Mitt, you may join Donald and Newt in this group over here.

No, no, no, no, no Mitt, you can't say that. YOu have to reject all science and believe what you are told to believe by right wingers or else you are a RINO. Gosh, why do us libs have to tell you that?
Next thing you know old Mitt is going to be saying that the stimulus created jobs.

Kiss 2012 goodbye, Mittens. You might as well endorse evolution. Or Medicare. herm

Kiss 2012 goodbye, Mittens. You might as well endorse evolution. Or health care. herm

This also in:

Mitt Romney was later stated as saying: "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west." Republicans everywhere scramble to keep up.

Smart move by Romney. Yeah he may have jeopardized the far rightwing nutjob vote, as exemplified by certain posters here on the DR. But by displaying this degree of scientific and intellectually honesty he makes himself a more appealing candidate in the general election if he gets the nomination. And frankly, I think he probably will.

Mitt, you're running as a Republican? You've got to be kidding. With "Republicans" like you we don't need Democrats.

1870 Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere is about 290 ppm (parts per million).

Mean global temperature (1850-1870) is about 13.6°C.

2009 Level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 385 ppm.

Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 14.5°C

What's sad is the fact that stating something so simple is considered bold and risky.

Here's hoping he wins the nom. He's not a great candidate but at the very least he's not a complete nut job.

this degree of scientific and intellectually honesty he makes himself a more appealing candidate in the general election if he gets the nomination

Scientific and intellectual honesty don't win you the republican nomination.

It is pretty clear that we contribute to warming when warming is taking place.

Again, the debate is "how much"? Don't expect this to be too controversial.

Mitt reckons that it's better to lose with dignity than win by genuflecting before idiots. Long road ahead of him. Next up evolution. Then healthcare. Then tax hikes. Then.....

#10 | Posted by Dr_Icepick at 2011-06-03 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag: Idiot award

Most people believe the position that Romney puts out there. Surely we contribute... the question is "how much"?

Interesting. I wonder how the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, anti-science Right is going to react to this?

Most people believe the position that Romney puts out there.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2011-06-03 03:59 PM

Or he might say he believes in evolution.

I just hope he doesn't start talking about the Angel Moroni to some of these Evangels.

The still burn witches in some parts of So Carolina.

He's done. What an idiot.

He's an idiot for telling you libs what you want to hear?

I haven't spent any time trying to determine who the GOP will nominate but Romney has always been a valid candidate.

I'm not saying he will get the nomination but he won't lose over this comment.

He is fucked now. The cock sucking right will cannibalize him.

#6 | Posted by moder8 at 2011-06-03 04:14 PM | Reply

If Romney wins the nomination we're right back to the old problem of which is the worst for the country. Neither one of these yokels (Obungler and bumbly) is presidential material.

Obamanomics keeping a ball and chain on the economy has helped keep pollution levels down.

he won't lose over this comment.

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2011-06-03 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

He's walking a tightrope. As Mitt likes to say: He will be hanged by the neck with this one.

He will be hanged by the neck with this one.

#23 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2011-06-03 06:28 PM | Reply

And many others.

The only way this hurts him is if another gop candidate marginalizes him for it along with the media.

Otherwise, this position or comment wont matter

A moderator should directly ask the group of GOP candidates that very question at one of the pre-primmary debates. Do you believe that human activity contributes to global warming? If Exps is correct, none of them should have any problem acknowledging that obvious reality. (But does anyone really believe for a single moment that Bachman or Newt actually will do so?)

If Romney wins the nomination we're right back to the old problem of which is the worst for the country. Neither one of these yokels (Obungler and bumbly) is presidential material.

#21 | Posted by matsop at 2011-06-03 06:04 PM

Just curious, matsop,

putting political parties and all past and current Presidential contenders aside for a moment -- if you could choose anyone (other than yourself lol) you'd love to see run for President, who would it be? And he or she doesn't have to be a politician by trade either.

Mitt doesn't have a chance. Never has.

You are sensible about the issue. Many others are not. Those who deny any global warming, and also deny any human involvement, disregard the evidence. Romney made a reasonable and defensible statement.

I should get some carbon credits for the nice pile that I dump in the toilet every morning.

He's an idiot for telling you libs what you want to hear?
#19 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2011-06-03 05:38 PM

Libs love hearing it, though not necessarily from him, and it doesn't mean they will vote for him.

Mitt, you may join Donald and Newt in this group over here.

#1 | Posted by LetUsPrey

You mean the GOP's Group W bench?

Romney made a reasonable and defensible statement.

#29 | Posted by peakrunner at 2011-06-03 07:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Never met a non-RINO Republican.

Crap he was the only one looking reasonable and now is another Al Gore like pig who wants to kill everyone by believing lies and telling you youd better too.

How much common sense does it take to arrive at a conclusion that tripling the population from 2B to 6Billion+ people in 50 years will have a significant impact on many aspects of Mother Nature.

Yet the right wingers that are bought off by religious and business interests that prefer to see the population doubled again in 10 years don't see it. The belief that global weather change is not occurring and has nothing to do with us humans lacks any cohesive evaluative ability.

How much common sense does it take to arrive at a conclusion that tripling the population from 2B to 6Billion+ people in 50 years will have a significant impact on many aspects of Mother Nature.

Dude.

They can't even accept that if you increase the concentration of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect increases.

How much common sense does it take to arrive at a conclusion that tripling the population from 2B to 6Billion+ people in 50 years will have a significant impact on many aspects of Mother Nature.

More than is contained in the GOP.

Since its impossible to identify the actual causes of any climate trends ANYONE PROPOSING TO MANIPULATE THE CLIMATE BEFORE CAUSATION PROOF IS A THIEF OR A DUPE.

And yea caps and bold cause Robson's post is annoying at best as sounds duped into believing the lies. Or worse - sponsored asshat.

ANYONE PROPOSING TO MANIPULATE THE CLIMATE BEFORE CAUSATION PROOF IS A THIEF OR A DUPE

Anyone who denies climate change and cannot defend that position with a valid scientific argument is an idiot or a political hack.

Numerous bullied opinions are not proof just like the earth isn't flat. Taking action on such opionions after bullying them with diss-information is leader-beheading-worthy deadly to the masses. I for one hope not to see that happen here.

#38,39 I've defended my position with valid argument and am not the only one. I have an MSEE what about you? And I have no vested $ other than survival - you?

#37 | Posted by reitze at 2011-06-03 10:30 PM | Reply | Flag: mentally retarded

I've defended my position with valid argument

Where?

I have an MSEE

If I need a building wired, I'll call you.

And just in case we do need to cut carbon I've done something to help that cause. Romney would make the same claim but be lying or stupidly manipulated at best. Just look how that worked out with Bush.

I've defended my position with valid argument
Where?
...
#42 | Posted by Dr_Icepick at 2011-06-03 10:40 PM | Reply | Flag: GOOD QUESTION

MSEE
If I need a building wired, I'll call you.
#42 | Posted by Dr_Icepick at 2011-06-03 10:40 PM | Reply | Flag: PIDGIONHOLER

So a degree like that isn't about wiring buildings but rather a foundation upon which to be a scientist (my case mostly Systems Engineering and Mathmatic Algorithms such as Neural Networks). I've analyzed and solved many things scientifically and got paid for it.

And whatever you wanna call me NFW would voting for Romney with a MMGW lie and remody make any sense - it would be potentially suicidal. Adding an opposing and equally suicidal candidate means the voting system is destroyed via the brainwashing mechanisms (ie: eany meanie mingy mo? or no?). Idiocracy (movie) is a pretty good example of what it looks like to the brains most still posses (I think and hope).

I got into it at #17 and hit em pretty hard.

Yeah, you hit 'em hard alright. Your barrage of barely-coherent boldfaced rants didn't leave a man standing. Jesus Fucking Christ, reitze... you're a goddamn loon.

I've analyzed and solved many things scientifically and got paid for it.

Lol... I'm sure you have, and I'm happy for you. Whatever your exploits, they obviously don't involve anything that concerns climate science.

#47 I don't claim to be a climate scientist. What I do say is that the raw data manipulation scandal casts doubt on their conclusions. Further I've said the root-cause behind the changes is unknown. Then I've speculated that half baked assertions without independently verifiable proof appears more profit motivated by globalists than survival oriented by people.

And yes I consider that loonie - bulling is more so - and sure bold/ranting happens faced with persuading anti-intellectual boot licking idiots about anything (yea that's rant-embellished too - like your asinine posts).

Note Romney's FAITH statement: "Number one I believe the world is getting warmer and number two I believe humans contribute to that,".

Had he said impression instead of believe it could have become a hypotheses for the next part which again is faith... humans... and there's the major problem because our energy production keeps us alive. Improving efficiency isn't the same as a stupid tax scheme to enrich him and his friends while driving gas prices toward $100/gal.

Romney forgot that you have to pander to your base of toothless idiots to win the primary

It sure worked for the Greatest Community Organizer and Race Healer

He's done. What an idiot.

#18 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2011-06-03 05:34 PM

He is fucked now. The cock sucking right will cannibalize him.

#20 | Posted by Legio at 2011-06-03 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag: PROJECTING

Further I've said the root-cause behind the changes is unknown.

What does that have to do with anything?
The root cause of the universe is also unknown.
What is the root cause of gravity?
Nobody has a fucking clue.
Does that mean Newton and Einstein were just in it for the grant money?

Root cause is wholly unnecessary to an valid, functional theory.
The cell theory of life is a foundational principle of biology.
It states "All life consists of cells, and all cells come from other cells."
Nowhere is the "root cause" of cells addressed, yet the theory has stood for centuries and has yet to be supplanted.

Your rationale for dismissing the MMGW hypothesis isn't a scientific one, despite your MSEE degree.
I truly hope you can see that.

Romney, quit now! You're not a stupid man, but making foolish statements like this puts you in the same class as that "dumber than a box-of-rocks" Algore, and you see what it got him? Laughingstock!

It's time to move on. Your presidential ambitions are over.

Danni,

Rejecting the religion of global warming is not rejecting science. People can believe whatever they wish but without provable facts, it is NOT science.

Further I've said the root-cause behind the changes is unknown.

What does that have to do with anything?
if the cause isn't known (sunspots?) then you can't conslusively say its Man Made, let alone reversible without unintended disasterous consequence

The root cause of the universe is also unknown.
What is the root cause of gravity?
Nobody has a fucking clue.
Does that mean Newton and Einstein were just in it for the grant money?
gravity is independently verifiable to all of us, and can be tested to advance our understanding of it. I appreciate both Newton and Einstein for that

#56 my link to non-cell life isn't intended to indicate the primary theory has been supplanted in the mainstreme. It has been for me personally in that realm only because I've written computer software in Matlab that adds life-qualities to computerized machines, especially some Neural Network algorithms (a dozen of them are now patented too).

Those aren't AlGorisms.

I should get some carbon credits for the nice pile that I dump in the toilet every morning.

#30 | POSTED BY FWTHOM AT 2011-06-03 08:17 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

While yes, it is technically a 'petroleum' product, I dont think the Vaseline residue still counts as a fossil fuel.

#49 | Posted by reitze

Romneys a Mormon so he is required to have faith. Its easy for the religious to claim faith in scientific aspects simply because it allows the "thinkers" to do the thinking for them - that way all they need is faith. It makes things a lot easier for the lazy.

Why anyone would even consider voting for this guy, regardless of party, is beyond me.

The only reason the sob ever called himself a republican is because he wanted to be a senator and he thought he'd take a swipe at Kennedy, which he couldn't do as a democrat.

Even leftists know he's a leftist.

If elected, Romney might give Bush and Obama a run for worst president ever.

The global elite, and the left wing eugenics freaks like Bill Gates, Ted Turner, and many others want to exterminate about 90% of the people on the planet. And they intend to use the big lie Global Warming, and humans are a blight on the planet scenario to do so. They have written many papers on the subject.

The global elite, and the left wing eugenics freaks like Bill Gates, Ted Turner, and many others want to exterminate about 90% of the people on the planet.

Corporate farming + food processing = mass malnutrition and disease.
Pharmaceutical medicine = mass poisoning.
Government schools of indoctrination = mass dumbing down
Mainstream media = Department of Government Propaganda
Federal Reserve = mass poverty
Government = war and oppression
Religion = ignorance and delusion

Social Darwinism is very much alive. And ideologues and theists are prey. It doesn't pay to be credulous. It never did.

gravity is independently verifiable to all of us
But CO2's greenhouse effect isn't?

if the cause isn't known (sunspots?) then you can't conslusively say its Man Made
The "cause" of CO2 is quite well understood.
The simplified version goes like this.
CH4 + O2 -> H20 + C02 + energy

People can believe whatever they wish but without provable facts, it is NOT science.

Provable fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Provable fact: We've greatly increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Provable fact: We've greatly increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.
#65 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Greatly? Like hell. Human caused greenhouse gases are an insignificant proportion of natural greenhouse gases. And IF they were significant, they would have to increase to drive global warming. In a long term depression like the one the world is in now, human greenhouse gases would decrease.

When I see politicians devising regulations and taxes on the presumption they can change climate patterns, my bullshit detector starts flashing loud sirens and flashing lights. If it wasn't for the political consequences, the arguments about believing would be meaningless. There is nothing new about climate change.

Human caused greenhouse gases are an insignificant proportion of natural greenhouse gases.
Link? Especially the "insignificant proportion" claim.

In a long term depression like the one the world is in now, human greenhouse gases would decrease.
That's a deceptive statement.
The trend since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution has been ever-increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
The rate of emission has decreased to rates seen about ten years ago.
But emissions themselves are not going "negative."
(And without some unknown sequestration technology, we cannot make that happen.)
It's an accretive process, Ray.