Rick Santorum: 'Tell That To A Plant, How Dangerous Carbon Dioxide Is' (VIDEO)

On the eve of a pair of crucial Southern primaries, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum turned his attention to the environment.

The former Pennsylvania senator focused on energy development in Mississippi, prodding voters to trust his judgment.

"The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is," he said.

Santorum has used the environment as a talking point in criticisms of both his GOP rivals and President Barack Obama's administration. Back in early February, he targeted Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich for allegedly buying into the "bogus" science of man-made climate change. At the same time, Santorum placed himself as a candidate who never believed in the "hoax of global warming."

A few weeks later, Santorum shifted to Obama's energy plans, telling a group of Ohio voters that global warming is not climate science but "political science."

Entering Tuesday's Alabama and Mississippi primaries, Romney holds a 454-217 delegate edge over Santorum. In total, 1,144 are needed to secure the GOP presidential nomination.

Comments

[maxwells]

03:09 PM on 03/25/2012

Evidently, Santorum opposes his Pope:

Pope urges international agreement on climate change
John Thavis, Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI urged international leaders to reach a credible agreement on climate change, keeping in mind the needs of the poor and of future generations.

"I hope that all members of the international community can agree on a responsible, credible and supportive response to this worrisome and complex phenomenon, keeping in mind the needs of the poorest populations and of future generations," the pope said."

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104646.htm

And the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Science:

http://catholicclimatecovenant.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Pontifical-Academy-of-Sciences_Glacier_Report_050511_final.pdf

"We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home."

What papal encyclical allows "good catholic" Santorum to cherry-pick what he likes from the Vatican's views?

[El Justiciero]

02:54 PM on 03/25/2012

OMG, Santorum is so mindbogglingly stupld.

[eaarth2]

05:18 PM on 03/21/2012

Oh what a wonderful genius Santorum is- or is he? The paleo climate records of excessive C02 in the atmosphere show a vastly different story then what this pathetic man thinks- and those records are not pretty.

[nateman10]

08:42 AM on 05/03/2012

Climate records only help prove what he is saying, you just have to look at a larger time frame. Over millions of years the earth's hot to cold fluctuation bounces up and down if you graph it. The Earth's CO2 levels and temperature have cycled for a long time. Global warming is a natural phenomenon, and the "Bogus Science" is about humans being responsible. He is not saying that global warming is not occurring, but that humans are not the main cause. Not to say we don't contribute, but global warming happens with or without humans on the Earth.

[soulbest32]

03:41 PM on 03/20/2012

I suggest that Santorum watch OASIS EARTH on the Smithsonian channel.He will surely change his mind and might bring his antiquated science knowledge to current,hopefully.

[StephenBP]

07:21 AM on 03/20/2012

Santorum represents the worst of conservative backwardness on science. On issue after issue, Santorum and his brand of scientifically backward Republican makes decisions based on money, political power, and religion. Their distrust of science is medieval. When Ronald Reagan's PR people somehow managed to pressure NASA engineers to launch Challenger despite engineering rules not to launch in cold weather, they showed their lack of respect for and understanding of the rules of engineering, the facts of science, and the laws of nature. Disaster resulted.

Sadly, there are Republican/conservative scientists who are getting very frustrated with the GOP and the tea party but can do nothing to dissuade them from their suicidal, anti-science, money-above-all-else- tendencies.

[nateman10]

09:20 AM on 05/03/2012

I find it interesting that you think denying Global warming as a man-made crisis helps anyone make money or get power. The global warming market is one of the largest emerging industries. Also, people label you a skeptic for believing that global warming is a natural phenomenon. Even if you base that opinion on scientific papers you have read and by comparing the data yourself. I don't see how that can help gain power, if anything it makes it harder; and to say that's not science just because we come up with a different conclusion based on analyzing the data? And how exactly does religion play into this? Did Noah have to build an ark cause people wouldn't convert to hybrids? Religion has no bearing on this discussion.

[winnerwinnerchicken]

01:37 PM on 06/18/2012

Oil companies.

[Publicola]

09:27 PM on 03/19/2012

MIT climate scientist -- and poltiical conservative -- Dr. Kerry Emanuel, in refererence to the climate science denial of Santorum and other GOP leaders:

"It makes me feel to some extent disgusted with politics and to some extent ashamed to be an American."

After that interview was posted online Emanuel has received "frenzy of hate" emails:

----------------------
MIT climate scientist receives frenzy of hate mail...

Emails contained “veiled threats against my wife,” and other “tangible threats,” Emanuel... director of MIT’s Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate program, said... “They were vile, these emails. They were the kind of emails nobody would like to receive.”

“What was a little bit new about it was dragging family members into it and feeling that my family might be under threat, so naturally I didn’t feel very good about that at all,” Emanuel said...

Climate Depot [blog] posted Emanuel’s email address.

Emanuel notes that in the full video, he went on to explain that the Republican candidates “have either been misled, in which case it’s not great to be part of the political system where candidates for the president of the United States could be so misled on such an important issue, or they were dishonest, which [is] equally bad in my view: How could we live in a country where candidates are being dishonest about an issue of such importance?”

http://tinyurl.com/74larxf

[Publicola]

08:41 PM on 03/19/2012

National Academy of Sciences (2010):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. 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...

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782 

[nateman10]

08:55 AM on 05/03/2012

Facts are proven incorrect all the time. Science has always catered to where the money is coming from, and the broad public opinion on science is very well know for being incorrect time and time again. Even know people are just finally excepting string theory as probable when IT was a "skepticism" only not that long ago.

[Publicola]

08:40 PM on 03/19/2012

Addressing part of curryandwebster's (aka jdey123?) Gish Gallop*:

curryandwebster: "7. No logical scientific explanation has been presented to explain why warming has been flat since 1998."

As has been explained to jdey123 and other climate science deniers innumerable times that claim is false.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Temperature Evolution 1979–2010

When the fluctuations in temperature over the last 32 years... are accounted for [including El Niño and La Nina], it becomes obvious that there has not been any cessation, or even any slowing, of global warming over the last decade (or at any time during this time span). 

In other words, any deviations from an unchanging linear warming trend are explained by the influence of ENSO [El Nino/La Nina], volcanoes and solar variability.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear curryandwebster,

What is your scientific education and profession­al experience that somehow leads you to believe that you understand more about climate science than the experts at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences?

[jbtex]

10:58 AM on 03/19/2012

If Science isn't about concensus but about evidence then why would people try to form a consensus here, in a forum of non-scientists?

[DocSkull]

11:37 AM on 03/19/2012

Science doesn't advance or benefit society without consensus. The point of public discussion is to inform voters so that they will encourage their representatives to establish sensible policies.

[curryandwebster]

10:32 AM on 03/19/2012

9. Climate quacks want to cherry pick trends which over the 1978 to 1998 period, and don't want to talk about the warming rate over the entire temperature record, because it's not alarming.

10. The 97-98% comes from a paper where the authors used google scholar and decided for themselves who agreed and disagreed with the manmade global warming hypothesis. Surveys show a lower concensus. Science isn't about concensus but about evidence. Many climate quacks are attracted to climate science for ideological reasons, and for the government funded employment schems which require little proof to sustain them.

11. In terms of sinister characters, Dr Peter Gleick has admitted deception, most people believe that ClimateGate proves that climate quacks are trying to suppress the truth, irrespective of how many government whitewash inquiries run by fellow climate quacks there are.

[alteredstory]

02:43 AM on 03/20/2012

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate_science_history.php

There's every peer reviewed paper published since 1824 on climate science. Do the math yourself.

[curryandwebster]

10:32 AM on 03/19/2012

On the skeptics side:-

1. The CO2 level was 280ppm in 1750 and is 393ppm now, so basic physics says it takes centuries for an increase of 1C to occur.

2. We've warmed 6C since the last ice age, flora and fauna have adapted to the changing environment.

3. Warming has been essentially flat since 1998. The temperature rate of increase is 1/4 of that of the 1978 to 1998 rate over the period that global temperatures have been available.

4. Antarctic sea ice is increasing.

5. The sea level rise is only 3mm per year (30cm per century), mankind can easily accommodate rises as low as this.

6. There has been no feedback effect. Computer models only predict alarming rates of warming because they've been programmed to include a mythical feedback effect. Computer models have all been useless at predicting near-term temperature rises. It is illogical that they improve with time and the projections supplied in the IPCC reports show less not more certainty over time.

7. No logical scientific explanation has been presented to explain why warming has been flat since 1998.

8. 1998 was 14 years ago, in 2012, we have a rising solar cycle, a diminishing La Nina, 14 more years of CO2 emissions yet Winter 2011-2012 was colder than Winter 1987-1988.

[DocSkull]

11:47 AM on 03/19/2012

Your answers are the following: 1. circular argument, 2. many Pleistocene species went extinct, 3. you don't know how to read a trend line, 4,. East Antarctic is relatively stable but the West is shrinking & you are confusing regional with global, 5. no studies suggest that sea level rise can be easily accommodated, 6. greenhouse effect is centuries-old textbook science, 7. same as #3, 8. confusing local, short-term with global, long-term.

[alteredstory]

02:46 AM on 03/20/2012

Your first argument is rather strange - the increase in CO2 has mostly been over the course of the 20th century, and mostly in the second half of that century. Most of the increase in temperature happened AFTER CO2 levels began rising rapidly...

[curryandwebster]

05:25 AM on 03/20/2012

There are 2 significant warming periods in the temperature record (1910 to 1940 and 1978 to 1998). If the latter warming period was caused by CO2, what caused the former, and why did the warming period end in 1998? And don't go on about 1998 being an outlier, there are plenty of graphs which show that warming has ended, even Hansen has reluctantly admitted it in his analysis of 2011, and picking a trend from most years from 1998 shows a flat or cooling trend.

[curryandwebster]

10:31 AM on 03/19/2012

Let's see. On the climate quacks side:-

1. Basic physics says that we can expect a 1.2C increase in global temperatures due to CO2 doubling from pre-industrial levels.

2. We had warming of 0.2C per decade between 1978 and 1998.

3. Arctic sea ice is melting

4. Sea level is rising.

5. Although, warming hasn't been alarming yet, when the feedback effect kicks in, we'll have accelerated warming.

6. Computer models predict accelerated warming.

7. Skeptics cherry pick a period starting 1998 which was an unusually warm year.

8. 97-98% of climate scientists believe in manmade global warming.

9. Skeptics are funded by the fossil fuel industry or sinister right wing/libertarian organisations.

[DocSkull]

12:04 PM on 03/19/2012

A few corrections:

1. The IPCC's 2007 report suggests that it is likely to be 2.0-4.5C or about 3C. Other researchers have slightly different numbers, but they all predict significant warming.

2. There is no reason to look at only those two decades.

5. Warming is already alarming and it is having global effects.

8. Since isn't a belief system, it is something scientists know to be true.

[jbtex]

10:24 AM on 03/19/2012

Water is pretty harmless too, Rick. Why don't you stick your head in a bucket of it for about 5 minutes?

[StephenBP]

09:14 AM on 03/19/2012

Charles Keeling started measuring and plotting the steady rapid rise of carbon dioxide in the late 1950’s.

Santorum and many of the denialists aren’t up to that level of science yet.

Svante Arrhenius calculated the amount of heat that CO2 would trap in the atmosphere way back in the 1890’s, and was remarkably close to present calculations. The fossil fuel companies started their denialism campaign shortly after that! Santorum and many of the denialists aren’t even up to the 1890’s level of science yet.

John Tyndall measured the ability of carbon dioxide to absorb infrared radiation and help warm the earth back in the 1850’s!!! Santorum and many of the denialists aren’t up to that level of science yet.

Joseph Fourier calculated the amount of energy needed to keep the earth from being a frozen ball in space way back in the 1800’s and realized that the earth's atmosphere kept the earth warm. Santorum and many of the denialists… you know the drill. They aren’t up to even the science level of the time period 50 years after the American Revolution.

Most of us know that carbon dioxide is a waste product of animals that plants feed on, as they feed on other animal waste products. Denialism feeds on ignorance of science.

Santorum may say that global warming is a hoax, but he has offered no proof of it, and he does not have the science background to legitimately question the science involved.

[curryandwebster]

10:11 AM on 03/19/2012

Basic physics as calculated by Arrehenius, Tyndall etc. says 1.2C increase in global temperature once CO2 has doubled from it's pre-industrial level - 280ppm, pre-industrial meaning the level around 1750. Currently, it's 393ppm in 2012. Clearly, it takes centuries for the earth to warm by 1C, not the 0.2C per decade claimed by the climate quacks.

[jbtex]

11:01 AM on 03/19/2012

If it is so clear to you, why is it not clear to actual client scientists?
Do you interpret your own EKGs?

[StephenBP]

12:03 PM on 03/19/2012

The climate is warming, as predicted by climatologist for many years. The trend may fluctuate over time, the estimates of rate of change may vary based on increasing understanding of what is going on, but the overall temperature trend in my lifetime has been up and I somewhat old. I don't know what a climate quack is but you certainly are obsessed by them. Believe it or not, your constant use of the phrase "climate quacks" probably doesn't improve your credibility. But I suppose you think that it shows people that you are passionate about the topic or maybe you think that you can browbeat people into submission. Whatever.

As Abraham Lincoln said, "When a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him- at least, I find it so with myself; but when misrepresentations become very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him."

I think you have moved into the gross and palpable part of the spectrum. Do you get extra pay from Heartland for using certain phrases repetitively?

Have a nice day.

[nateman10]

09:02 AM on 05/03/2012

He believe the idea that global warming is man-made is a hoax. I don't think he doesn't believe that planet is slowly warming. There is a Huge difference there. He is saying it's a political marketing campaign. It helps people win elections and sell cars.

[jbtex]

08:57 PM on 03/18/2012

People that think the universe is only 5000 years old are naturally weak on science.