Mitt Romney On Climate Change: 'The World Is Getting Warmer... Humans Have Contributed'

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) -- Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

The former Massachusetts governor fielded questions on topics ranging from the debt ceiling to abortion on his first full day of campaigning for 2012 Republican primary nomination.

Romney leads opinion polls in New Hampshire by a wide margin, and is among the top contenders nationally to win the Republican primary.

But the candidate lost the publicity battle on Thursday when his campaign launch in New Hampshire was overshadowed by Republican star Sarah Palin, who swooped in as part of her East Coast bus tour to dominate local media coverage.

In addressing climate change and energy policy, Romney called on the United States to break its dependence on foreign oil, and expand alternative energies including solar, wind, nuclear and clean coal.

"I love solar and wind (power) but they don't drive cars. And we're not all going to drive Chevy Volts," he said referring to electric cars.

The United States can not go it alone in attempting to trim emissions levels and give a free pass to countries such as China and Brazil, Romney said. "It's not called American warming, it's called global warming," he said.

Software developer Michael Hillinger, 60, of Hanover, New Hampshire, posed the climate change question.

Romney's answer provided plenty of wiggle-room, Hillinger said, but "he is taking a more forthright stand than any of the other candidates."

At an event in Manchester last week, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, also running for president, said that climate change is "the newest excuse to take control of lives" by "left-wing intellectuals."

Asked to lay out a specific plan for the economy, Romney outlined seven points but referred to his 2010 book "No Apology" as containing his policy ideas in details.

"It's a good book. I'll give you a discount," he quipped.

Romney skirted a question about whether doctors who perform abortions, or women who have abortions, should face criminal sanctions if Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. law that protects abortion rights, were overturned.

"I am pro-life," he said, adding that decisions on abortion law should be returned to state jurisdiction.

Abortion is one of several issues on which Romney's critics accuse him of flip-flopping over the years. In the past, including during his race in 2002 to be Massachusetts governor, he has said he supports the substance of Roe v. Wade.

(Editing by Greg McCune)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Comments

[Chris 1]

04:50 PM on 06/21/2011

Romney was a fool but who really follows the IPCC that doesn't realize it's conflicted liberal think-tank in drag?;

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/is-the-ipcc-conflicted-let-us-count-the-ways/

[Publicola]

02:21 PM on 06/12/2011

National Academy of Sciences, 2010
------------------------------------------------------------

What is Known about Climate Change

Science has made enormous progress toward understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels.

Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf

[moderaterep]

09:45 AM on 06/16/2011

...again, climate change is happening. This due to us inhabiting a living planet. There is sufficient evidence that this is occurring globally. There is a difinitive LACK of empirical date to indicate that this is caused by human intervention or through astrophysics (orbital fluctuations in relation to the sun, axial tilt, etc.). The vast amount of research done on climate change, global warming, or whatever, has been performed by researchers funded from entities with a vested interest in proving that fossil fuel emissions are responsible. THAT broke the first cardinal rule of scientific theory.

[ClimateHawk]

10:13 AM on 06/16/2011

There is plenty of evidence that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming.

You are just inventing excuses instead of looking at it.

[Publicola]

11:15 AM on 06/16/2011

moderaterep: "...again,... There is a difinitive LACK of empirical date to indicate that this is caused by human interventi­on"

Yawn.

...again,

The following are scientific facts:

* The Earth has warmed significantly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years if not far longer.

* Greenhouse gases including anthropogenic CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases the average temperature of the Earth would be below freezing.

* Satellite measurements demonstrate that increasing atmospheric CO2 has increased heat energy retention in the atmosphere­.

* Atmospheric CO2 has increased ~40% since the dawn of the fossil fuel era to the highest level in at least 800,000 years, if not far longer.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increased atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanation­ for said atmospheric CO2 increase.

* There is a strong correlation­­­ between said atmospheric­­­ CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogenic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.

[Richard2]

11:32 AM on 06/11/2011

Already, the cost of what Lord Turnbull calls the Government’s ‘global evangelism’ is plain to see: with households paying an extra £200 a year in hidden green charges on their gas and electricity bills and power companies being forced to scar the countryside with 10,000 ineffective wind turbines.

The cost to the fragile economic recovery could be even greater, with advisers warning David Cameron that the move to a low-carbon economy will cost 1 per cent of GDP, or £13billion a year.

Worse, we are the only country in the world to have imposed on its economy a strict, anti-competitive and legally-binding requirement to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2025.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2002316/Britain-afford-green-madness.html#ixzz1OyuNKnd5

[ClimateHawk]

01:54 PM on 06/11/2011

The cost of allowing global warming to continue is astronomical.

Or as Ben Franklin said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

And now a question for you:

Are greenhouse gases created by burning fossil fuels?

Yes or no?

[Chris 1]

11:40 AM on 06/14/2011

Usual simple minded claims hawk, consider the issue of IPCC corruption more seriously;

http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/14/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-iv/#comments

overconfidence = fraud for a political purpose. It was the usual "ends justify means" in people who largely are government oriented and sympathetic to eco-regulation.

Do people on the NY times editorial board ever think they are anything but "objective"??? Do you realize how insane the posture is? The IPCC is like that only the delusion is 10x greater. Most of the public sadly cares about economic or science details, that's how it got this out of hand and irrational.

[moderaterep]

09:37 AM on 06/16/2011

Your question is misleading Hawk: Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No.
The proper question is not whether greenhouse gasses are created by the internal combustion of fossil fuels, but whether it is enough to impact global climate.
Answer: insufficient empirical data. If evidence were that conclusive, one way or another, this debate wouldn't even be happening.

[ReedYoung]

01:57 AM on 06/12/2011

Oh my Zeus! Half a pound sterling per day?!

an extra £200 a year in hidden green charges on their gas and electricity bills

That must have been what caused the global financial crisis!

[jimboy71]

11:19 AM on 06/14/2011

Touche!

[Chris 1]

02:18 PM on 06/10/2011

It's important to remember that eco-extremism and rabid politics associated with agw alarmism are a secular religion. No surprise where the atheists line up on average with their politics.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/62162

[Robco1]

03:41 PM on 06/10/2011

"Why are we arguing the issue? Challenging vested interests as powerful as the oil and coal lobbies was never going to be easy. Scientists are not naturally aggressive defenders of arguments. In short, they are conservatives by training: never, ever risk overstating your ideas. The skeptics are far, far more determined and expert propagandists to boot. They are also well funded. That smoking caused cancer was obfuscated deliberately and effectively for 20 years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of extra deaths.

We know that for certain now, yet those who caused this fatal delay have never been held accountable. The profits of the oil and coal industry make tobacco’s resources look like a rounding error. In some notable cases, the obfuscators of global warming actually use the same “experts” as the tobacco industry did! The obfuscators’ simple and direct motivation – making money in the near term, which anyone can relate to – combined with their resources and, as it turns out, propaganda talents, have meant that we are arguing the science long after it has been nailed down. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: “Have they no grandchildren?” http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/25/jeremy-grantham-everything-you-need-to-know-about-global-warming-in-5-minutes/

[chrisd3]

10:54 AM on 06/11/2011

From your article:

"[T]he idea of a "consensus" about catastrophic warming rests on the fact that 2,500 scientists participated in parts of a U.N. panel report that they were not asked to endorse as a whole."

"Swish" is the sound we hear as the last shred of credibility goes down the drain.

The idea of consensus does not rest on anything to do with the the IPCC report. It rests on the fact that there IS a consensus. And not just a consensus but an overwhelming consensus. Survey after survey shows this. Any review of the literature shows this. The fact that every national science academy on Earth agrees on AGW shows this.

What a joke.

[ReedYoung]

02:07 PM on 06/10/2011

Yes, there is consensus on water vapour feedback, not just on carbon dioxide's direct warming effect.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html

A dishonest person might see that "Equilibrium climate sensitivity" ranges from 2.1 to 4.4 degrees Celsius (Table 8.2), and "that differences in feedbacks contribute almost three times more to the range in equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates than differences in the models’ radiative forcings" and decide to try to tell you that no consensus exists.

That would be a lie, plain and simple.

As mggwa has correctly recalled, "positive feedbacks" and "negative feedbacks" take their name from their arithmetic signs, not from whether they are "good" or "bad" effects. A "positive feedback" adds to the change caused by the driver (in this case, CO2), and a "negative feedback" subtracts from the change caused by the driver, so "positive feedbacks" are quantified with positive numbers, the same sign as the drivers, and "negative feedbacks" have negative numbers, because their effect is subtracted from the effect of the drivers.

Now, look at that IPCC data table again, and this time try to find a negative number.

As you can see, everybody qualified to offer an opinion on the scientific facts agrees that water vapour is a positive feedback, meaning that it adds to the warming effect of carbon dioxide.

In AOGCMs, the water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest feedback, with a multi-model mean and standard deviation for the MMD at PCMDI of 1.80 ± 0.18 W m–2 °C–1, followed by the (negative) lapse rate feedback (–0.84 ± 0.26 W m–2 °C–1) and the surface albedo feedback (0.26 ± 0.08 W m–2 °C–1). The cloud feedback mean is 0.69 W m–2 °C–1 with a very large inter-model spread of ±0.38 W m–2 °C–1 (Soden and Held, 2006).

This much is settled science:

The water vapour feedback is positive. There is scientific consensus on that. Qualified experts continue to try to peg its exact quantity more precisely, but its sign is not legitimately in any question whatsoever.

Anybody who says otherwise is lying.

[Chris 1]

02:27 PM on 06/10/2011

So if antone disagrees with you they must be a "lying"??

That's great science reason and reflects the sad state of our world. You sight the IPCC as if these aren't a politically contrived summary committee that didn't even reflect the submitted working groups reports.

You know more than Dr. Lindzen for example?

The concept of longer-term climate "equilibrium" is basic agw alarmist fraud, it's never existed. As to the impacts of cluods for example there is no consensus and measures are even poorer than existing surface data sets which are also cherry picked and flawed by the political needs to "prove" warming.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html

[ReedYoung]

02:38 PM on 06/10/2011

Ha! No, I probably do not know more about meteorology than Lindzen. What I know is that Lindzen has sold out to oil and coal, and hasn't been a legitimate scientist for years, since the first nickel of bribery he accepted from the coal and oil industries.

I also know that the only support for his wacky "iris" hypothesis that he has ever been able to contrive in any paper that passed peer review has been conclusively shown to rely on egregiously cherry-picked data.

I understand he was a competent scientist in the 80s, but now he's nothing but a fraud and a shill.

[Robco1]

03:38 PM on 06/10/2011

Hiya Chris 1! Still haven't addressed why we have a memo from Big Tobacco's PR firm discussing how they plan to export their denial strategy to Big Oil, then we have another memo dated four years later from Big Oil's trade association outlining the very same strategy. Any comment, or are you going to keep top-posting your talking points and hope you can avoid the exposure?

Here are the links. Again.

The 1994 APCO Worldwide memo entitled "Thoughts on TASSC Europe:" http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html

The 1998 memo from API called "Global Climate Science Communications Plan:" http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Science_Communications_Plan_%281998%29

Then maybe you can tell us why Frank Luntz was prepping the GOP in 2002 on talking points that sound like they were tailored to the same plan? http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001330.php

We're waiting...

[Chris 1]

12:57 PM on 06/09/2011

Another example of how agw alamism gets cooked;

http://www.masterresource.org/2011/06/lindzen-choi-special-treatment/

IPCC+Peer review bias = Climate Con game for the idiot eco-fascist agenda on a global basis.

[ReedYoung]

02:03 PM on 06/09/2011

The resource you're referencing is bogus.

http://www.whois.net/whois/masterresource.org
Registrant Name:Institute for Energy Research Registrant
Organization:Institute for Energy Research
Registrant Street1:2929 Westheimer #612
Registrant City:Houston
Registrant State/Province:TX
Registrant Postal Code:77098
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:[phone]
Registrant Email:[e-mail]
Admin Name:Robert Bradley

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Energy_Research

The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.
IER has been established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit group. It is a "partner" organization of the American Energy Alliance[1], a 501c4 organization which states that it is the "grassroots arm" of IER.[2] ... AEA states that its aim is to "create a climate that encourages the advancement of free market energy policies" and in particular ensure drilling for oil is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in US coastal waters.[2]

In 2009 IER run a campaign on "green jobs" attacking the expansion of renewables energies. IER commissioned three studies on renewable energies and green jobs in Denmark, Germany and Spain.[3] These studies by different think tanks were than promoted by IER and other free market think tanks in the US but also used in Europe.[4] The study on Germany e.g. was translated into German and taken up by German media - without mentioning that the study was financed by IER with its close business links. The German institute that wrote the study (called Rheinisch-westfaelisches Institut fuer Wirtschaftsforschung, RWI) didn't acknowledge the funding from IER until they were challendged by investigative journalists.[5]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/ReedYoung/un-climate-talks-kyoto-deadline_n_871707_91539888.html
And I do not enjoy repeating myself.

[Robco1]

05:45 PM on 06/09/2011

This is brilliant. Thank you!

[ClimateHawk]

02:50 PM on 06/09/2011

Have you figured out if burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide?

[Publicola]

12:30 PM on 06/09/2011

American Association for the Advancement of Science (December 2009):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has reaffirmed the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society.

“The vast preponderance of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities, and the need to take action is urgent,” said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1204climate_statement.shtml

[ClimateHawk]

12:44 PM on 06/09/2011

Clearly beyond a reasonable doubt.

[jimboy71]

10:16 AM on 06/09/2011

No shame, eh?

Flagged.

[jimboy71]

10:22 AM on 06/09/2011

With thanks to Robco, explain the following:

"The PR firm's memo outlining how they plan to take the astroturf attack on science model they developed for big tobacco and sell it to big oil and coal, then export the model to Europe: http://tob­accodocume­nts.org/pm­/202423359­5-3602.htm­l

The 1998 API memo showing how big oil's trade associatio­n sells the very same model to its stakeholde­rs: http://www­.sourcewat­ch.org/ind­ex.php?tit­le=Global_­Climate_Sc­ience_Comm­unications­_Plan_%281­998%29

The 2002 memo from Frank Luntz showing how he sells it to the GOP: http://www­.ewg.org/p­roject/lun­tz-memo-en­vironment

George Monbiot's discovery of how PR uses online operatives to spread their memes and disrupt honest discourse: http://www­.monbiot.c­om/archive­s/2010/12/­13/reclaim­-the-cyber­-commons/

And the recent revelation that software bots are being deployed for the same purpose: http://www­.desmogblo­g.com/are-­climate-de­niers-and-­front-grou­ps-polluti­ng-online-­conversati­on-denier-­bots"

[jimboy71]

06:04 PM on 06/08/2011

Why do people continue to deny science?

Because they don't understand it, and the media is partly to blame. From a recent Time article about new elements on the periodic table (214 and 216, respectively):

"Which all goes to show, saying "It's science," might not be as definitive a statement of truth as you thought.

That's because "science" means "knowledge" and not "truth".

That's because science is a METHOD and not a FACT.

No WONDER people are confused. It's the method that is definitive.

[hogtown]

08:09 PM on 06/08/2011

"the media is partly to blame"
42 million refugees caused by climate change last year and it appears buried on page 21 of the Globe and Mail and other news outlets. FAIL.

Oil and coal can lobby all they want. They can protect their interests all they want. But they wouldn't get anywhere in terms of public perception without a lazy and complicit mainstream press.

"U.S. Press Coverage of the Climate Crisis: A Damning Betrayal of Public Trust
Personally, given my own professional background, I don’t really see the captains of big coal and big oil as the primary villains. They’re doing what they’re paid to do – bring us abundant and affordable energy while protecting their industries – albeit with deplorable and dishonest means. To me, the primary villains are our news outlets whose negligence and indifference are bringing us to the brink of catastrophe. "
Ross Gelbspan
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=7743&method=full

[ILoveFiction]

05:38 PM on 06/08/2011

Well, I could never vote for Mitt Romney.

All the good candidates were taken away May 21.

You should have seen it. It was amazing. I'll never forget.

[jimboy71]

06:06 PM on 06/08/2011

Did you have to wear the eclipse glasses to see it without burning out your retinas?

[ILoveFiction]

06:08 PM on 06/08/2011

Yes, of course. Everybody knows that.

[silverwolf13]

07:05 PM on 06/16/2011

Unfortunately, not so. It seems that God looked over the entire Republican Party and could not find anyone to rapture. Nobody in the Democratic Party either. I hear that there are a few Greens missing. I was so hoping that we would get a respite from extreme idiocy at least until October.

[ClimateHawk]

05:34 PM on 06/08/2011

Odd, how Chris 1 cannot say whether burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide or not.

Does this mean the science isn't settled? Must we wait for him?

[Terry]

08:57 AM on 06/09/2011

Chris is a really good example of the typical denier. They have no idea about climate change, have no idea about historical changes of any kind really. No perspective at all.

They just dont like the remedies. There will be some state control involved, but we all hope it to be as small as possible. Our anti-pollution laws do not allow me to drive any stupid polluting engine I want. It is a slight imposition on my freedom for the sake of giving us all good air to breathe. Sensible remedies like that are possible.

Chris can just talk and complain to himself.

[Publicola]

03:15 PM on 06/08/2011

National Academy of Sciences, 2010
-----------------------------------------

What is Known about Climate Change

Science has made enormous progress toward understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels.

Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf

[Publicola]

04:47 PM on 06/08/2011

Chris1: "NAS = Another Eco-fringe enclave"

lol..

Chris1: "I post charts below that clearly indicate statistica­l cooling by most sources"

As I demonstrated below, your claim that the earth has cooled over the past 15 years is a lie.

Chris1: "Climate is complicate­d"

Like, duh.

Climate science is of course not beyond the National Academy of Sciences to understand, however, so instead you dismiss them as "Another Eco-fringe enclave".

You science deniers are truly a joke.

Do you understand the science necessary to understand climate science, Chris1? Never mind for the moment atmospheric physics and linear regression, do you even understand even basic, high school-level statistics?

[jimboy71]

05:29 PM on 06/08/2011

Hey Chris, what are your credentials such that you feel superior to the National Academy of Sciences?

Your langage is bordering on the obscene, and it is offensive.

Flagged.

[Ohiobiologist]

01:33 PM on 06/08/2011

An ostrich doesn't really bury its head in the ground but the climate deniers, the oil and gas industry, and most Republicans do. They think if they shout loud enough they will convince us there is no global climate change. Has anyone noticed the significant increase in TV ads for the oil and natural gas industry? And there is no such thing as clean coal. I am afraid it is going to take a significant global disaster for these deniers to accept climate change and at that point it may be beyond the tipping point for planet Earth. There are disasters occurring right now but something more devastating will be the only thing to make people wake up and take notice. Pathetic.

[jimboy71]

05:32 PM on 06/08/2011

Apparently the little beach party in the Gulf of Mexico, and the highly novel experience of setting your tap water on fire isn't enough for them.

[Ohiobiologist]

01:24 PM on 06/08/2011

This won't last long if he thinks it will cost him votes.

[Chris 1]

07:26 AM on 06/08/2011

There is no co2 "signal";

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/08/the-climate-swoosh/#more-41297

It's a political theory not science from the start.

[ClimateHawk]

09:10 AM on 06/08/2011

Burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide.

Agreed?

[gallon]

11:56 AM on 06/08/2011

You are still referencing wattsupwith that, the blog site whose purpose for existence is to disprove global warming. Zero credibility, both for wattsupwiththat the blog site and for you the denier.