temperature records had been manipulated – a charge rejected by three inquiries.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/28/global-temperatures-2010-record

  • robbert5

    RDW,
    Yeah, the temperature has been flat since 1998…. NOT:
    Global median temperature
    .
    Get your facts straight next time around.

  • shepherdwong

    Up to two-thirds of Earth’s permafrost likely will disappear by 2200 as a result of warming temperatures, unleashing vast quantities of carbon into the atmosphere, says a new study by the University of Colorado Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences…”The amount we expect to be released by permafrost is equivalent to half of the amount of carbon released since the dawn of the Industrial Age,” said Schaefer. The amount of carbon predicted for release between now and 2200 is about one-fifth of the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere today, according to the study.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216132100.htm

  • 53_3

    rdw, what in hell are you talking about?
    .
    That’s politics. It has nothing to do with science.
    .
    You can spout right wing bullsh!t all you want, but you are just looking weak and ineffectual. – a knowitall who really knows nothing and falls back on dogma as a sop for denial.
    .
    You treacted the way the Urban VIII reacted when Galileo let him look through his telescope at the four moons of Jupiter….

  • shepherdwong

    In a new study in the journal Ecological Monographs, ecologists estimate that Arctic lands and oceans are responsible for up to 25 percent of the global net sink of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Under current predictions of global warming, this Arctic sink could be diminished or reversed, potentially accelerating predicted rates of climate change…
    .
    “In the short term, warming temperatures could expose more Arctic carbon to decomposition,” says McGuire. “And with permafrost melting, there will be more available carbon to decompose.”
    .
    On the scale of a few decades, the thawing permafrost could also result in a more waterlogged Arctic, says McGuire, a situation that could encourage the activity of methane-producing organisms. Currently, the Arctic is a substantial source of methane to the atmosphere: as much as 50 million metric tons of methane is released per year, in comparison to the 400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide the Arctic sequesters yearly. But methane is a very potent greenhouse gas – about 23 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide on a 100-year time scale. If the release of Arctic methane accelerates, global warming could increase at much faster rates.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091014144729.htm

  • shepherdwong

    Cap and trade my @ss. It’s already over, we’re just waiting for the fat lady to drown.

  • rdw56

    Global warming trends are measured over centuries, not years.

    ******************************************

    They are not. We don’t have reliable temperature data going back even one century. The entire theory of global warming is man made pollution has built up in the atmosphere and is driving higher than normal increases NOW.

    The lack of good data before 1979 is the problem. Do you really think these clowns can measure temps to a 1/10 of a degree using tree rings? And from where? 75% of the planet is covered with water and there are no trees at the poles and high elevations. How many different factors do you think effect tree growth?

    Among the several scandals with Climategate was the refusal of several scientists to share their base data and adjustments. Michael Mann actually lose much of it. His famous hockey stick which he produced in 1997 or 1998 was never fact checked. No one looked at his data. It took > 5 years of freedom of information act lawsuits to get Mann to admit he lost his original files. Dr Hanson of NASA STILL refuses to share his data. Of course the GOP house will solve that problem in the near future.

    Fortunately a number of serious govt climateologists are sharing and cooperating with bloggers. There is a wealth of data available which is how we know Al Gore is full of crap.

  • 53_3

    rdw doesn’t believe in core scientific publications like Science and Nature.
    .
    Let alone any other source…

  • 53_3

    rdw, straight up and simple:
    .
    When the rest of us are orbiting over your head, you’ll be banging two rocks together and drawing pictures with sticks in the sand…

  • rdw56

    You can only yell, ‘the sky is falling’ so many times. This topic is so dead. You’ve lost generations amazed at the cartoonish nature of people like Al Gore. Even forgetting his absurd exaggerations it’s clear from his own lifestyle he doesn’t believe in the BS he’s putting out there. None of these people do.

  • rdw56

    rdw doesn’t believe in core scientific publications like Science and Nature.

    ************************************************

    So how come I know each of them has recently upgraded their standards to allow public review on all papers?

    Climategate, the gift that keeps on giving.

  • 53_3

    rdw:
    To dispute that we have no good data going back hundreds (let alone thousands) of years, here is another couple terms you should look up:
    .
    Paleotemperature curves
    .
    Antarctic ice coring
    .
    Arctic ice coring
    .
    Glacial ice coring
    .
    O16 / O18 ratios as a proxy for temperature
    .
    Ocean bottom paleotemperature scaling

  • 53_3

    You have to subscribe dummy! Hey, you should like it, it’s the Free Market at work.
    .
    Whaddya want, welfare?

  • rdw56

    That’s politics. It has nothing to do with science.

    ****************************

    Global warming is a political movement not a scienctific movement. Otherwise you’d not be able to change the name which was done for political purposes. You had to cover your tracks.

  • afguy

    So, to you , this is ALL about the “horse-race” aspects”?
    .
    Who are these scientists that are providing all of this contrary information? I take it they have some scientific PROOF to offer and NOT just disagreements?
    .
    Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming “All Gore’s full of it” doesn’t count as proof.
    .
    Attacking the character of someone offering a contrary opinion doesn’t count either… it’s called “shooting the messenger”… but it’s NOT proof of your opinion.
    .
    Now… what, in your learned estimation, is causing the cap melting and rising sea levels? We’ve provided links… provide some of your own from REPUTABLE sources, not the usual unhinged crowd. Something from someone respectable would be nice.
    .
    Try to provide an answer WITH LINKS and without the usual ideological dust throwing and name-calling…

  • rdw56

    53

    It’s about the politics. Your team blew it. It’s all downhill from here. There will be a lot less spent on studying global warming in 2011 than in 2010 and even less in 2012. In 2013 with a GOP President it’ll be down as much as 90% and if there is an IPCC it’ll be a fraction of it’s current size. The cool thing you haven’t even considered is we’re not even leading the way. The Japanese and Canadians won’t have anything to do with it.

    Al Gores movie was a cartoon. If only you took it a little bit seriously.

  • 53_3

    “Global warming is a political movement not a scienctific movement. Otherwise you’d not be able to change the name which was done for political purposes. You had to cover your tracks.”
    .
    There is no covering of tracks. Names don’t define the network of papers cited in publications about climate modeling and climate science.
    .
    The term “Global Warming” is the popular name for a specific theory, namely, that secular warming is taking place because of increased levels of anthropogenic CO2 and methane since agriculture began.
    .
    The term “Climate Change” is also a popular name for a larger category of climatic events.which include global warming and any other events such as the EETM I mentioned earlier.
    .
    Name changes? They happen all the time. They don’t mean anything. If you don’t like or are suspicious of name changes, you will not like taxonomy or systemic phylogeny, either, but they are well entrenched branches of science easily traceable past any name changes.
    .
    And no, global warming is not a political movement in science. Politics is the anathema of science, and has been since the dawn of the philosophy.
    .
    Did you know that “scientists” are alternately called “workers” or “investigators” and were even called “natural philosophers” hundreds of years ago?
    .
    Sorry, you looze.
    .
    again…

  • 53_3

    The earth and its systems don’t give a sh!t about politics, rdw. Fjuck politics. What will happen will happen and your tin gods have no choices whatsoever!
    .
    We in the science fields are trying to figure out what will happen, and why. It’s kinda important, and no, I’m not talking politics.
    .
    As for your political “audience” sucking, please! Just stop, why don’t you? If it’s politically expedient to defend your stupidity and to stay stupid, you are certainly free to do so, even to the point of founding a “stupid party” composed of those who want to abolish all learning whatsoever.
    .
    It is a free country…
    .
    And further, even if it were all about politics, then how do you explain the fact that none of us are like you?
    .
    riddle me that!

  • 53_3

    He’s relentlessly proud of his ignorance, afguy. You can beat him with facts but he’s gonna stick his fingers in his ears and pretend he don’t hear you.
    .
    And this is an example of the type of people that want to take the country back…

  • deconstructiva

    53, you won, rdw lost, ‘nuff said. He clings to (or makes up?) invisible RW “facts” just like paulie desperately clings to his illusion of “intellectual superiority” (see Adam’s Bachmann post yesterday; p makes a simple mistake and boasts false claims louder than ever). These trolls either are outright lying or really don’t get it …the latter of course would instantly disqualify any intellectualism on their part. But they either don’t get that or lie about that too. Maybe chohkmah is right (Bachmann, #21.7) and the trolls should be banished to Ignoreland for good.

  • rdw56

    53, you won, rdw lost, ‘nuff said.

    **************************************

    How could I lose when 53 surrendered? If he’s such a scientist what’s he doing on a blog about poltics? That’s what this is about. I’ve made the obvious and accurate point we’ve had flat temps for 12 years contrary to every single model. That’s just a fact. Kyoto is dead. That’s just a fact. Kyoto is not going to be replaced. That’s just a fact. Financial support for the IPCC is just going to dry up and it won’t just be the USA. That’s a fact.

    Another fact is that global warming never was an important political issue. For at least 20 years now when Gallup would poll the 15 or 20 more important issues it was dead last or close. Al Gore? What were you thinking?

  • blueswede04

    Very good job in this thread, 53_3. It amazes me that all these warming deniers can be so sangiune in the face of all the evidence for the warming trend. Don’t they have children? Don’t they worry at all about the world their decendants will inhabit? Oh, that’s right….. They count on being raptured or something before things get out of control.

  • rdw56

    Steve McIntyre uncovers another hockey stick trick – where are the academic cops?
    Posted on March 24, 2011 by John A

    NOTE: since this is clearly an important finding with far reaching implications, this will be a “top post” at WUWT for the next couple of days. I urge other bloggers to spread the word. – Anthony

    ================================================================

    Just when you think the bottom of the Hockey Stick rabbit hole has been reached, Steve McIntyre finds yet more evidence of misconduct by the Team.

    The research was from Briffa and Osborn (1999) published in Science magazine and purported to show the consistency of the reconstruction of past climate using tree rings with other reconstructions including the Mann Hockey Stick. But the trick was exposed in the Climategate dossier, which also included code segments and datasets.

    In the next picture, Steve shows what Briffa and Osborn did – not only did they truncate their reconstruction to hide a steep decline in the late 20th Century but also a substantial early segment from 1402-1550:

    *********************************

    rdw- I love replaying the image of George Clooney whining about the fact there are multiple news outlets now and we’re not all on the same page. No more MSM Gatekeeper. It is true. Anthony Watts gets 1M hits a day at his climate blog and he’s not selling the same crap as Al Gore. This is merely an extension of Climategate and how the future will look for climate scientist. No more having your best buddy check your work. It’s done by professionals now.

  • rdw56

    Glacial ice coring

    **********************************

    Are you aware the greenland ice core shows the medievil warming period that Dr Mann and Dr Phil Jones removed from their studies because it was warmer then than it is now? Just took it out.

  • Paul-no not that one

    I guess I stand corrected.

  • authorharb

    Given the present atmosphere of earthquakes, political upheavels and nuclear worries the year 2012 may not be a very good year for US presidential hopefuls.

    If anybody is further interested he/she may read my post at http://ruminations.selfdesigneduniverse.com/2011/03/earthquakes-political-unrest-and.html

  • diecash1

    One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1200 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

    You can read the rest here:
    ..
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

  • 53_3

    “How could I lose when 53 surrendered?”
    .
    Um. Chuckle. Kaff kaff.
    .
    I guess rdw likes his arsewhuppings with sugar…

  • 53_3

    Set rdw56 == Charlie Sheen
    .
    rdw56.Winning()

  • 53_3

    Um, if it ain’t such an important political issue rdw56, why are you making such a fool of yourself over it?

  • 53_3

    decon:
    .
    Think of it as public humiliation. Anyway, he’s pretty well fenced in and to continue isn’t going to be very productive in that direction either.
    .
    It was fun though…

  • 53_3

    Thank you, blues.

  • rdw56

    Kyoto is dead. My side won the political and intellectual battle. It was never implemented and it is never coming back.

  • rdw56

    Kyoto is D E A D. MY side won. Your side lost. It’s not coming back.

  • 53_3

    What does kyoto have to do with the fact that the Earth is getting warmer?
    .
    Kyoto, schmeoto. The Earth is gonna do what the Earth is gonna do, rdw.
    .
    Got it?

  • 53_3

    So, rdw56, do you think that “your side” will fix this planet? How do you plan to sink the CO2, and stop the positive feedback inducing accelerated emissions of other far more efficient, greenhouse gases?
    .
    “Your side” can say or think what they want about anything they want, but:
    .
    They mean absolutely nothing to the physics governing this planet…

  • blueswede04

    rdw,
    .
    “So how come I know each of them has recently upgraded their standards to allow public review on all papers?”
    .
    It’s not clear what you are refering to. All papers published in scientific journals are always accessible to the public. Peer reviewing, though, is done by experts in the field, and that has thankfully not changed.

    By the way, Nature is launching a new research journal in April:
    .
    Nature Climate Change
    .
    Check it out. And here is something else I think you should check out:
    .
    Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
    .
    Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.”

  • blueswede04

    Sorry, my links aren’t highlighted, but they work.

  • rdw56

    So why are you blaming man?

  • rdw56

    Actually it can’t be used as proof for what is happening now, or not happening now. But it is proof that now isn’t exceptional. We’ve had many warm periods.

  • rdw56

    The planet isn’t broken.

  • authorharb

    The global warming may no longer be the issue now but the consequences of perhaps what it has already triggered.

    We can’t time travel to the past now, we can only look towards the future and there while global warming may have cooled because of what it has already caused all around it will be its consequences which will fully engage us.

    Nature knows how to achieve its balances despite us.

  • rdw56

    All papers published in scientific journals are always accessible to the public. Peer reviewing, though, is done by experts in the field, and that has thankfully not changed.
    ****************************

    Actually that hasn’t been true. Hanson at NASA still won’t provide his work. Dr Mann and Dr Phil Jones of climategate fame were each sued several times for refusing to provide base data, IN each case they lost datasets and had to replace them. It was obvious they had never been fact checked.

    The advantage now is they can all be publicly reviewed and that’s a huge improvement. Steve McINtyre has made a name for himself destroying the bogus hockey stick. For everyone in science at the university there are 5 in the private sector often doing even more advanced work and often under more exacting standards. Steve have been very good in calling attention to faulty use of statistics and poor documentation of base data. Among the issues Steve has highlighted is just how poor the documentation before 1979 is. Reliable temperature data is hard to come by and it’s absurd to think you can do 1/10 variance analysis on data more than 100 years old. The record keeping just isn’t good enough.

  • rdw56

    I’m calm and relaxed because I know Al Gore has his head up his ass. There is no basis for his wild exaggerations and we can tell by how he lives he doesn’t believe any of it himself.

  • http://giatny.wordpress.com giatny

    Debating global warming is unnecessary.
    The debate should be over the best approach to
    promote cleaner energy without undermining the economy and increasing worldwide poverty.
    So far the government’s record at allocating
    funds wisely is dismal. Synfuels, corn ethanol,
    Chinese-manufactured light bulbs, wind turbines
    and solar panels. The massive number of panels and turbines necessary for any meaningful increased use of solar and wind is impractical and impossibly expensive. Negatives to expanding electric car usage appear daily. Giving government more money through carbon taxes to misallocate to special interests is not the answer. More inefficient use of energy sources at power plants is a fertile area for improvement. Improving standards
    in line with available technology is also a winning
    approach, whereas, mandating alternatives
    that don’t exist is not. The subsidies and mandates for corn ethanol border on unethical
    but are continued with support from corn state
    representatives, both Repub and Dem.
    Congress can not be trusted with such an
    important issue. R&D funds allocated by an
    independent, non-political, scientific board
    is probably the best way forward. I was horrified
    when I realized the main purpose of the Copenhagen meeting was to transfer $$$$ billions to corrupt developing countries. What
    drugs are they on? Discovering viable alternatives MUST be the first step.

  • thecormac

    You may be right about Political Support, but you are dead wrong when it comes to Scientific Consensus. If anything, the consensus in the scientific community, already near universal, has grown over the last five years as the few remaining scientifically respectable skeptics and devil’s advocates have been convinced by the rapidly mounting evidence.

    Among scientists right now, the debate is whether the urgency is only what the IPCC report said or even greater in light of the newly emerging evidence. Indeed, scientists are speaking out as loudly as they ever have (which is not normal for their profession and not something they are set-up for or good at), but as you point out the Media is not giving them much coverage.

    Whether this Media disinterest has more to do with lost novelty (it was so unusual for the scientific community to issue such strong, unified, and dire warnings it really caught attention at first), more dramatically visceral (but less consequential) crisis such as unemployment and revolution to cover, or the astounding increase of oil and gas industry money being poured into television commercials, media personality “speaker fees,” and PR efforts, is hard to untangle.

    But you ought not assume that because the media doesn’t cover scientist’s warnings anymore – or because some scientists have given way to despair – that there has been a breakdown in the consensus or a lessening of the urgency. There has not.

    Funny thing about nature; it is indifferent to public opinion. The press and the politicians can ignore and deny the science all they want. In the medieval era the powerful denied that the Earth revolved around the sun. But it still did.

    Climate change will have the last laugh when today’s toddlers are my age and the damage is so widespread and crippling that the politicians, the media, and the oil execs of today are remembered as cowards, fools, and criminals.

  • http://weatherblitz.wordpress.com weatherblitz

    “Kyoto is D E A D. MY side won. Your side lost. It’s not coming back.”

    Not so fast RDW! It looks like skeptics were counting on a study conducted by Berkely to show that NASA and NOAA’s number crunching of temperature data was wrong and the skeptics would finally claim victory. Well, it turns out NASA and NOAA’s conclusions were right after all.

    Berkely’s results matched NASA and NOAA, meanwhile Watts has egg all over his face.

    I don’t get it. Is this a game? “my side won, your side lost”? I mean you don’t sound like a scientist at all. Real scientists accept the conclusions of their study. They may be surprised but they don’t claim victory if their hypothesis does or doesn’t go the way they expected. An honest scientist would accept his study’s results, and not massage the numbers until he gets them the way he wants them.Only political pundits do that.

    As an employee of NOAA I’m just happy our agency retains its credibility. NOAA is a great organization of scientists to work for.

    20 years ago, I was a skeptic of global warming but now, the evidence has been overwhelming. The regional shifts in climate, the biological effects that are happening right now. The 30 percent increase in CO2 and resulting acidification of the oceans. You can’t escape the reality of what;s happening now.

    I don’t believe cap and trade is the answer. I believe the oil companies need to accept the changes and be the leaders in producing a better fuel. Even still, we’re going to have to adjust to the changes. The US military already has plans in place because they know what really is happening and they don’t give a rat’s behind what the politicians are saying and in fact, I’m pretty sure politicians already know GW is a reality. They’re just not letting on.

    Obama didn’t mention AGW in his state of the union because the polls show that the public is no longer concerned, mainly due to the so called Climategate. The scientists involved have been investigated and shown there was no wrong doing. The Berkley study exonerates them even further.

    You lost. NOAA and NASA won. How come this study was not mentioned on the Fox News or Watt’s website.

    Becoming a meteorologist back in 1983 I never thought in my wildest dreams that weather and climate would become a political ordeal.

    I remember when I would be asked questions about the weather and my answers were respected because this is my life’s work. Now it seems like 40 years of eating and breathing meteorology and climatology means nothing to people because everyone seems to claim to be an expert in everything. The arrogance. I’m no expert in Nuclear plants or in radiation but, man, there sure are an awful lot of experts on this science coming out of the woodwork on these blogs.

blog comments powered by Disqus