ThinkProgress filed this report from Derry, New Hampshire.
It’s getting close to impossible to track Mitt Romney’s vacillating position on global warming. Appearing in Derry, New Hampshire, the Republican presidential candidate reversed last month’s stance on fighting greenhouse gases, telling a questioner that he didn’t think carbon emissions should be regulated as a pollutant
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
Jeff L. on Analyzing The Western Water Cr… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Approaching 100% I… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Set Another Spring… gelcarrion0t on New Visitech Features saveenergy on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast gelcarrion0t on Seventeen Years Of Fun Barbara Stockwell on Nuclear Safety In The US saveenergy on 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV…
I believe in redemption. Go Mitt, go. Any republican out there is better than our current ‘situation’.
The election will not be decided upon this issue. Given the financial mess we are in, I do not think it will even be a major factor if any republican wins. That being said, I would support Mitt if he was nominated, but I will not support him for the nomination.
I hear that………
He ain’t the answer. He’ll buckle under greenie group temper tantrums, like the current President.
In fact Mr Obama will do anything to avoid greenie group temper tantrums. Not that I care very much for this behavior myself, but that’s not the way to deal with the problem.
You know what…you are right and IMHO it’s just nuts how these politicians play these games. For gosh sakes, if a reasonably conservative candidate would just come out and say “stuff it greenies – you don’t get the science you don’t get the policy options – every negative about global warming has been vastly exaggerated and the fixes you recommend will destroy the economy.”
No one – not even Michelle Bachman is talking like this but if someone stood up and pointed out how the green agenda is destroying the economy based on nothing more than a weak conjecture dressed up as “settled science” than I predict that every conservative conservative and most “independents” would get behind that message.
I used to think these greenie religious zealots would divide and conquer themselves – like the Communists did (“You aren’t a REAL Communist! You’re a FAKE communist! You don’t know what Communism is!”) – and they would shoot each other or have them sent off to the Gulag, depending on their position in the Communist Party.
The process isn’t happening quickly enough
Funny, I currently believe in “fighting greenhouse gases” and simultaneous don’t think that “carbon emissions should be regulated as a pollutant”. There is no constant reversal going on here…you can approach #1 without requiring #2.
-Scott
@Scott: “you can approach #1 without requiring #2”.
Absolutely. Not enough greenies get that, though. There are many ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without driving the economy over a cliff. Here is one way …
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/americas-atomic-folly