Meet another Romney climate-change advisor: Douglas Foy

posted at 9:25 am on October 17, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

On Saturday, I noted Mitt Romney’s partnership with Obama science adviser and long-time Malthusian crank John Holdren in creating the “toughest” CO2 emissions limitations in the nation, and the resultant need for Massachusetts to import more of their energy in the years that followed.  However, Holdren wasn’t Romney’s most significant appointment for environmental issues.  Douglas Foy served as Secretary of Commonwealth Development in Romney’s cabinet for most of his term, and demonstrates Romney’s complicated — and contradictory — record on climate change.

Foy came to the Romney administration in Massachusetts with a solid record on environmental activism as head of the Conservation Law Foundation for the previous 25 years.  Under his direction, the CLF used the courts to block the building of the Seabrook 2 nuclear plant and stop off-shore drilling in the Georges Bank region.  Romney picked him in 2003 with this record in order to bridge the gap between environmentalists and Republicans and to craft a reasonable approach to environmental issues.

How did that work out?  Foy’s name doesn’t get a mention in the 2005 memo that praises Holdren as a partner in the CO2 regulations, although it’s hard to imagine that Foy didn’t take part in the regulatory effort.  Foy did produce, along with Romney, the “Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan” of 2004, which proposed a regional cap-and-trade carbon-trading system as well as an interstate “CO2 Registry” partnership that would have pressured businesses to “disclose their greenhouse gas emissions inventories and reduction programs.”  Was that voluntary?  Well, read this and determine for yourself just how voluntary it sounded:

By recording emissions and reductions in a consistent format, the registry will ensure that Massachusetts’ sources receive all appropriate consideration for verified emissions reductions under any existing or future greenhouse gas regulatory regime[.]

Basically, Foy wanted to tell businesses that by self-reporting immediately ahead of the coming cap-and-trade system, they could establish a more reasonable baseline for reduction targets.  A rush to compliance would have given Romney’s team some political cover on the imposition of a cap-and-trade system by saying that the early participation showed that the business sector was on board the plan.

How did that work out?  In the end, Romney ended up reneging on his 2004 plan and hanging Foy out to dry about the same time Romney started thinking about a presidential run, as the Observer related in 2006:

Take the case of Douglas Foy, a former president of the Conservation Law Foundation. Mr. Romney, upon winning the governorship in 2002, deputized Mr. Foy to develop an environmentally friendly “smart growth” blueprint for the commonwealth.

It seemed a perfect illustration of why the state’s independent suburbanites had flocked to Mr. Romney: A machine Democrat would have made a patronage pick, while a right-winger would have sought out a James Inhofe clone.

Mr. Foy didn’t disappoint, promptly teaming with counterparts throughout the Northeast to create the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a miniature Kyoto Accord aimed at stemming carbon-dioxide emissions.

Then Mr. Romney made up his mind to go national—and suddenly, Mr. Foy’s work reeked of Al Gore–ism. So the governor, unlike his five fellow governors, refused to sign onto the agreement and pushed Mr. Foy out.

The Boston Globe also noted Romney’s reversal:

Then, in December, Romney decided not to partake in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a first-in-the-nation plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions from Northeast power plants. Despite Foy orchestrating last minute negotiations and concessions, Romney still rejected it.

Yesterday, Foy said he was still proud of his effort with the pact and expects Massachusetts to embrace it one day. Romney, meanwhile, has proposed a far weaker program to limit carbon dioxide at the state’s dirtiest power plants.

Romney has been a staunch opponent of the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound, while Foy backed the idea.

In 2011, Romney’s plan calls for drilling for oil in the US and building nuclear plants.  In 2003, Romney appointed a man to his Cabinet who had successfully blocked both, and Romney abandoned Foy’s cap-and-trade regime in 2006 after backing it publicly slightly less than two years earlier.  The question that arises from these memos, proposals, and regulations is which Mitt Romney we’re seeing right now, and which we’ll get if he wins the nomination and the election.

Updates: I’d like to answer a couple of points from the comments.  First, there seems to be confusion between the cap-and-trade proposal and the CO2 emission regulations in the first post.  Those regs did go into effect, as Romney’s 2005 memo made clear; Romney backed away from the regional cap-and-trade system.

Next, a few Romney defenders claim that it’s unfair to criticize Romney on these because either (a) it was only a state issue, or (b) Romney eventually rejected some of these proposals.  Both are absurd.  Governors run on their records, and if Romney appointed people as Governor who are Malthusian cranks and lawsuit-happy enviros that kill nuclear power and oil drilling projects, then that’s absolutely germane to both his judgment and his policy leanings.  Furthermore, as the Observer pointed out, the retreat on Foy’s proposal came curiously close to the time when it appears Romney began thinking about a run at the Presidency in 2008.  That goes to credibility.

Finally, for those who gripe that I’m doing Obama’s work for him … please.  We’re not supposed to vet our primary candidates, especially on their records?  Why not just go straight to the swimsuit competition?

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

I reallly do not want Mr. Romney a president.

annoyinglittletwerp on October 17, 2011 at 9:27 AM

We cannot let this man be the nominee.

blatantblue on October 17, 2011 at 9:28 AM

Seriously, we’re going to nominate this guy as the Republican standard bearer?

Lawdawg86 on October 17, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Well Mitt which way is the wind blowing today?

tim c on October 17, 2011 at 9:31 AM

The question that arises from these memos, proposals, and regulations is which Mitt Romney we’re seeing right now, and which we’ll get if he wins the nomination and the election.

C’mon, GOP primary voters. Let’s say “no” to Mitt. Increasingly, he seems like a Trojan horse or he seems unelectable in that if he’s really a white Obama with extraordinary ties to Wall Street, why won’t independents stay with Obama?

BuckeyeSam on October 17, 2011 at 9:33 AM

The non-Romney’s must finish eating each other. Who will be the last man standing?

faraway on October 17, 2011 at 9:34 AM

How on earth is Romney not in the single digits?

The guy is a lib on every issue (cue Mittbots posting his 2011 positions which have absolutely nothing to do with how he actually governed when he held power in MA).

mankai on October 17, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Sign the pledge at NotMitt.com

beatcanvas on October 17, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Which Romney will we get? The worst possible one because that’s the only one there is.

Extrafishy on October 17, 2011 at 9:35 AM

The best thing the GOP candidate can do for America is to unite against Mitt. Santorum, Bachmann and Paul need to unite behind either Cain or (I can’t believe I’m saying this) Gingrich.

mankai on October 17, 2011 at 9:36 AM

I think you will see the politically expedient Mitt. I honestly can’t tell you what he truly believes or really thinks about any issue. I can only go by actions. So far the actions say politician slightly left of center. I want someone who can articulate conservative ideas and so far that would be Newt or Herman. I hate the fact that New Hampshire Iowa and Nevada might give us our candidate.

ldbgcoleman on October 17, 2011 at 9:37 AM

The non-Romney’s must finish eating each other. Who will be the last man standing?

faraway on October 17, 2011 at 9:34 AM

faraway, wasn’t sure what you meant here. Can you elaborate on your point?

hawkdriver on October 17, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Romney is a baby step to the right of Huntsman, who is a baby step to the right of Clinton. Obama has been sprinting to the left, so anything is better, but just a few less liberal policies will not save us from this disaster.

jeffn21 on October 17, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Mittens would be a very good candidate — for the Democrat Party. he’s Rockefeller squared.

rbj on October 17, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Global Warming irritates me as much if not more than OWS nonsense and I will never vote for Mitt Romney. Wonder when Romney starts to think the OWS people may have a point, if it will be enough for Coulter to snap back.

When you run with a finger to the wind, you have no core. We’ll lose.

Marcus on October 17, 2011 at 9:38 AM

The non-Romney’s must finish eating each other. Who will be the last man standing?

faraway on October 17, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Won’t happen, that has been the Romney plan since the beginning, people knew it and fell for it anyway.

cozmo on October 17, 2011 at 9:38 AM

ugh!

I’ll add Douglas Foy to my list, which gives me about 1,750 reasons not to vote Romney…ever!

flyfisher on October 17, 2011 at 9:38 AM

It is good that this stuff is coming out now. He obviously needs to be confronted on this issue. Is anyone asking him these questions?

Static21 on October 17, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Can anyone, even Mitt, tell us why he wants to be President? At least dear leader wanted to “fundamentally transform” but Mitt seems aimless to me.

tim c on October 17, 2011 at 9:39 AM

The “man” we will get will not impose cap and trade because of an economy in the toilet. He will at least have enough sense to know he needs to allow for the conditions that create wealth. But he won’t unleash our energy production potential either. He will sit on his hands for that one.

NotCoach on October 17, 2011 at 9:39 AM

He just wants to be President so he can be President…he’ll say or do anything to get there. He’s a professional candidate. Can you picture him as President with a Democratic Congress? Say bye bye America.

NJ Red on October 17, 2011 at 9:39 AM

DEMINT LIKELY TO ENDORSE ROMNEY. YIKES!!!

andy85719 on October 17, 2011 at 9:40 AM

I’ll vote for Obama before I vote for Romney…I’m done with a Republican party that keeps coming up with McCains and Romneys!

Karmi on October 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Yawn.

Coincidence Perry energy plan coincides with this lame non-stop line of attack? Voters wont care. They care about the future.

For the record, I grew up in the mill cities of MA. They have power plants older than most states. PCBs run through the rivers like a carcinogen plague.

Oh my God, Romney was for clean air nine years ago!!! That’s an awesome line of attack?

What was Ed’s position on global warming in 2002, when Romney picked his staff? I suspect everyone on this board has changed positions. Since the science is evolving, you would be an idiot if you didn’t.

This is why Perry is getting trounced in the polls. He’s support by this type of ridiculousness. Embarrassing.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Ed the sleuth finds a discrepancy between a 2003 state position and a 2011 federal position.

It must be tough being a Perry Shill, always having to ruin your credibility for a candidate that sucks.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:43 AM

For the record, I grew up in the mill cities of MA. They have power plants older than most states. PCBs run through the rivers like a carcinogen plague.

And we are supposed to believe you about the PCBs when you apparently have no clue when electricity generation began in this country?

NotCoach on October 17, 2011 at 9:44 AM

petunia? sherl? MJB? I’d like to hear from ou about this.

katy the mean old lady on October 17, 2011 at 9:44 AM

That’s six years ago, when Mitt was young and foolish.

RBMN on October 17, 2011 at 9:44 AM

DEMINT LIKELY TO ENDORSE ROMNEY. YIKES!!!

andy85719 on October 17, 2011 at 9:40 AM

I think that will be more likely to change perceptions about DeMint than Romney. As Ann Romney would say, that’s DeMint’s stupid choice to make.

Lawdawg86 on October 17, 2011 at 9:44 AM

I suspect everyone on this board has changed positions.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Ummmm NO. Some of us are not naive and easily led.

flyfisher on October 17, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Flip flop. What is it about massachusetts politicians?

karenhasfreedom on October 17, 2011 at 9:47 AM

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM

There’s nothing wrong with a critical look at the candidates positions. You are as dismissive on this particular issue (which merits at least evaluation) as you claim others to be hyping it.

hawkdriver on October 17, 2011 at 9:47 AM

The best thing the GOP candidate can do for America is to unite against Mitt. Santorum, Bachmann and Paul need to unite behind either Cain or (I can’t believe I’m saying this) Gingrich.

mankai on October 17, 2011 at 9:36 AM

You’d think if they’d want to rise in the polls, these candidates would start to go after Mittens. They keep attacking the anti-Romneys like Perry and Cain, but if they don’t set their sights on Romney himself at some point, he’ll maintain his 20-25% support and that might be enough to get him over the finish line.

Doughboy on October 17, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Marcus on October 17, 2011 at 9:38 AM

You’re writing what I’m thinking. I was a Mitt supporter before McCain got the nod last ime. But this progressive streak in him gives me all the same concerns that supporting Brown gave me; with predictable results.

hawkdriver on October 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM

The only reasons I ever hear to nominate Mitt are he can win or well he’s better than Obama. I want someone to vote FOR not having to hold my nose to vote Against Obama

ldbgcoleman on October 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM

This country is in a unique position. There are a lot of huge, horrible problems, and we need a fighter and a problem solver, not someone who wants to play it safe all the time.

You want safe? Vote Mitt.

blatantblue on October 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM

What was Ed’s position on global warming in 2002, when Romney picked his staff? I suspect everyone on this board has changed positions. Since the science is evolving, you would be an idiot if you didn’t.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Not really. I was extremely skeptical of the global warming “science” being pushed. There was a time were I was willing to listen to some of the economic policies for “protecting our earth” (I never accepted them, BTW); however, it became more and more clear that most of these were scams set up for certain people to get rich off of.

As for things like drilling restrictions (which Romney’s people support), I don’t see how anyone that calls themselves a Free Market conservative could ever get behind this.

The fact is, Romney hire leftwing goons for political purposes. He hired people that conservative democrats would have been scared to hire in their home states. Romney governed like a leftwing Republican in Massachusetts. The only thing you can say about his “conservatism” is that he was more conservative than the likes of Elizabeth Warren (which doesn’t say much).

MeatHeadinCA on October 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM

What was Ed’s position on global warming in 2002, when Romney picked his staff? I suspect everyone on this board has changed positions. Since the science is evolving, you would be an idiot if you didn’t.

This is why Perry is getting trounced in the polls. He’s support by this type of ridiculousness. Embarrassing.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Pal, I knew when these scientists stated that we were going into the ice age in the 60/70′s they were a farce, when they predicted world wide famine by the year 2,000…
No body, no one, is more responsible for our declining economy than these kind of environmentalists/alarmists…

PCBs run through the rivers like a carcinogen plague.

Let’s see the link to those “rivers”…
You should stay off the liberal mind numbing websites that create these fairy tales…

Coincidence Perry energy plan coincides with this lame non-stop line of attack? Voters wont care. They care about the future.

No, it’s no coincidence, it shows the difference between a logical thinking man, and a political opportunist who will sell their country out to get a few votes from the liberals.
The EPA, and any of it’s offshoots should be stripped of all power…

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Ummmm NO. Some of us are not naive and easily led.

flyfisher on October 17, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Then you’re an idiot. The science have evolved so much over the last ten years, only a blockhead would think its “principled” to hold the same position on air pollution for decades.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:54 AM

which Mitt Romney we’re seeing right now

The one that polls best for Romney right now.

antisocial on October 17, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Flip flop. What is it about massachusetts politicians?

karenhasfreedom on October 17, 2011 at 9:47 AM

The country is pushing to the right on so many issues and the GOP says, “Hey, let’s nominate someone from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts!”

MeatHeadinCA on October 17, 2011 at 9:54 AM

You’re writing what I’m thinking. I was a Mitt supporter before McCain got the nod last ime. But this progressive streak in him gives me all the same concerns that supporting Brown gave me; with predictable results.

hawkdriver on October 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM

In 2008 I was on the fence about Mittens, but definitely supported him over McCain. It is a different world today though. Today it is clear that AGW is a total scam and government mandated HC is an unmitigated disastor. And Mittens is unwilling to come to terms with those facts. So I am unwilling to give him my support.

NotCoach on October 17, 2011 at 9:55 AM

The only reasons I ever hear to nominate Mitt are he can win or well he’s better than Obama. I want someone to vote FOR not having to hold my nose to vote Against Obama

ldbgcoleman on October 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Which itself is a load of crap. Any of the top tier candidates in the GOP field could be Obama. Some would have a tougher time than others in terms of electoral votes, but there’s no way a majority of this country will want 4 more years of this.

So what if Mittens can beat Obama handily if the end result is a left-leaning Republican doing little to nothing to fix the mess we’re in? It would be the Bush 43 Presidency all over again and we saw what that did to the GOP. And a lot more is at stake this time around because if the Tea Party feels like it got sold out by the Republican establishment, it’ll be third party time and you can kiss the GOP goodbye.

Doughboy on October 17, 2011 at 9:55 AM

This is the death of the Republican political career of Mitt…he will have a better chance running as a democrat against Obama.
He is of no use to the conservatives, and he is blatantly stating that fact.
Does anyone now think that he is capable of tackling and taking on people like Pelosi or Reid, let alone Schumer…they will carve him up like a Thanksgiving turkey.

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Then you’re an idiot. The science have evolved so much over the last ten years, only a blockhead would think its “principled” to hold the same position on air pollution for decades.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Do you believe (no matter what the science said) that cap and trade was any more “right” 5 years ago than today?

Think about how stupid that sounds if you say yes. A policy that is clearly anti-free markets was a good idea in certain situations. We may as well throw in the towel.

It’s as stupid as using socialism to save capitalism. STUPID!

MeatHeadinCA on October 17, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Then you’re an idiot. The science have evolved so much over the last ten years, only a blockhead would think its “principled” to hold the same position on air pollution for decades.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:54 AM

You are correct. It turns out that air pollution concerns were hyped beyond reason. When is Mittens going to acknowledge this fact?

NotCoach on October 17, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Then you’re an idiot. The science have evolved so much over the last ten years, only a blockhead would think its “principled” to hold the same position on air pollution for decades.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Your the idiot and you are easily led. I happened to know all along there had been periods in the past just as warm as the one we were going through. I also happened to know that we were still coming out of a period of cooling. I always believed that whatever was going on was a natural process beyond man’s control. On the whole men are naturally hubristic, but none so much as the scientific God-deniers.

flyfisher on October 17, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Just more evidence that Romney is not conservative in the least. It would be a disaster for the GOP if he were to get the nomination.

You heard it here first. If he buys the nomination, there will be calls for a third party. When he loses to Obama, which he will, like every other establishment moderate/liberal Republican that gets pushed on us (Ford, Dole, McCain, etc), the GOP is over as we know it.

Romney is the media’s choice for us. The false choice. We need to unite behind a conservative before its too late.

The country cannot withstand another progressive in the White House.

alecj on October 17, 2011 at 9:59 AM

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:54 AM

This is the sort of trash comments that are sure to turn folks away from serious consideration of Romney. Congrats, I’m sure you made some Cain fans here today. Not that that would be a bad thing.

hawkdriver on October 17, 2011 at 10:00 AM

DEMINT LIKELY TO ENDORSE ROMNEY. YIKES!!!

andy85719 on October 17, 2011 at 9:40 AM

Disappointing if true, but it doesn’t compute at all. I won’t believe it until it actually happens.

flyfisher on October 17, 2011 at 10:01 AM

What was Ed’s position on global warming in 2002, when Romney picked his staff? I suspect everyone on this board has changed positions. Since the science is evolving, you would be an idiot if you didn’t.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Some nice reading you did there. Romney ditched his own plan when he atarted looking at the White House. IIRC, Captain’s Quarters was a global warming skeptic before it was cool. Kind of why I liked it. Righty’s have been arguing this since at least the 2000 election. It was a good thing to not go out of our way to pollute, but there was a trade off between Gaia loving green and economic survival.

cozmo on October 17, 2011 at 10:02 AM

For 25 years, Doug Foy spearheaded the CLF’s extremist environmental agenda, using the courts to achieve what they couldn’t achieve through even the ultra-lefty Massachusetts legislature.

CLF’s whole strategy was to beat Massachusetts businesses into submission with lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits.

Upon taking office, Mitt named this zealot to head up economic development and planning. It couldn’t have been more surreal.

Mitt must be stopped.

cool breeze on October 17, 2011 at 10:03 AM

If you want my position on global warming from 2003-7, you can find it here. Hint: It hasn’t changed to match the fashion, unlike a couple of politicians running for President.

Ed Morrissey on October 17, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Ed the sleuth finds a discrepancy between a 2003 state position and a 2011 federal position.

It must be tough being a Perry Shill, always having to ruin your credibility for a candidate that sucks.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Difference between a “state” position and a “federal” position? So, everything he did as governor is now off-limits to discuss because it only involved “state positions”?

Is that really your super-smart argument?

The point isn’t just that he accepted AGW 10 years ago (he still does by the way), it’s that he hired on liberal activists to create his policy and pushed liberal policy. Sure, you can claim that the “science evolved” and people changed their positions, but there’s a big difference between being open to global warming arguments 10 years ago and buying into the “science” plus the policy prescriptions of the liberals 10 years ago.

Every single issue has this with Romney – liberal positions and now alleged conservative positions. So, in the last 10 years he’s had a complete conversion? Was he just an idiot 10 years ago but smart now? dishonest 10 years ago but honest now?

the guy is not conservative. I’ve always believed he was at least slightly right of center, but now I’m starting to question even that. I don’t think he actually has any principals outside of the desire to be elected. That’s not good enough.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 10:05 AM

DO NOT LET LSM PICK OUR CANDIDATE

Cripe…..let’s go Perry!

cmsinaz on October 17, 2011 at 10:06 AM

just replied to a Republican fund raising mailer….sent NO MONEY and warned them that is they nominate a Liberal Turd like RINO ROMNEY, I will not only vote 3rd party, I will NEVER give them a dime again…DONE!

SDarchitect on October 17, 2011 at 10:07 AM

As I’ve said before, you are sure doing obama’s work for him ed!

Bambi on October 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Upon taking office, Mitt named this zealot to head up economic development and planning. It couldn’t have been more surreal.

Mitt must be stopped.

cool breeze on October 17, 2011 at 10:03 AM

That’s the thing. Am I really supposed to believe that the ordinary citizens of MA wanted this crap?

MeatHeadinCA on October 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM

DEMINT LIKELY TO ENDORSE ROMNEY. YIKES!!!

andy85719 on October 17, 2011 at 9:40 AM

The issue is they want to back a winner. They (establishment pols – even ones as conservative as DeMint usually is) think that Romney is inevitable, so they are climbing aboard the bandwagon to have a seat at the table. Let’s not forget, for instance, that Santorum backed Specter over Toomey. You can’t rely on politicians, even decent conservatives, to always do what’s right over what is politically expedient.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM

With you there hawkdriver

cmsinaz on October 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Romney is low hanging fruit, and Perry still can’t make the case against him.

Tasha on October 17, 2011 at 10:09 AM

As I’ve said before, you are sure doing obama’s work for him ed!

Bambi on October 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM

As is Mitt! Maybe Reverend Wright will give his blessing on Mitt.

MeatHeadinCA on October 17, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Then you’re an idiot. The science have evolved so much over the last ten years, only a blockhead would think its “principled” to hold the same position on air pollution for decades.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:54 AM

You are right about holding the same position…most of us were against it, now we are adamantly against it.
But to say many of us should have been for it…better read people, like we read, like Richard Lindzen. He is the foremost authority, and has been for decades on climate. He picked it up as a scam, and has been relentless in exposing it.
You apparently know nothing about him…he showed, decade ago, the tie in between global warming, and the ice age crowd. He predicted and noted that Hansen (probably your God) that he was an opportunist, raking in millions of dollars in grants to promote Global Warming.
And now, in your infinite wisdom, is calling Richard Lindzen, the most noted authority in the world, MIT-Alfred P.Sloan Professor, an idiot.

Indeed, the global cooling trend of the 1950s and 1960s led to a minor global cooling hysteria in the 1970s. All that was more or less normal scientific debate, although the cooling hysteria had certain striking analogues to the present warming hysteria including books such as The Genesis Strategy by Stephen Schneider and Climate Change and World Affairs by Crispin Tickell–both authors are prominent in support of the present concerns as well–”explaining” the problem and promoting international regulation.

Looks like the idiots were the ones who bought into this propaganda…
Here is a great essay by the great Richard Lindzen explaining the political progress.
This is the most compelling and complete analysis of how we (actually you) reached your conclusion, you were taken in, and now suffer the consequences of being called a sucker—or—try to defend your position.

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 10:10 AM

SDarchitect on October 17, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Just vote as you were going to anyway – obama! Yea, 4 more years, and then the end of elections, a supreme court that will take us further into communism, oh man, I just can’t wait. However, maybe some of us won’t be around to see it. The death pannels will kill us! But go ahead throw the election!!!!!

Bambi on October 17, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Queue the finger wagging about how we have to vote for Romney or face a second Obama term.

Conservatives are really in a bad spot here. Suck it up, vote for Romney, and have to take ownership of four years of failure — hoping, at best, to simply slow the rate of American decline. Or…

Vote 3rd party (or not at all) and take the blame for Obama getting a second term. The “establishment” certainly won’t get saddled with the blame of running yet another “moderate” Republican in the tradition of Gerald Ford, GHW Bush, Bob Dole & John McCain. No — it’ll be the fault of “right wing extremists” who have hijacked the party.

SAMinVA on October 17, 2011 at 10:11 AM

The best thing the GOP candidate can do for America is to unite against Mitt. Santorum, Bachmann and Paul need to unite behind either Cain or (I can’t believe I’m saying this) Gingrich.

mankai on October 17, 2011 at 9:36 AM

I laughed about the crack about Gingrich, but I agree.

Yes, Newt sat on the couch with Pelosi, and he’s got other baggage. But Newt, far more than any other GOP candidate, would expose Obama for the fraud that he is in the two or three presidential debates that they’d have. It wouldn’t be Nixon-JFK; it would be Reagan-Urkel. Obama simply cannot function without a teleprompter. He can’t think on his feet, and he doesn’t speak well extemporaneously.

I think that in a Newt-Obama debate, independents would finally conclude that the emperor has no clothes. Seriously, does anyone remember Obama trying to match up with Paul Ryan at the Blair House gathering during the healthcare debate? Obama was so overmatched that he had to alter the course of the discussion.

I’m not ready to catch Newt fever, but I do find that he’s got a far more commanding presence than any other GOP candidate. And he loves punching Obama in the mouth.

BuckeyeSam on October 17, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Ed, Which paragraph is true? What am I missing here? It seems to me that if Mass did not participate in the RGGI, skyrocketing energy rates must be due to other causes:

On Saturday, I noted Mitt Romney’s partnership with Obama science adviser and long-time Malthusian crank John Holdren in creating the “toughest” CO2 emissions limitations in the nation, and the resultant need for Massachusetts to import more of their energy in the years that followed.

OR

Then, in December, Romney decided not to partake in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a first-in-the-nation plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions from Northeast power plants. Despite Foy orchestrating last minute negotiations and concessions, Romney still rejected it.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Then you’re an idiot. The science have evolved so much over the last ten years, only a blockhead would think its “principled” to hold the same position on air pollution for decades.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:54 AM

You are the idiot. Science doesn’t “evolve”, but it did corrupt over the years. As soon as the focus was on “human-caused”, that gave every politician and bureaucrat in every government their argument against individual freedom and for progressive collectivism. All they had to do was keep the funding flowing to get the science they wanted.

cartooner on October 17, 2011 at 10:14 AM

let’s go Perry!

cmsinaz on October 17, 2011 at 10:06 AM

I want Perry to do well and beat Romney, I really do. But at this point I don’t see how it is possible. Perry seems to be doing everything in his power to avoid doing well in the primary. it is incredibly frustrating. It’s not just the debates either. The failure to put forward an economic policy, the failure to hire campaign staff that have handled a nationwide campaign, and on and on. I think he honestly thought he could just run on “look at how good Texas is doing compared to the other states” and win.

I like Cain, but I honestly don’t believe he has the staying power to beat either Romney or Obama. He is a political novice and likely to implode with gaffes plus he doesn’t have the organization or the fundraising to go the distance. And, he still hasn’t been vetted – so we don’t know what skeletons are out there. I just don’t see him pulling this off.

I think the republican party is going to be stuck with Romney and my prediction is that Romney loses to Obama in a re-run of the McCain campaign.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 10:15 AM

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM

As someone with a science degree I have never been on the AGW bandwagon. I was quite capable of identifying the flaws way back at the beginning of this nonsense. That people who were uninformed might have originally jumped aboard is understandable but you calling those who didn’t idiots is not.

chemman on October 17, 2011 at 10:15 AM

What was Ed’s position on global warming in 2002, when Romney picked his staff? I suspect everyone on this board has changed positions. Since the science is evolving, you would be an idiot if you didn’t.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve been saying for years that manmade global warming is a load of bullcrap. All it requires is a little common sense. First of all, if Al Gore really believed the BS coming out of his mouth, why would he have a 20,000 sq ft home that uses more power in a month than most families use in a year? Why would he be jetting around the world in a private jet? And why would he be so afraid to ever debate anyone on the issue or even allow questions from reporters?

Secondly, why were many of the same scientists claiming the earth was cooling just a few decades ago? And why when it started to look like we actually were entering a new period of cooling in recent years, did they suddenly rename the trend from “global warming” to “climate change”? If you have to constantly revise your story in order to fit with the ever-changing weather patterns, then it sounds like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Doughboy on October 17, 2011 at 10:15 AM

As I’ve said before, you are sure doing obama’s work for him ed!

Bambi on October 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM

There is precious little difference between Romney’s positions and Obama’s. If we are going to have this stuffed down our throats, I would rather Obama be forced to own it.

So if Mitt is the nominee, I will either vote third party, sit it out, or even vote for Obama.

cool breeze on October 17, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Mitt Romney – he will be Scott Brown on steroids, a super RINO.

The Mittbots here are trying to get us to settle for Romney. “He has changed” – they tell us. They are the same people that tell us to excuse Scott Brown when he votes in lockstep with Reid and the Dems because – he is a Mass. Republican.

Should Romney win the GOP nomination and then go on to beat Obama (I doubt he will), how long do you all think it will take Romney to backtrack on his current promises on:

- Obamacare
- Appointing conservative judges
- Border fence/Illegal immigration
- Cap and trade
etc…

Romney, as President, will focus on being bipartisan in a way that will win applause from the DC crowd, do nothing to slow Govt. growth, and set up an opening for a President Cuomo to take over after Romney and move us back into another Big Govt. hyperdrive.

And just imagine the stalwart conservatives we will have in Congress to move a liberal Romney to the right: Boehner and McConnell. /sarc

TheRightMan on October 17, 2011 at 10:21 AM

You know, if somebody has an (R) next to their name, they can be more successful growing an economy, after kneecapping it as the base, than somebody with a (D) after their name.

Disqualified.

MNHawk on October 17, 2011 at 10:22 AM

I oppose global warming alarmist based on scientist, not talking points by talk show hosts. I’ve studied guys like MIT Lindzen extensively, and here’s the killer:

They all believe in some level of AGW.

Stating that all global warming science is a hoax is about as stupid as claiming that the world is going to end because of AGW.

Its all a matter of degrees and solutions. AGW just isnt significant enough to warrant any drastic measures and the science is evolving so its useless anyway.

But, for some, just screaming HOAX, HOAX HOAX is the only acceptable solution, and they make all conservative looks like morons.

http://www.redmassgroup.com/diary/11646/richard-lindzen-and-the-demise-of-global-weirding

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Vote 3rd party (or not at all) and take the blame for Obama getting a second term. The “establishment” certainly won’t get saddled with the blame of running yet another “moderate” Republican in the tradition of Gerald Ford, GHW Bush, Bob Dole & John McCain. No — it’ll be the fault of “right wing extremists” who have hijacked the party.

SAMinVA on October 17, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Funny how that works. Sad really, but Romney will pave the way for an even more lefty Dem.

cartooner on October 17, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Back before the 2008 election, I joked that if Obama actually won, with all the horrors we knew about him (BAIPA alone would suffice), he must be the anti-Christ. I’m about to start making the same joke about Romney. If he actually wins the GOP nomination, with all his baggage, something is very wrong in the universe.

pannw on October 17, 2011 at 10:25 AM

I swear if we find out Edward T. Hall III is an advisor to the Youth for Romney Campus Club, that will be the final straw…

LOL – Nah, DC insiders still love Romney’s hair.

Fallon on October 17, 2011 at 10:27 AM

I sure hope not monkeytoe

Gotta believe that they will stand up to the challenge and make sure mitt is not the nominee

cmsinaz on October 17, 2011 at 10:28 AM

BuckeyeSam on October 17, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Bingo. Newt has been superb in the debates. He would destroy Obama.

It wouldn’t be Nixon-JFK; it would be Reagan-Urkel.

Exactly.

mankai on October 17, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Nice hatchet job, Ed! You can tell over the years how HA columnists have also flip flopped on their support of Romney! This wasn’t something that Romney just did last week and we just discovered!

Maybe Romney cancelled the whole deal because he saw how it would cost jobs, hurt the economy, and realized that the whole GW was not what it is all cracked up to be…but as far as a Governor wanting to improve old and decrepit “smokestacks” etc is fine with me.

Then, in December, Romney decided not to partake in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a first-in-the-nation plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions from Northeast power plants

You use this as you are disappointed that he did not go through with the deal. I guess we’ll continue to watch the Romney bashing go on here…

Just so HA knows there are those of us that are strong and adamant conservatives AND we still like Romney because he is not the boogeyman you make him out to be.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 10:30 AM

You are the idiot. Science doesn’t “evolve”…

cartooner on October 17, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Nuff said. Truth doesnt evolve, but science always evolves. And its idiotic to claim otherwise.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 10:30 AM

The question that arises from these memos, proposals, and regulations is which Mitt Romney we’re seeing right now, and which we’ll get if he wins the nomination and the election.

I think we’ll see the one that was always there, the conservative one.

What you people fail to realize is that Romney was a conservative Republican in a state chock full of Democrats and liberal independents. All those with claims of him not being conservative enough need to keep in mind where he was operating. Look, being Rick Perry in a state like Massachusetts isn’t a good recipe for long term political goals… Being Rick Perry in Massachusetts is political suicide. He’d be booted out of office quicker than you could shake a stick at him if he didn’t pander at least a little to the ideas and wishes of his constituency. That means he has to/had to choose people that his backers would want in positions of power like Foy and Holdren.

He obviously had his change of heart and got rid of him, which is a good sign to me at least.

The Romney we see today is the one that was always there, he was just under cover in a hostile to conservative ideals state.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 10:32 AM

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Dick Lindzen believes in AGW. Call him all the names you call Romney. Its so ironic and thickheaded to point to him, when you dont even understand him.

He’s oppose to alarmism.But he does not believe that AGW is a hoax.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 10:33 AM

Nuff said. Truth doesnt evolve, but science always evolves. And its idiotic to claim otherwise.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 10:30 AM

I know more people who are professional forecasters than most. I do not know one who thinks there is even a remote concern with AGW. I’ll say again, you toeing this line of conclusive proof it’s there is no different than your contemnations of other’s you characterize as screaming, “Hoax, Hoax, Hoax”.

I’d say you are an idiot if you will not at least concede The Left uses it very much to their politcal advantage and would have a great stake in promoting it, true or false.

hawkdriver on October 17, 2011 at 10:39 AM

TheRightMan on October 17, 2011 at 10:21 AM

I see a President Romney letting us know, that based on his experience with RomneyCare, that rather than repeal ObamaCare, he has the expertise to fix it, in a bi-partisan way, of course. He will keep pouring the subsidies to “green” fuels and be “reasonable” about drilling for oil and gas. God save us from Mitt!

cartooner on October 17, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Romney still rejected it.

The key takeaway.

If you are honest as a conservative you will see that Ed here is participating in the same hackery that we despise of the MSM.

Throw out a meme out there knowing the folks that do not like Romney will take it and run with it BUT missing out on the point of above!

He rejected it. Romney is a businessman and very intelligent he is not going to do anything to our country that will affect our economic power because he understands that a strong economy provide for a strong military and a strong military provides freedoms for us to exercise our other freedoms.

BUT continue to bash Romney and buy into what even conservative blogs and FOX et al that make you think Romney thinks he should just receive the coronation as he does not believe this at all.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Truth doesnt evolve, but science always evolves. And its idiotic to claim otherwise.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 10:30 AM

This is just stupid to say Swamp Yankee. What you see as truth today could change tomorrow when you learn a little bit more about something. Truth does evolve.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 10:41 AM

The key takeaway.

If you are honest as a conservative you will see that Ed here is participating in the same hackery that we despise of the MSM.

It is in what he wrote, there was no hackery involved. It is fair to bring this up, and now is the time. Romney now says he is for drilling and nukes. Is he for the one’s in Mass and off its coast? I don’t know, he hasn’t said. If he is for these things, but not in some places, he needs to say so.

cozmo on October 17, 2011 at 10:48 AM

This is just stupid to say Swamp Yankee. What you see as truth today could change tomorrow when you learn a little bit more about something. Truth does evolve.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Wow, Just wow.

Now conservatives, in their animosity towards Romney, don’t even believe in absolute truth anymore. Relativism is a foundation of neo-marxist thought.

Science is what we understand using the scientific method. It evolves. Truth, as most Christians and conservatives understand it, is absolute. There is right and there is wrong.

Self-destructive Romney hate knows no bounds.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 10:49 AM

The country elected a guy with no record the last time, and now we’re expected to vote for a guy who changes his position from his previously stated record just because he’s not Obama and claims to be a con-repub. Puleeze.

Kissmygrits on October 17, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Republican supporting Romney are like suicidal. Not only will he NOT get the base to come to vote for him and because of that have a very low probability of winning, but if he did win, while it would certainly be better than Obama winning, a Romney administration would be a disaster for the Republican party, just as bad or worse that W’s second term, or Bush 43′s term.

We now have so much proof that Romney is NOT even close to holding conservative principles on the economy, the environment, foreign policy, and social issues that anyone still wanting this guy to win the nomination either wants Obama for a second term or wants the destruction of the Republican party, or is a person that for whatever reason just cannot be discerning when it comes to empirical facts

We only have a few choices, 1.) get Cain to go away for a week or so with John Bolton, Andrew McCarthy, Sarah Palin, Mark Steyn and Mark Levin…. 2.) or get Newt to go to an ego deflating seminar and learn how to handle the personal crap that will be thrown at him.

Of the people running, only Newt and Cain can have a high probability of defeating Obama and also having some semblance of a conservative administration. Bachman could have, but she, along with Santorum got on this gay fetish that just makes them look silly. Santorum’s problem now is that he had decided to make the same mistake that Pawlenty made, and that is to put forth the persona of Mr. Crabby

georgealbert on October 17, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Think about it. Why is Ed reporting on a story that was known last election AND was anywhere depending on when you look at the “story” it was from 6-9 years ago?

All to smear Romney. People know who Romney is and what his excellent qualifications are, however, we are waving the flag for Cain, without knowing other than surface information you can obtain from Wikileaks, his policy stances on foreign policy, terrorism, troop reductions/increases, debt reduction, Middle East policy, etc…he glazed over these issues on CNN but we still do not what he believes. His 999 plan has not been seriously looked at but I know there are economists looking at what they can to see if would work for the country. I believe I read earlier today that Cain now admits that some rates would rise and people would pay more.
Do not get me wrong here, seriously, I like Cain and his style and the way he handles himself and will vote for him if he is the nominee BUT I do not think he is ready nor has the organization to run for POTUS.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Romney still rejected it.

The key takeaway.

If you are honest as a conservative you will see that Ed here is participating in the same hackery that we despise of the MSM.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Romney ultimately rejected what his own hand-picked liberal advisers recommended, about the same time he was having other “conversions” in thought toward more conservative outward appearance. Romney had a lot of such convenient conversions.

The issue is not whether or not he instituted the policy – it is that he hand-picked liberals to develop the policy in the first place. That he sang support for the policies before, once again, flip-flopping. Add this to Romneycare, and his many, many other flip-flops from previous liberal positions and his failure to ever fight for a single conservative principal, and no honest conservative can claim Romney is a conservative. Where was Romney in the fight against Obamacare? Where was he during the debt ceiling debate? Where was he on entitlement reform or the Ryan plan? Where has he been on immigration? I can take the relative silence on these issues by other candidates who have not been running for president for the past 5 years. But it is difficult to understand how someone who has been running for president can be so absent on the most important issues of the day and still try and claim to be a leader.

You can argue he is right-of-center and our best chance to win against Obama (I don’t agree with that), but it is dishonest to claim he is conservative based on his record. I love the people who argue “he was always conservative but was in a deep blue state”. Well, so we are supposed to take your belief that he is conservative over his actions and statements from the past? Is that it? You have faith that he is really conservative despite his MA charade? And we are supposed to accept it on faith also?

It’s one thing to claim that Romney is a good candidate for the general election and would be a better president than Obama. I may disagree with that for various reasons, but it is an honest argument. To claim Romney is a conservative is simply not supported – in fact is belied by – the facts.

there is a large difference between being a republican and a conservative. Romney is a republican, not a conservative. That may be enough for some people, but is not enough for many of us.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Think about it. Why is Ed reporting on a story that was known last election AND was anywhere depending on when you look at the “story” it was from 6-9 years ago?

Gee, talking about what someone did during their one term of elected office when that person is running for President is somehow now a big conspiracy? What are we allowed to discuss in reference to Romney? Only things he has said / done in the last year since pretending to move rightward? How convenient for Romney.

Don’t you find it odd that your argument is that it is somehow wrong to discuss Romney’s actions as governor of MA?

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Wow, Just wow.

Now conservatives, in their animosity towards Romney, don’t even believe in absolute truth anymore. Relativism is a foundation of neo-marxist thought.

BS, you are using truth in the argument for AGW. There is no truth known. All of it, on both sides, is still just hypothesis. I am all ready to vote for Romney if he gets the nomination, but things like this will make me do it more to get rid of Obama than support of Romney. He does have a history of this.

cozmo on October 17, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Dick Lindzen believes in AGW. Call him all the names you call Romney. Its so ironic and thickheaded to point to him, when you dont even understand him.

He’s oppose to alarmism.But he does not believe that AGW is a hoax.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 10:33 AM

Sorry pal, nice try….no I take that back, a pathetic attempt.
Show me the links that Richard Lindzen thinks we are the cause of any global warming…
Here is his most recent essay…from this past January.
Please, don’t use the “he admits it”, you know that we are talking about he alarmists, that the change in any temp. is due to human activity…of course, every time you breath out, you have an “effect”, it is whether that effect is measurable or if it is impactful.
Now read it and understand, you have been duped…

Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Kissmygrits on October 17, 2011 at 10:49 AM
georgealbert on October 17, 2011 at 10:49 AM

You get upset because a Governor asks some people on his staff (from a liberal state) to look into some GW and emission reductions, as ANY great knowledgeable executive would, and after reviewing everything REJECTED the proposals!! And you all are upset??!!? I see who is now voting in our party and wonder why we are in the mess we are in today.

Romney was fine for Rush, Coulter, Steyn, Levin, DeMint, Heritage Foundation, National Review, etc etc last time and NOTHING has changed in Romney’s stances and now you all cannot stand the guy. Great! Continue to think that way and we WILL have another four years of Obama.

Romney if elected last time would have fixed America’s crisis and we would not be in the mess we are in today.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Science is what we understand using the scientific method. It evolves. Truth, as most Christians and conservatives understand it, is absolute. There is right and there is wrong.

Self-destructive Romney hate knows no bounds.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Richard Lindzen says different…so he is right, and you are wrong.
There is no reason to be alarmed, no reason to change our energy programs, or create new policies to limit CO2…it is politically driven, and you have been sucked in.
Tell me, what will it take to prove to you that you have been fooled?
Bernie Maddoff, it took years for his people, and finally a court case to show he was scamming them.
Tell us what it takes…NASA manipulating temperatures? No, that didn’t do it…how about scientist falsifying results, no, that didn’t do it…just what does it take to convince someone like you?

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3