Romney: I won’t back down on AGW

posted at 10:49 am on June 9, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Mitt Romney may have enraged the GOP base with his answers on anthropogenic global warming, but as Politico reports, he won’t back down from them in the face of withering criticism from conservatives.  Instead, he appears to be offering a compromise.  He’ll continue to declare his belief in AGW, but promises not to do anything about it:

Mitt Romney won’t be doing any apology tours on climate change.

The early GOP presidential front-runner has broken with his party’s conservative ranks to declare global warming a real threat to the planet that merits some sort of action to curb heat-trapping emissions.

But the former Massachusetts governor is also quick to trash cap and trade, carbon taxes and other controversial policies that have been kicked around over the last decade in Washington.

In a sense, Romney’s initial global warming stance sounds a lot like that of  former President George W. Bush, who during his two terms reluctantly accepted climate science while fighting Democrats and environmentalists over what to do about it.

Er … okay.  If one accepts the premise of AGW, doesn’t that more or less make it incumbent to craft policies that address it?  After all, the theory states that AGW is cumulative, which means that the longer it goes, the problem increases in at least an arithmetic projection, if not an exponential one.  It’s a bit like saying that the federal budget deficit is a real problem, but continuing to propose budgets with trillion-dollar annual deficits.

You know … like Barack Obama did this year.  Twice.

Of course, one hint that AGW isn’t a threat is that its predictions of arithmetic and exponential catastrophes have utterly failed to materialize.  We don’t have 50 million climate-change refugees, as the UN predicted for this year.  Sea levels haven’t swallowed up whole populations.  The modeling from AGW advocates have repeatedly and routinely failed at predictions, which for normal science would mean an end to the theories they claim to prove.

In fact, former AGW advocate and scientist David Evans drove the point home last month in his debunking of AGW:

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

Physicist William Happer writes about the AGW “science” in First Things this month:

The earth’s climate has always been changing. Our present global warming is not at all unusual by the standards of geological history, and it is probably benefiting the biosphere. Indeed, there is very little correlation between the estimates of CO2 and of the earth’s temperature over the past 550 million years (the “Phanerozoic” period). The message is clear that several factors must influence the earth’s temperature, and that while CO2 is one of these factors, it is seldom the dominant one. The other factors are not well understood. Plausible candidates are spontaneous variations of the complicated fluid flow patterns in the oceans and atmosphere of the earth—perhaps influenced by continental drift, volcanoes, variations of the earth’s orbital parameters (ellipticity, spin-axis orientation, etc.), asteroid and comet impacts, variations in the sun’s output (not only the visible radiation but the amount of ultraviolet light, and the solar wind with its magnetic field), variations in cosmic rays leading to variations in cloud cover, and other causes.

The existence of the little ice age and the medieval warm period were an embarrassment to the global-warming establishment, because they showed that the current warming is almost indistinguishable from previous warmings and coolings that had nothing to do with burning fossil fuel. The organization charged with producing scientific support for the climate change crusade, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), finally found a solution. They rewrote the climate history of the past 1000 years with the celebrated “hockey stick” temperature record.

The first IPCC report, issued in 1990, showed both the medieval warm period and the little ice age very clearly. In the IPCC’s 2001 report was a graph that purported to show the earth’s mean temperature since the year 1000. A yet more extreme version of the hockey stick graph made the cover of the Fiftieth Anniversary Report of the United Nation’s World Meteorological Organization. To the surprise of everyone who knew about the strong evidence for the little ice age and the medieval climate optimum, the graph showed a nearly constant temperature from the year 1000 until about 150 years ago, when the temperature began to rise abruptly like the blade of a hockey stick. The inference was that this was due to the anthropogenic “pollutant” CO2.

This damnatia memoriae of inconvenient facts was simply expunged from the 2001 IPCC report, much as Trotsky and Yezhov were removed from Stalin’s photographs by dark-room specialists in the later years of the dictator’s reign. There was no explanation of why both the medieval warm period and the little ice age, very clearly shown in the 1990 report, had simply disappeared eleven years later. …

The frightening warnings that alarmists offer about the effects of doubling CO2 are based on computer models that assume that the direct warming effect of CO2 is multiplied by a large “feedback factor” from CO2-induced changes in water vapor and clouds, which supposedly contribute much more to the greenhouse warming of the earth than CO2. But there is observational evidence that the feedback factor is small and may even be negative. The models are not in good agreement with observations—even if they appear to fit the temperature rise over the last 150 years very well.

Indeed, the computer programs that produce climate change models have been “tuned” to get the desired answer. The values of various parameters like clouds and the concentrations of anthropogenic aerosols are adjusted to get the best fit to observations. And—perhaps partly because of that—they have been unsuccessful in predicting future climate, even over periods as short as fifteen years. In fact, the real values of most parameters, and the physics of how they affect the earth’s climate, are in most cases only roughly known, too roughly to supply accurate enough data for computer predictions. In my judgment, and in that of many other scientists familiar with the issues, the main problem with models has been their treatment of clouds, changes of which probably have a much bigger effect on the temperature of the earth than changing levels of CO2.

Scientifically, Romney is on weak ground.  Politically, it’s even worse.  He took a beating for his reversal on abortion in the 2007-8 campaign cycle, acquiring the sobriquet of “flip-flopper.”  As a result, Romney simply can’t reverse himself on RomneyCare in Massachusetts, nor will he be able to reverse himself on AGW.  He’s stuck with both positions, and the best he can do on either is to promise to end up doing nothing as President — which isn’t a credible stance, either with the base or with the moderates he seeks to attract.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

He’ll continue to declare his belief in AGW, but promises not to do anything about it:

Same stance on abortion?

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 10:52 AM

2012: Dem-light vs Socalist

“Who ever wins we lose!”

Oil Can on June 9, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Poor Mutt. Someone actually paid attention to his drivel, and now it comes back to bite him (again).

Too bad nobody sticks it to Osama Obama this way….

MrScribbler on June 9, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Quick Sarah Palin say something the Liberal media doesn’t get so they don’t jump Romney GRIN.

Dr Evil on June 9, 2011 at 10:52 AM

well I guess he didn’t want to president.

djohn669 on June 9, 2011 at 10:53 AM

You know … like Barack Obama did this year. Twice.

Ed, you’re getting it. Mitt is nothing more than a more polite intelligent Obama.

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Mittens… Mittens!!

Khun Joe on June 9, 2011 at 10:54 AM

No wonder Rick Perry is thinking of jumping in….Romney is John McCain redux without the Military Service.

Dr Evil on June 9, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Bye bye nomination.

— Limbaugh

fossten on June 9, 2011 at 10:54 AM

So by that rationale, he could think Obamacare is a terrible piece of legislation….but do nothing about it if elected President.

Doughboy on June 9, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Ed said:

As a result, Romney simply can’t reverse himself on RomneyCare in Massachusetts, nor will he be able to reverse himself on AGW. He’s stuck with both positions, and the best he can do on either is to promise to end up doing nothing as President

He’s not promising to do “nothing” on O-care, he’s promising to sign a repeal.

Jon0815 on June 9, 2011 at 10:55 AM

But I won’t do anything about it, either.

Voters probably agree, just what we need is another Presidential election with low Republican participation.

Speakup on June 9, 2011 at 10:55 AM

So by that rationale, he could think Obamacare is a terrible piece of legislation….but do nothing about it if elected President.

Doughboy on June 9, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Um, I’m pretty sure that’s his plan.

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 10:55 AM

If he doesn’t realize that belief in AGW is a losing stance then he isn’t smart enough to be president. Time to vet the next candidate.

Tommy_G on June 9, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Leaders.

Aronne on June 9, 2011 at 10:55 AM

romney wants to be obama’s vp choice

ConservativePartyNow on June 9, 2011 at 10:55 AM

.Romney is John McCain redux without the Military Service.

No, Romney is far better than McCain (altho that is a pretty low bar).

Jon0815 on June 9, 2011 at 10:56 AM

Someone please remind me,what side is Romney on?

heshtesh on June 9, 2011 at 10:56 AM

Instead, he appears to be offering a compromise. He’ll continue to declare his belief in AGW, but promises not to do anything about it:

Great! Romney is a firm believer in government being neck deep in crony capitalism and now he throwing out promises that are bound to have short expiration dates.

And he’s going to save the country from Obamapolicy? No thanks.

Dusty on June 9, 2011 at 10:56 AM

So by that rationale, he could think Obamacare is a terrible piece of legislation….but do nothing about it if elected President.

Doughboy on June 9, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Who is handling Romney? Who is running his campaign? They are doing a terrible job of it. Progressives and Liberals are not going to get pealed off from Obama in 2012 – they blame Romney for supporting with $$$$ to defeat same sex marriage in California. Who is it he thinks he is appealing to?

Dr Evil on June 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Same as RomneyCare, ethanol subsidies, et al. Wasting everyone’s time and his money.

He is toast and is too arrogant to admit he is wrong. I, for one, am tired of arrogant politicians who do not see the difference in changing one’s mind based of evidence and flip-flopping for expediency and pandering.

Sporty1946 on June 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM

the comparison to obama are becoming increasingly apt…i supported romney over mccain in 2008, but he’s definitely lost his luster…this is, perhaps, his most pathetic stance, yet

erclimb on June 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM

If Palin doesn’t run we will more than likely be stuck with this POS rino for a candidate. Then barry will win again because he is such a spineless wimp. Not a leader in the least.

jistincase on June 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM

No, Romney is far better than McCain (altho that is a pretty low bar).

Jon0815 on June 9, 2011 at 10:56 AM

How?

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM

2012: Dem-light vs Socalist

“Who ever wins we lose!”

Oil Can on June 9, 2011 at 10:52 AM

It used to be a choice of who we disliked least, now it’s “who will cause the least damage.”

Roy Rogers on June 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Someone please remind me,what side is Romney on?

[heshtesh on June 9, 2011 at 10:56 AM]

Big business.

Dusty on June 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Mitt’s an idiot for making this declaration. Smart people don’t believe in CAGW anymore.

blink on June 9, 2011 at 10:56 AM

I guess Romney should have snatched up Ed Rollins, when he was still available LOL!

Dr Evil on June 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM

I was for it before I was against it.

Great.

halfastro on June 9, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Onward Pawlenty!

Abby Adams on June 9, 2011 at 10:59 AM

I thought he was a Mormon…? Why the need for a new religion?

John the Libertarian on June 9, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Romney: “I have liberal beliefs, but I need to be President, so vote for me.”

faraway on June 9, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Will be interesting for Mittens when the VA AG gets his hands on the emails from Michael Mann’s tenure at UVA.

The VA supreme court just ordered them released.

More “hide the decline”?

Wethal on June 9, 2011 at 10:59 AM

He’s not promising to do “nothing” on O-care, he’s promising to sign a repeal.

Jon0815 on June 9, 2011 at 10:55 AM

He’s promising to do nothing to implement RomneyCare at the federal level.

Ed Morrissey on June 9, 2011 at 11:00 AM

If Palin doesn’t run we will more than likely be stuck with this POS rino for a candidate. Then barry will win again because he is such a spineless wimp. Not a leader in the least.

jistincase on June 9, 2011 at 10:57 AM

If Palin doesn’t jump in and Perry does, she will plow the road for Perry. Palin get’s that Romney is a weak front runner. Palin observes the Republican commandment, not to attack another Republican. That said, she stepped on Romney’s announcement to run for President of the U.S., there are many ways to send a message.

Dr Evil on June 9, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Any person that buyes into the man made global warming fantasy will never be the person to expose the frauds who push their socialist, freedom grabbing goals.

Romney will never stick it in Al Gores face that he is a LIAR. he will never tell GE that their windmills are a JOKE and that we are not paying for them any longer.

Mitt…you suck.

magic kingdom on June 9, 2011 at 11:01 AM

He’s not promising to do “nothing” on O-care, he’s promising to sign a repeal.

Jon0815 on June 9, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Ed’s talking about RomneyCare, which Romney continues to defend. Mitt’s stance on Obamacare (to the extent that one believes him), is, indeed, full repeal.

KingGold on June 9, 2011 at 11:02 AM

In an attempt to connect with “real America” Mitt could always use this song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUTXb-ga1fo

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 11:02 AM

The brave Sir Romney is now qualified to become Minister of Silly Positions.

Aardvark on June 9, 2011 at 11:02 AM

He’s going to get utterly demolished in the debates. He still hasn’t been held to account for his defense of Romneycare, and now this? The other candidates are going to have a field day; it will be much harder for Romney to defend these positions when he’s outside of a controlled setting with all the other candidates aggressively questioning him.

Lawdawg86 on June 9, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Pawlenty is far more trustworthy. He is my establishment choice.

At his point, Romney is not a serious candidate. He is damaged goods.

portlandon on June 9, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Romney’s Gingrich moment. KMAGYOYO.

TXUS on June 9, 2011 at 11:04 AM

BOLD COLORS he is NOT – more like soft gray or pastel blue.

stenwin77 on June 9, 2011 at 11:04 AM

If he doesn’t realize that belief in AGW is a losing stance then he isn’t smart enough to be president. Time to vet the next candidate.

Tommy_G on June 9, 2011 at 10:55 AM

That’s what it comes down to isn’t it? The Warmists look at AGW as a religion which they believe in with religious-like fervor in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The fact that Romney can’t see through this means he is not very bright.

slickwillie2001 on June 9, 2011 at 11:04 AM

He’s not promising to do “nothing” on O-care, he’s promising to sign a repeal.

Jon0815 on June 9, 2011 at 10:55 AM

And politicians always keep their campaign promises. Especially the wobbly, flip flopping, opportunistic career politicians\

Dr Evil on June 9, 2011 at 11:05 AM

That’s what it comes down to isn’t it? The Warmists look at AGW as a religion which they believe in with religious-like fervor in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The fact that Romney can’t see through this means he is not very bright.

slickwillie2001 on June 9, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Romney’s mormon religion doesn’t bother me. It’s his AGW Religion belief that DOES bother me.

portlandon on June 9, 2011 at 11:06 AM

If someone reasonable other than romney gets the GOP nomination, obama is toast. if romney gets the nomination, we are all toast

ConservativePartyNow on June 9, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Romney’s undisputed strength is his record of fixing big business. Thanks to Palin redefining big business as the corruption center of crony capitalism, it may not be enough of a strength to balance all his ideological weaknesses.

Terrie on June 9, 2011 at 11:07 AM

What else does Romney believe in but won’t do anything about.

Maybe he should provide a list.

SlaveDog on June 9, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Ed’s talking about RomneyCare, which Romney continues to defend. Mitt’s stance on Obamacare (to the extent that one believes him), is, indeed, full repeal.

KingGold on June 9, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Yes and no. He’s given conflicting answers on that. In some Q&A’s, he’s said he’d sign a full repeal of the law. Other times though, he’s merely mentioned that he’d offer waivers to all 50 states. The latter sounds like a copout to me. Like he’s giving himself an out in case he doesn’t have the stomach to fight the Democrats and media(I know, I’m being redundant) in the inevitable PR war over an Obamacare repeal.

Doughboy on June 9, 2011 at 11:07 AM

He’s also not backing down on the “tooth fairy is real” position that he’s held since he was 5.

The Mega Independent on June 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM

There it is again the bias of Hot Air a.k.a. Palin’s Hot Air. You can not attack a candidate for a position that others like Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin share:

Sarah Palin Supports Cap and Tax on Carbon Emissions and Drill Baby Drill

What this site is doing is not honest journalism.

Falz on June 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Romney’s mormon religion doesn’t bother me. It’s his AGW Religion belief that DOES bother me.

portlandon on June 9, 2011 at 11:06 AM

I can’t see Romney past the huge RINO horn.

Roy Rogers on June 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Romney: I won’t back down on AGW

No one’s asking you to “back down” from this lunacy Mr. Romney—they’re TELLING YOU TO TAKE A STAND!

If Romney wants to make a campaign issue of AGW, then he’s welcome to join the nutcases in the liberal market of asinine ideas while getting eliminated from the competition.

Rovin on June 9, 2011 at 11:09 AM

It’s his Romneycare and his stand on AGW that has me not reversing my not voting for him.

sadatoni on June 9, 2011 at 11:09 AM

The only thing I see melting in the heat is Romney’s campaign.

MassVictim on June 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM

We need to consult Uncle Joe on Romney’s political ideology.

“If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, it’s a duck,” Biden said in comparing McCain to Bush. to Romney.

Dr Evil on June 9, 2011 at 11:11 AM

So we are expected to vote for a guy that continues to believe in a hoax?

faraway on June 9, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Boy, that Mitt guy looks like a real winner! /s

search4truth on June 9, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Falz on June 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM
even if you are right at least they changed their minds, but your candidate “stuck on stupid”

djohn669 on June 9, 2011 at 11:11 AM

What I don’t get is that if this had been Newt Gingrich, he would have trailed off long ago. I think the Romney cultists cling to Mitt because they truly believe he’s the Conservative Savior … the one that LOVES central planning.

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Dumbass toast

HBowmanMD on June 9, 2011 at 11:12 AM

He’ll continue to declare his belief in AGW, but promises not to do anything about it:

And I will promise not to do anything about helping his campaign.

southsideironworks on June 9, 2011 at 11:12 AM

So Romney is willingly, blindly believing a lie, and promises to do nothing about that lie?

Sounds like politician double speak. Vote for me, and I won’t do this or that, about this or that. But he will. I trust him even less than I did before reading this. If that’s possible.

capejasmine on June 9, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Of course, one hint that AGW isn’t a threat is that its predictions of arithmetic and exponential catastrophes have utterly failed to materialize. We don’t have 50 million climate-change refugees, as the UN predicted for this year. Sea levels haven’t swallowed up whole populations. The modeling from AGW advocates have repeatedly and routinely failed at predictions, which for normal science would mean an end to the theories they claim to prove.

Yet we still have AGW advocates like James Hansen flying all the way to New Zealand (how much CO2 did his plane emit?) to warn the Kiwis about a 1-meter sea-level rise by the year 2100. Measurements show that sea level is currently rising at less than 2 millimeters per year (which would extrapolate to 0.178 meter, or about 7 inches, by 2100) and the rate is slowing down. But, we must trust the “scientist”–it WILL speed up!

Romney could have backed out of his earlier AGW stance gracefully by saying that the fact that AGW scare-mongers had “hidden the decline” in temperatures since 1998 had only been revealed in November 2009, and that he has changed his position in the light of new scientific evidence. If new evidence proves an old theory wrong, an honest scientist changes the theory–nothing wrong with that!

There are two logically consistent positions Romney could take on this issue:

(1) Recent scientific evidence shows that the effect of carbon dioxide on climate is minimal, and carbon dioxide is not toxic, so we don’t need to limit its emissions; or

(2) Carbon dioxide may affect the climate, but the costs of preventing its emission are much greater than the costs of adapting to climate change, so we will spend less money to adapt to climate change.

But where is the political gain in saying, like Romney, “We’re heading for disaster but I’m not going to do anything about it”?

This opens the Republican field for an all-out “Drill, Baby, Drill” candidate. Sarah Palin fits the bill, but she has other baggage…is this the opening for Rick Perry?

Steve Z on June 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Frankly, Romney as a candidate does not pass the smell test and his stand on AGW clearly stinks to high heaven.

Next candidate, please!

pilamaye on June 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM

djohn669 on June 9, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Nope, he’s the only one that is consistent.

Falz on June 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM

What I don’t get is that if this had been Newt Gingrich, he would have trailed off long ago. I think the Romney cultists cling to Mitt because they truly believe he’s the Conservative Savior … the one that LOVES central planning.

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 11:12 AM

No it’s the Republican establishment getting behind Status Quo – for example, doing nothing…..you know it’s Mitt’s turn.

Dr Evil on June 9, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Falz on June 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM

bwhaaaaaaaaaa, I cannot believe you just said that

djohn669 on June 9, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Sad. Just. Sad.

To think, I supported that guy last time. He did seem to have more of a backbone than McCain. Then, McCain picked his running mate whose backbone is TITANIUM. In a better world, Palin would have no problem running and taking the presidency in 2012. Problem is, under Obama, our world is bad and getting worse. When 46+% of the population is living off of the government, we’d better hope that enough of them don’t vote next time around and that all of us do!

kscheuller on June 9, 2011 at 11:16 AM

So, in the planet’s 4.5 billion-year history of ever-changing climate, in which particular year was the global temperature “correct” so we can get to work on a machine to hold it precisely there, plus or minus 1 degree F?

Much like Matt Damon, “I need to know!”

saint kansas on June 9, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Why are we still talking about this re-tread RINO?

Pick a issue – Romney has been on both sides of it.

Next.

Tim_CA on June 9, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Nope, he’s the only one that is consistent.

Falz on June 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Laughable.

Nope. He’s an embarrassment to the nation and anyone that calls him consistent is either lying or ignorant to the facts.

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 11:17 AM

bwhaaaaaaaaaa, I cannot believe you just said that

djohn669 on June 9, 2011 at 11:15 AM

What do you expect from the deranged Mittneyists?

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 11:17 AM

That’s cool, I wont back back on my disdain for you.

Oh, and I love the smell of the emissions and end the Fed.

Paul/Palin 2012

esnap on June 9, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Just what we need; a candidate who won’t do anything about what he believes in.

LOL

So even if you’re stupid enough to still think this guy stands for something – ANYTHING – you can rest assured that it isn’t a guarantee that he’ll vote or behave accordingly.

BRILLIANT!

Midas on June 9, 2011 at 11:18 AM

No it’s the Republican establishment getting behind Status Quo – for example, doing nothing…..you know it’s Mitt’s turn.

Dr Evil on June 9, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Yeah, they have their own little cult … Karl Rove must be a bishop or something by now.

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Nope, he’s the only one that is consistent.

Falz on June 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM

General Custer was consistent too.

portlandon on June 9, 2011 at 11:18 AM

I won’t promise to vote for Mitt.

Who’s next? Follow our smart RINO leader Mitt. Take the challenge. Admit you won’t commit.

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 11:19 AM

‘This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide’. Bingo!

Kissmygrits on June 9, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Nope, he’s the only one that is consistent.

Falz on June 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM

*blink*

Wow.

The only thing consistent about Romney is that you can rely on him to be unreliable.

Midas on June 9, 2011 at 11:20 AM

There it is again the bias of Hot Air a.k.a. Palin’s Hot Air. You can not attack a candidate for a position that others like Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin share:

Sarah Palin Supports Cap and Tax on Carbon Emissions and Drill Baby Drill

What this site is doing is not honest journalism.

Falz on June 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

kingsjester on June 9, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Falz on June 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM

You’re either a far lefty who thinks he can convince conservatives to embrace Romney, or you’re a rino as dumb as Romney to think they can convince conservatives to vote for him. *sigh*

Dishonest journalism? Get out of the blogs and watch the actual MSM’s, then come back and tell me what dishonest is.

capejasmine on June 9, 2011 at 11:22 AM

How?

[MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM]

He’s well versed in finance and economics so he’ll be well aware of everything he is ignoring when he’s developing policy.

Dusty on June 9, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Romney should change his campaign emblem to a broken compass.

HondaV65 on June 9, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Romney is busily collecting dead albatrosses on the beach.

unclesmrgol on June 9, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Thanks Willard, this is like shooting fish in a barrel, still chuckling, Governor Rick Perry.

Dr Evil on June 9, 2011 at 11:25 AM

RomneyCare, ethanol and AGW. That’s three strikes, Mitt, you’re out!

JimK on June 9, 2011 at 11:26 AM

He’s well versed in finance and economics so he’ll be well aware of everything he is ignoring when he’s developing policy.

Dusty on June 9, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Ah yes. Paul Krugman comes to mind.

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Has anyone seen csdevin?

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 11:26 AM

i think we should all prepare for a Romney win in the primary. its gonna suck, but there is little happening right now to change it. Palin and Trump are taking all the exposure from other legitimate candidates. Neither one of them is going to run either. If any of these candidates break through before the primary, they won’t have been properly vetted. No one’s record is perfect.

Sad state of affairs we have here.

tflst5 on June 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Nope, he’s the only one that is consistent.

Falz on June 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM

WTF????

We’re talking about Romney.

Tim_CA on June 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM

EB said it for me in the Headline thread:

AGW is an important purity test for Republican candidates because acknowledgement of this false flag leads to so much else that is empowering for leftists, socialists, and tax-addicted Democrats: cap & trade TAX, “green power” job destruction, hyper-regulation, bureaucratic meddling, “grants run wild” science supporting another round of tax increases, and elitist government that ignores any opinion outside its sphere of awareness.
.

ExpressoBold on June 9, 2011 at 10:15 AM

So in my book, if there could be anything more toxic than supporting RomneyCare, it would be supporting AGW.

petefrt on June 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM

i think we should all prepare for a Romney win in the primary. its gonna suck, but there is little happening right now to change it. Palin and Trump are taking all the exposure from other legitimate candidates. Neither one of them is going to run either. If any of these candidates break through before the primary, they won’t have been properly vetted. No one’s record is perfect.

Sad state of affairs we have here.

tflst5 on June 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Concern noted.

MeatHeadinCA on June 9, 2011 at 11:28 AM

That degree of stubbornness in a leader does not allow followers to stay with his program. If reality cannot be allowed into the decision process because the leader would have to change his mind….and he never changes his mind… then disaster is certain and his best followers will abandon ship. Making Mitt Romney President of the USA is not a viable option.

jimw on June 9, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Obama/Romney 2012

SurferDoc on June 9, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Mitt still believes that Tony Weiner was hacked.

faraway on June 9, 2011 at 11:30 AM

No need to replace a leftist Zero who is incapable of changing course even when his policies are clearly destructive with a leftist RINO who is incapable of changing course even when his policies are clearly destructive:

So go home, Mr Romney…
NEXT CANDIDATE!!

landlines on June 9, 2011 at 11:30 AM

What this site is doing is not honest journalism.

Falz on June 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Of course it’s honest journalism.

Palin ran as Vice Presidential Candidate to John McCain. She had to support ALL of his positions and was only allowed to disagree on one – drilling in ANWAR. You have a link to 5 second sound bite during the VP debate where Palin is asked … “Do you support caps on carbon emissions” and she says “I do”.

So you then conclude – based on that – that Sarah is for Cap-N-Tax – which, that wasn’t even the question she was asked by the way – so you’re dishonest here – because there are more ways to curb emissions than “cap-n-tax”

Further – you completely IGNORE the fact that Palin, since being liberated from the shackles of the lame McRage campaign – has done nothing but scream to high heavens about “Cap-N-Tax” … why – I believe she even invented the term “Cap-N-Tax” … or if not – she’s the one that popularized it.

So I ask you … what is more significant? A five second soundbite during a campaign that she didn’t control? Or all her work since then?

Or what about – her term as governor – please enlighten us on all the evil Global Warming laws she enacted in Alaska.

HondaV65 on June 9, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Romney should change his campaign emblem to a broken compass.

HondaV65 on June 9, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Now that’s funny.

Tim_CA on June 9, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4