Chris Christie Skeptical That Global Warming Is Caused By Humans

WASHINGTON -- New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has developed a reputation for endearing political bluntness. But comments he reportedly made about global warming on Tuesday afternoon do seem a bit out of tune with a state that remains, generally, progressive on environmental matters.

During a town hall meeting at Toms River, the governor reportedly said that he was skeptical that humans were causing the earth to warm. There are no quotes accompanying the AP piece, save for a note that Christie says "more science" is needed to convince him. But Christie's office provided the Huffington Post with his full remarks early on Wednesday:

Mankind, is it responsible for global warming? Well I'll tell you something. I have seen evidence on both sides of it. I'm skeptical -- I'm skeptical. And you know, I think at the at the end of this, I think we're going to need more science to prove something one way or the other. But you know - cause I've seen arguments on both sides of it that at times - like I'll watch something about man made global warming, and I go wow, that's fairly convincing. And then I'll go out and watch the other side of the argument, and I go huh, that's fairly convincing too. So, I go to be honest with you, I don't know. And that's probably one of the reason's why I became a lawyer, and not a doctor, or an engineer, or a scientist, because I can't figure this stuff out. But I would say at this point, that has to be proven, and I'm a little skeptical about it. Thank you.

Skepticism of man-made global warming is a big trend in Republican circles these days. And the temptation will undoubtedly be to place Christie's position in the broader context of talk that he's privately eying a run for the Republican nomination for president.

That said, he's expressed modicums of skepticism about global warming in various ways before, though never so brusquely. Last spring, Christie took the state's entire allocation for its global warming fund ($65 million) to help close its budget deficit.

UPDATE: Michael Drewniak, the governor's press secretary, added the following remarks shortly after this story was published:

The Governor believes the effects of global warming obviously can be damaging to the earth, which is why we have to continue to monitor its impact and get further scientific evidence.

Comments

[Boii]

09:46 PM on 11/22/2010

Don't say it Governor! If you don't agree with them they'll make fat jokes at your expense!

[Matt Longpre]

02:00 AM on 11/22/2010

Though there are many variables to natural climate change, there is nothing natural about how exponentially fast the industrialized world is contributing to global climate change.

I can only begin to rage about how people like chris here or John Shimkus became elected officials in the first place. Religious dogma and baseless opposition seems to be the conservative mantra.

We are dependent upon the Earth for survival, not the other way around, we need our public attention on this matter now, not to pull our heads our of the sand just in time to see it all go up in flames.

This planet is not particularly forgiving to species who are parasitic to its environment.

[puffins13]

01:10 AM on 11/20/2010

I'm skeptical about Chris Christie even being a human.

[Dogs And Cats]

01:28 AM on 11/18/2010

Deniers love to talk about the 1970s, before the science (and computer models) were anywhere near as good as they are today. We have satellites and computer models, and all sorts of other data saying the same thing: the planet is warming. The fact that some scientists in the 1970s were wrong says nothing about what we know today.

CO2, as taught in any credible science class, is a greenhouse gas. That means it absorbs infrared energy being emitted from the earth. That causes net warming. Feedbacks can only partially catch up and in some cases amplify the warming. CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas, but it is an important one because we are increasing it, while the others are more stable.

Scientists don't just look at one model when projecting future trends - they look at a group of them. The consensus is clear - the globe is warming. Just because some talk show host says it ain't so doesn't mean that we haven't reached a consensus on the trend in the scientific community. There's a few outliers but they are cherry picking data and many work for industry.

Every indicator on the planet - glacial retreats on every continent, tree rings, bird migrations, shortened winters, which shows up in crop bloom info, points to warming. Aren't Republicans interested in their own credibility? It is going to be harder and harder to run away from the facts (and switch which facts you hang onto).

[Publicola]

08:04 AM on 11/18/2010

D&C: "Deniers love to talk about the 1970s, before the science (and computer models) were anywhere near as good as they are today."

Deniers also love to imply that the scientific consensus back then was that global cooling would bring a new ice age, which is patently false - even then more scientific papers predicted global warming.

http://www­­.youtube.­c­om/watch­?v­=XB3S0f­nOr­0M

[jimboy71]

05:51 PM on 11/18/2010

One paper, picked up by Time magazine, and the rest...as they say...

Beggars the imagination, really.

[MinerSam]

09:46 PM on 11/17/2010

What else is new.

The is a guy who truly knows that he's working for the Gas & Oil Potty.. where 1/2 of his fellows who ran for President from there said they do not even believe in evolution.

[JazzyJim]

04:17 PM on 11/22/2010

You got that right. Won't be long before the water and land in New Jersey becomes like the toxic air. And this behemoth is cause for half of that pollution.

[stop the spin]

01:56 PM on 11/17/2010

Is human industrialization causing climate change?

The climate was cooling for more than 30 years, prompting the 1970's scientific community to famously declare we were heading into an ice age due to global cooling. If human industrialization is the root cause of climate change, why were temperatures consistently cooling during an era of unprecedented indutrialization? When the "sky is falling" global warming gang can answer that question with anything approaching intelligence then I'll be much less skeptical of the "chicken littles" myself.

[jimboy71]

05:23 PM on 11/17/2010

You know what would be nice. Reading the thread before commenting. So that we don't have to regurgitate the same debunking of these undead comments that won't die. Please read the thread.

[Exusian]

08:57 PM on 11/17/2010

"why were temperatures consistently cooling during an era of unprecedented indutrialization?"

Because of unprecedented and totally unregulated emissions of industrial aerosols, particularly sulfur dioxide, which forms droplets of sulfuric acid in the atmosphere, which reflect incoming sunlight back out to space, and black carbon soot, which simply blocks incoming sunlight.

Look up the keywords "global dimming".

[RIGHTmama]

08:25 AM on 11/17/2010

Chris Christie for 2012! This guy could kick some 0webama b0oty!

[gallon]

09:34 PM on 11/17/2010

Trolling and spamming. No scientific content here. Move along folks.

[dhhh]

08:45 PM on 11/16/2010

Chris remember those dinasours who were found with fresh food in their stomachs??? Because they were instantly frozen. The same fate may await us.

[Publicola]

11:51 AM on 11/17/2010

Are you an evolution science denier too, dhhh?

[dhhh]

04:49 PM on 11/17/2010

Hundreds of Mamouths were found quick frozen. That is a fact.Are you so foolish that you cant accept fact.

[Publicola]

08:49 PM on 11/17/2010

Dhhh: "Hundreds of Mamouths were found quick frozen"

Your story is morphing, dhhh. Mamouths weren't dinosaurs, and where did your 'fresh food in stomachs' claim go?

Also, the link you cited does not support but instead DEBUNKS your freshly-morphed claim...

[dhhh]

05:23 PM on 11/17/2010

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_2.html

[Publicola]

08:50 PM on 11/17/2010

You didn't even read your link, did you.

[Jan Moore]

03:40 PM on 11/16/2010

Christie isn't a scientist, so why is his opinion relevant? He is only using it for political capital in the future. People who use this crisis clearly for their own political gain have no credibility.

[DocSkull]

08:36 AM on 11/17/2010

"Christie isn't a scientist, so why is his opinion relevant?"

Because he's a policy maker.

[Jan Moore]

02:03 PM on 11/19/2010

More like a dictator.

[chimes]

03:29 PM on 11/24/2010

Al Gore isn't a scientist either and no one has used global warming more for personal financial gain and for political gain, than himself and the dems. So what's your point?

[Jan Moore]

10:01 PM on 11/29/2010

Typical. Can't face the truth of his motives so use a comparison that is poltically partisan. So what's your point? You're then agreeing that Christie is using this for political gain. Thanks. And excuse me, but Al Gore is closer to being a scientist regarding this than Christie will ever be.

[acheapmom]

08:47 PM on 11/15/2010

I remember the 1970s "Global Cooling" days...when people proposed dusting coal on the ice caps so they could absorb more solar heat.

Am thinking his skepticism on "global warming" is better than his politically correct statement.

The science is not all sorted out yet...Gotta sift through the falsified science to find what is truth...
-----------------------
"Signed" A carbon based human who thinks "zero population growth" is a Scroogelike poisonous idea

[Publicola]

03:20 PM on 11/16/2010

ache: "I remember the 1970s "Global Cooling" days..."

Science denier talking points never die, no matter how many times a stake is driven through their hearts.

"In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M

[she343]

02:31 PM on 11/23/2010

Totally disagree with you but say you ARE correct--what will happen?

We will pay slightly more for electric service until prices start to drop because of mass production and innovation (think cell phones/computers) It's all electronics.
Our homes will be less drafty-better made possibly slightly smaller.
More food will be locally grown-fresher and mostly organic to save fossil fuel used as fertilizer and pesticides.
Medical bills will decrease-less asthma,sick house syndrome,mental retardation due to mercury poisoning etc.
We will have more sources to choose from for electric--solar gets too expensive,get a windmill, big energy cost too much-go off grid
Terrorists will have less scary targets
Other countries will not a huge bargainingn chip to sway pols. or become such attractive targets for military solutions.
Less polutted water and soil--happier/healthier enviroment for all.
We will probably drive less--and spend less time in traffic jams.

And if the scientists are correct????

[MGhamma]

12:21 AM on 11/14/2010

Anyone interested in the facts should go to the Nasa site and research the GISS temperature data.

Pay particular attention to the surface temperature ANALYSIS.

Then you'll see for yourselves that SoCal cherry picks the graphs that "support" her conclusions.

Not suprising.

[Kernos]

02:26 PM on 11/13/2010

Just further evidence that politicians, especially lawyers, are too ignorant and naive to be making decisions that effect the earth and mankind.

[SoCalHotOne]

02:07 PM on 11/13/2010

All you post are personal attacks and childish insults. I post facts and data, and encourage everyone to do their own research. Readers here can make up their own minds.

Cooling in Darwin, Australia
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501941200004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Adelaide
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501946720004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Harare, Zimbabwe
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=156677750005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

And here's a website they can use to pull up all known temperature records for the entire world.

http://appinsys.com/

[Publicola]

06:17 PM on 11/13/2010

There SoCalHO goes again - citing a science-denier website (appinsys.com) that has repeatedly been demonstrated to her to mislead via cherry-picking of data.

SoCalHO: it is called "global" warming. So if it is real it should have occurred everywhere."

Q: Why can't science deniers understand even the concept of mathematical averages?

A: Because they are science deniers, of course.

[gallon]

06:33 PM on 11/13/2010

Did you also lecture your teachers in science class? Actually I doubt you made it that far. And no that's not a personal attack, just my assessment. You apparently have heard nothing, learned nothing in this thread. Yet you continue to post up the very same spam that has been explained to you, by actual climatologists, to be invalid.

You are knowingly and willfuly spamming. Flagged. HP what about it? HP send me a pm if you need details.

[Dogs And Cats]

01:51 AM on 11/13/2010

Among scientists (not those paid by industry) there's no debate that adding CO2 to the atmosphere leads to net warming. Some suggest that there's negative feedback mechanisms built into the atmosphere. To extent that they exist, they only exist to a point. For example, more snow in the Arctic, or Greenland, or the alpine might offset *part* of the warming, but not all. There are positive feedbacks too, such as the release of methane, also a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere due to the thawing tundra.

Fact is, we've had several decades to watch global warming in action and what we're seeing is a retreat in glaciers just about everywhere. It's not just about snowfall, but nighttime temperatures which have been climbing as well, making it hard for snow cover to sustain throughout the year (leaving extreme heat waves aside for now, which we've also seen).

Deniers are going to look for one excuse after another. Their arguments aren't event consistent. One denier will mention urban heat island and the next solar cycles, and the next conspiracies. Fact is, if you take the most basic science course, you'll learn that infrared heat doesn't escape into space as readily when greenhouse gases, CO2 among them, are increased. It's basic stuff.

[James Mangan]

10:41 PM on 11/15/2010

What industry are you talking about? The carbon trading industry? Have you heard of Maurice Strong? He's the one who invented this whole idea of man-made global warming and he's also the one making trillions of dollars off of it. He's in China right now, advising the government on how to make money off of it. Give me a break. Talk about selective in your arrogant judgement!

[gallon]

09:54 AM on 11/16/2010

False. You are off by about a hundred years. The concept has been around since about 1896 or so. Twas a Nobel winning scientist.

You sir are spammiing and trolling. Very shameful.

[jimboy71]

12:50 PM on 11/16/2010

"trillions". You do know there is NO SUCH THING as a trillionaire (in US dollars, anyhow)?

Seriously.

[Rooster Coburn]

01:00 AM on 11/13/2010

The belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic ( man-made ) Global Warming is more akin to a religious cult than it is to hard science. Just Google "global warming hoax" and see for yourselves.

[gallon]

01:13 AM on 11/13/2010

How about if we just listen to career degreed Phd's in climate science. Among themselves the issues of basic science are settled. I'll take my science from scientists, thank you very much. Try your schtick on a wingnut site, you'll have them lighting torches.

[Rooster Coburn]

01:21 AM on 11/13/2010

'SoCalHotOne' is the resident expert on the global warming craze here. Why not ask him?

[gallon]

01:34 AM on 11/13/2010

Rooster you make no sense, and I doubt that you even perceive why.

[Kernos]

03:51 PM on 11/14/2010

Read the scientific literature not the blogs, journalists, bloggers, politicians... Analyze and weigh the data for yourself. Do this for air and ocean temperature, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, ice data, ocean pH, climate data, etc, look at it from a variety of directions and you will soon understand the reality of anthropogenic global warming and you will see for yourself that the preponderance of evidence supports as you say, "Catastrophic Anthropogenic ( man-made ) Global Warming" AND other negative environmental effects.

It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of science. The question is no longer If, but How Bad the effects will be.

[dhhh]

01:40 AM on 11/17/2010

Also one of the questions is not if this all unfolds but when...The effects could be many...The outcome could be grim...Certainly it doesnt seem that the response is coming in time to change much.Lets say the massive heat wave that struck Russia this summer will have very bad effect on their crops.But that is just scratching the surface.It seems we have been using Global warming when it really is climate destabilization.