« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rick Santorum Knows How To Fix Global Warming.

In case anyone was wondering, Global Warming is a problem. It is a problem because people are poorly informed by the media and believe the “settled science.” This science consists of “known facts” designed to alarm us into making economically stupid decisions that give way too much power to dictatorial bureaucrats. But there is a way for us to save our beleaguered planet.

GOP Candidate Rick Santorum leads the way to environmental sanity and clearer air below.

SANTORUM: I believe the earth gets warmer, and I also believe the earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man through the production of CO2 which is a trace gas in the atmosphere and the manmade part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all of the other factors, El Nino, La Nina, sunspots, you know, moisture in the air. There’s a variety of factors that contribute to the earth warming and cooling, and to me this is an opportunity for the left to create — it’s a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm. It’s been on a warming trend so they said, “Oh, let’s take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it’s getting warmer,” just like they did in the seventies when it was getting cool, they needed the government to come in and regulate your life because it’s getting cooler. It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life, and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.

(The Rush Limbaugh Show)

Voters may not understand that Michael Mann cheated like The Old Chicago Black Sox on how he employed principal components analysis to build the Hockey Stick Curve. They may not get that Cap and Trade is actually worse than a Carbon Tax because it forces people to have to beg political leaders to issue them more carbon credits. Thus it acts to give corrupt politicians more chances to influence peddle.

But they do understand that governments invent new “disasters” and single out Big Business as a villain any time they want to ram some unpopular power grab down an electorate’s throat. Voters will get Santorum’s message because it tracks the history of progressive mendacity to advance the cause of meddlesome big government. Rick Santorum has the cure for Global Warming. If he successfully debunks its GOP supporters, his campaign will serve the American economy quite well.

COMMENTS

  • powertothepeople

    stands to be the biggest scam ever perpetrated on mankind. Problem is, even with all the exposures of fraud within the gurus of the GW science, it is a faith to those stupid enough to buy into it. They will no more give up their faith in GW then I will mine in Christ.

    Good luck to Rick, hope he makes headway in this battle.

  • izoneguy

    Like him or not but Rick Santorum is right.

    The other candidate running??? Not so much….

    Mitt Romney: No apologies on climate change stance

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56580.html#ixzz1On8KecQK

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      He stands firm on AGW, but now promises not to do anything about it! A genuine rock-o-jello that, Mitt Warmny!

      • Jim Tomasik

        that was funny.

        Maybe he can replace ObamaCare with WarmnyCare.

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

          suggested Warming Mitts!

          • msctex

            n/t

      • gpclaw

        He should run in a primary challenge against Obama. It might be the only shot he has at the Presidential nomination of a major party.

  • http://www.ArchitecturalShots.com mdyou

    The disaster would be President Mitt Romney. The only worse disaster would be a second term for Bambi.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      or any other Warmist. Belief in Global Warming as a political issue is a tell to me regarding any politician. it tells me that is individual would gladly trade the freedom and well-being of our citizenry in return for more political power. Politicians like “Holy” Joe Liebermann who compose these freedom-sucking climate bills every year our the enemy of a decent and functional democracy.

    • gpclaw

      I’m failing to see the big distinction between Mitt and Barry.

      • ardvarkmaster

        One’s black, one’s white. Same as in the 2008 Presidential Election.

  • http://www.canzolino.com frankcanzolino

    I find that there is a lot of confusion about global warming. People are always saying that they are concerned about the climate, when they are actually talking about short-term weather.

    Next time you are challenged on global warming, ask the person, “What is the perfect climate you think we should achieve?” See how they answer. 65 million years ago, there was more bio-diversity than there is now, and the climate was much warmer. There are several other epochs that the same thing can be said. On the flip side, there are the cold spells. Who is to say what climate this planet should have?

    Only arrogant people would claim to know. These same people are usually trying to lock us into some utopian concept of what they think is best for the planet, admirable, but impossible to know. Without a doubt, since the 1960′s we have improved water quality across this planet. We have removed air pollution as a concern. Everything in America is cleaner, and our leadership has spread across the planet. We need to use our precious resources wisely, but the alarmist would prefer that we not use the Earth at all, and that we all live in caves. But we can’t start a fire – that would use trees and pollute.

  • gekster

    Why don’t they figure them in.
    The biggest contribiture to carbon in the air is volcanoes.
    Land based and the ones going constantly under the sea.
    One medium valcono can put more carbon in the air in one day than all of the cars in the US in one year, (my closest calculations, they put tons of carbon out.) but they never factor that into thier equations.
    If someone does, I havn’t heard of them yet.
    Amount of carbon in the air is 0.038%
    That is equivalent to 38 cents of a ten dollar bill. (if my math is correct).

    • cwilson

      And, for the pedantic, it was just reported a few days back that the CO2 concentration peaked at 394.97ppm, the “highest ever” level (actually measured, as opposed to inferred from ancient ice core samples or whatnot).

      So that’s 0.0395%, or 0.395 of a penny out of $10.00.

      • gekster

        Trying to get it into cents to get a feel for it, and make it more understandable.
        A vastly small amount, isn’t it?

  • freemanja1991

    As I’m reading this my professor is babling on about global warming

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      When they do so. Then they leave the air-conditioned building, get int heir air-conditioned, fuel-powered car, go home to their air-conditioned house and enjoy their carbon footprints that would make Shaquielle O’Neal feel foot-envy.

      • freemanja1991

        This one does ride his bike and scares us with his too short of shorts.

        • gpclaw

          Can your Professor point to any experiments that have been conducted, that 100% support any of the computer models in which the hypothesis of global warming is based?

          Next, you can let your professor know what real science looks like, but mentioning that CERN spent billions to build the Large Hadron Collider, in order to prove the existence of one sub-atomic particle that exists for a few millionths of a second. By comparison, conducting a study to confirm/deny AGW shouldn’t be so hard.

  • sundaycombo

    And so it is with global warming deniers. While it’s understandable that a Santorum candidacy that has gained absolutely no traction in 3 months would embrace such a view to get attention, the eventual nominee in 2012 would be wise to avoid going down that same road. Why? Lets take a look.

    Birthers. Truthers. Vince Foster. The Amero.

    All have the same validity to the voters we need to take back the White House in 2012 as global warming denial. Since Romney was the ONLY Republican candidate to beat Obama in yesterdays ABC/Wash Post poll, it would seem he knows that too.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      You call people who demand evidence-based science “deniers”. Maybe you agree with the jerk in Australia who wanted to force them all to get tattooed.

      • sundaycombo

        I would be more than happy to replace/exchange “denier” with “conspiracy theorist”. If that also offends then I apologize.

        What I won’t apologize for is focusing on winning back the White House in 2012 and identifying candidates and/or issues that are political losers. For example, Medicare reform is a great idea thats unfortunately politically unsalable at this time. Global warming denial isn’t even a great idea that politically unsalable.

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

          http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

          Currently, the entire ediface on which the scintific edifice supporting The Greenhouse Effect has being demolished. If Global Warming is “settled science” and a “Known fact”, bring forth the temperature record that supports it.

          In the past 32 years, I’m seeing +0.13 degrees Centigrade. That gives you +0.0041 degrees Centigrade/year. That would mean a trend of +1 degree Centrigrade every 245 years. Not too bad for a planet that was experiencing a mini-ice age as late as the 19th Century.

          • gpclaw

            I’m still waiting for one, just one, alarmist to provide an example of an experiment, that yields a predicted result based on AGW theory.

            If AGW theory has any validity, then it should be possible to predict that a specific increase in CO2 would increase the average global temperature by a predictable amount. The debate really is that simple.

          • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

            I’ve heard some intelligent justification for modeling data, (e.g. you want to model what a tornado will do, rather than grow them and find out the hard way), but I’ve never heard anything that would excuse the fact-free modeling performed by much of the current Climate Science community.

            I’ve worked with models such as Virtual Proving Ground and COCOMO. When this stuff is done in a legitimate manner, it undergoes a process called VVA. A lot of people sepnd hours pawing over the model code and putting in ridiculous hypotheticals to try and break the model or make it spew gibberish results under various conditions.

            Also, models are all intitially grounded on verified empirical data that is shared w/ all stakeholders. (The COCOMO people almost lost a huge USG contract for being to covetous of their actuals).

          • gpclaw

            I think computer models are a great tool for developing a hypothesis, but at some point, real science has to take place.

            In September, 2010, the British Royal Society issued a “Summary of the Science” related to AGW. Concerning computer models, they wrote:

            However, limitations of computer power mean that these models cannot directly represent phenomena occurring at small scales. For example, individual clouds are represented by more approximate methods. Since there are various ways to make these approximations, the representation can vary in climate models developed at different climate institutes. The use of these different approximations leads to a range of
            estimates of climate sensitivity, especially because of differences between models in the response of clouds to climate change.

            If different computer models can’t even produce the same results, than why should we hold the theory to be true?

        • glaucon

          So which part of the “global warming” debate is a conspiracy?

          Is it the part where the so-called unbiased scientists have fudged their data in an attempt to get the results they want?

          Or is it the fact that connected players like Enron and Goldman Sachs have pushed for the “solution” of a climate and carbon credit system where they stand to make billions of dollars?

          But since you labelled these very common place conflicts of interest as “conspiracy theories”, we better ignore them and go along with whatever solution that the central planners, leftists and cronies can come up with. It doesn’t matter if it is a waste of time, futile, counter-productive, creates huge bureaucracies, destroys the economy, and redistributes wealth into the hands of Obama’s cronies… we better all just go along with it.

    • MF

      Unless I’m misreading you. I don’t see how, but since I’m not familiar with your ID, I’ll grant you the benefit of the doubt.

      Let me be clear, just like Santorum was, and like the other commenters here:

      GLOBAL WARMING (or man-caused global climate change or any of the other various monickers) IS A FARCE!!!

    • skorrent1

      Particularly “lovable” when you have the conspirators’ own emails describing how they will pull it off.

      It may be that in the general election the “voters we need” cannot be educated as to the scientific fraud that is AGW, but in the primary, any GOP candidate who panders to that scientific ignorance by even hinting that government control of CO2 “pollution” may be desirable should be rejected.

  • gmscan

    His interview on Rush was great! I especially appreciated his riff on foreign policy. How many Repub candidates would bother mentioning Honduras as one of the most cynical moves of this administration? He was articulate on every issue.

  • johnt

    Sun, what Sun?
    What makes this titanic lie work is the modern need for belief in causes. Of course there are scammers like Mann, people who see a media/government fraud and hop on the gravy train. But what continues to propel this ignorant fiction is the psychic craving for systemic reform, the reinforcement of commitment to issues, fulfillment and opposition, and of course a Bad Guy or Guys. Especially that.
    It used to be God, now it’s Gaia and Politics.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      Who cares about the stinkin’ climate. Warm-Mongers are all about getting convoluted, centrally-planned economic plans passed. The science is just an excuse to get their hands on other people’s property.

      • johnt

        supposed climate control is for the suckers, or as I point out, the hopelessly but needfully faithful. The players need the suckers, the media delivers. In any case we have a sizable portion of a degraded population for whom the question of power never crosses their minds. They have been trained to numbness.

      • gpclaw

        Also face a debt crisis? I’m sure it has nothing to do with increasing revenues to government coffers.

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

          I can’t tell you what the r^2adj is on that, but I’m guessing it’s positive and close to 1.0.

  • The Moat

    If you believe in Global Warming, you want to control the level of greenhouse gasses, including CO2.

    However, no regulation/treaty/pact/etc. adopted by the believers has ever given credit for a reduction in existing CO2. The reason is that they don’t truly care about reducing the levels of CO2; they care only about controlling the (economic) activities that produce CO2.

    If the concern was genuine, there should be incentives and offsets available for activities (like planting forests) that affirmatively reduce CO2. Rather, efforts focus only on methods like carbon taxes which do nothing to directly reduce CO2; but serve only to shift money from private industry to government, and power fun sovereign nations to international bodies.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      1) The only places that I’ve seen being able to claim any meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions were the US from 2007-2011 and Germany right after reunification. Our reductions were during a stretch that included higher unemployment and lower economic activity due to the housing collapse. The Germans got their decline by taking credit for shutting down a couple of hundred obsolete and useless East German plants of various sorts. The only centrally planned actviities that have significantly reduced a nation’s carbon footprint that I know of have been disasterous economic contractions.

      2) A lot of people are fairly genuine and do things like planting trees and selling offsets. If this issue were a personal concern of yours, I’d be more inclined to trust the sort of people that were physically planting the trees (you can see it go in the ground and verify their good intentions) than the ones who sell the offsets.

    • patryott

      The equatorial rain forests, according to NASA imaging, produces about one third of global ethanes. Trees use oxygen when there’s no sun, that’s why they call it ‘photosynthesis.’ They also use it all winter long when they have no leaves, so planting more trees only increases CO2 output. Ain’t science fun?

      Are you a Patriot?
      www.Pat-Ryott.com

      • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

        But not producing Co2. There was a study put out in the early 1980′s that described how trees could contribute to the smog in LA through Ethane production. It was scandalous at the time.

      • glaucon

        “The equatorial rain forests, according to NASA imaging, produces about one third of global ethanes. Trees use oxygen when there?s no sun, that?s why they call it ?photosynthesis.? They also use it all winter long when they have no leaves, so planting more trees only increases CO2 output. Ain?t science fun?”

        Yes, science is fun, That’s quite a theory, do you have any good sources (links) that we can look at?

        • glaucon

          “Trees are a zero sum game …so planting more trees only increases CO2 output.”

          It is a zero sum game if you burn them after they grow. They take in more CO2 than they put out, unless they aren’t growing. (And they also put out O2, which comes in handy). The carbon they take in is used for growth, and it is a component of their mass. Thus, they take in carbon, and it is held in the wood. If you burn them, you release carbon (and some CO2) again.

          The burning of forests releases hundreds of years of stored carbon. Growth of new forests will take in a lot of CO2. Perhaps the process of burning forests and not replacing them should be more of a concern.

  • billinsuwanee

    Never forget it was Santorum that gave us six more years of Arlen Specter in 2004. Santorum backed Arlen Specter so he could remain the #3 Senator in GOP heirarchy.

    “Despite lots and lots (and lots) of rhetoric to the contrary, Santorum’s economics are moderate bordering on loopy. Think of his support for the prescription drug entitlement that he’s been trying to walk back. Think of his pandering support for corn-based ethanol. And that’s no virtue in these times.

    Then there’s Santorum’s lack of political acumen. Think of his Ricky-come-lately efforts to succeed Bill Frist as Senate majority leader. He started late and even then proved not very adept at counting his support.

    And Santorum’s decision to support Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the 2004 U.S. Senate primary (quite fair to say to preserve his No. 3 position in the GOP Senate hierarchy) was not what we’d called “principled.” He hung out Mr. Toomey to flap in the wind, which gave Pennsylvania six more wretched years of Snarlin’ Arlen, who, in a self-preserving act of party-switching, showed his true Democrat colors.

    Mr. Toomey, of course, got the last laugh. Democrat Bobby Casey Jr. thumped Santorum in his 2006 re-election bid. It was a double-digit dumping. Toomey won Mr. Specter’s seat last fall.”

    Read more: Santorum’s run: It won’t last long – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_740709.html#ixzz1OnPBbnT6

  • skorrent1

    Let me repeat three simple statements that put things in perspective.

    By definition, all the carbon, and other material, in “fossil fuels” was once contained in living plants and animals.
    Those plants (directly) and animals (indirectly) obtained that carbon by extracting CO2 from the atmosphere.
    To claim that some catastrophy would befall the Earth if we put a tiny portion of this carbon, as CO2, back into the atmosphere where it came from is, as Rick says, “patently absurd”.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    coming out of Obama’s yapper.

  • cathrin

    Mr Rick can do more good in regards to helping by just keeping his big yapper shut! There is no such thing as global warming. China Knock Earth off axis with big dam dam. Japan he Mother Earth move its Island paradise a feet from where it used to be. Now can you call all that Global warming? I’d call it Mother Earth & God being a little upset off with us little ants on the planet. My own opinion. Sensor or not just an opinion.

  • cathrin

    Can all the volcano activity be blamed on this also. Some one better get a grip. The Earth is moving on its own, without us stupid humans that think they are responsible for everything, we are not! Now maybe that dam dam in china because of weight thru things out of wack, but most people are more focused on flossing in the am than the real big stuff.

  • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

    I was in the car for a short errand and happened to flip the tuner to Rush; he was interviewing someone whose voice I couldn’t identify, but as I kept listening, I found myself pumping my fist, going “YESSSS!!!” time and again. I thought to myself, “WHO IS THIS GUY???!!! He is batting 1000!” I caught that he was a presidential candidate, and I couldn’t for the life of me figure out who it was — but whoever it was sounded like that FIGHTER — that intelligent, articulate fighter — that I have been looking for and waiting for.

    At last it was time for a commercial break, and I got to find out who it was: RICK SANTORUM.

    Well done, Senator, well done.

    I promptly went to his website, and made a donation. Don’t know if he’s “the one” or not — but I sure do want his views to be out there getting all the media play they can.