Mitt Romney IS a Member of a Cult: Likely GOP Nominee Asserts, “We Don’t Know What’s Causing Climate Change”

The likely GOP nominee for President is Mitt Romney (going by Intrade Prediction Market).  And he is a member of a cult.

No, Mormonism isn’t a cult. But Global Warming Denial is.

And Romney swore allegiance to that cult this week:

My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.

As TP Green reports:

“I think the EPA, acting in concert with the president, really doesn’t like oil, gas, coal, and nuclear,” Romney said in response to another question. “I really do believe that the EPA wants to get its hands on all of energy and be able to crush it to cause prices to go through the roof.” To applause, he concluded that “the EPA should not be regulating carbon dioxide.”

If it weren’t obvious before that global warming denial is a cult — and a dangerous one at that — the response of the cultists to the Berkeley study has  demonstrated it once and for all — see WashPost: “The Scientific Finding that Settles the Climate-Change Debate” and “Confirms” the Hockey Stick Graph.

Back in June, Climate Progress reported that Mitt Romney said:

I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that….  And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.

Needless to say, flip flops are not unusual where Romney is concerned.  But it’s a mark of cults that those who hang around other members — such as his fellow GOP nominees and the Tea Party activists taking over the party — become more and more indoctrinated.

As HuffPost notes, “Romney’s climate denial puts him in line with most every other contender in the Republican presidential field”:


Herman Cain has called the very premise of climate change “a scam,” while former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has referred to it as nothing more than a “trend,” accusing the left of “taking advantage” of it by creating “a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm.”

Back in 2009, meanwhile, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) argued on the House floor that the very concept of global warming is faulty because “carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of nature!”

In an August stump speech, Texas Gov. Rick Perry took the skepticism about climate change one step further, telling a New Hampshire business crowd that scientists have cooked up the data on global warming for the cash.

“We’re seeing weekly, or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what’s causing the climate to change,” Perry said at the time. “Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed.”

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has become increasingly skeptical of climate change, calling it “the greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years, if not hundreds of years,” in a 2009 interview with Fox News.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) appeared alongside former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a 2008 ad that urged the country to address climate change, but has since switched to denial.

Sadly this is not a small cult.  One GOP “contender”  has tried to leave the cult:

His national poll numbers among Republican voters can now be counted on one finger.

It is a mark of cults that they label their former members crazy.

For those more reality minded, let’s review what we know — our ever-strengthening scientific understanding  — which includes the “settled fact” that the earth is warming.

The evidence that the world’s getting hotter from multiple independent lines of observation is so strong that back in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” — and that word was signed off on by every member government, including the Bush administration and China and Saudi Arabia.  The U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded its 2010 review of climate science, saying it is a “settled fact” that “the Earth system is warming.”  So we know it is warming.

As for the role of humans, the IPCC also concluded:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Last year, Time magazine reported on a comprehensive new review paper of “100 peer-reviewed post-IPCC studies” in an article titled, “Report: The Case for Global Warming Stronger Than Ever” noting:

By looking at a wide range of observations from all over the world,  the Met Office study concludes that the fingerprint of human influence on climate is stronger than ever. “We can say with a very high significance level that the effects we see in the climate cannot be attributed to any other forcings [factors that push the climate in one direction or another],” says study co-author Gabriele Hegerl of the University of Edinburgh.

Indeed, many if not most climate scientists would go as far or farther.  NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt was asked on RealClimate:  “What percentage of global warming is due to human causes vs. natural causes?”  His answer is straightforward:

Over the last 40 or so years, natural drivers would have caused cooling, and so the warming there has been is caused by a combination of human drivers and some degree of internal variability. I would judge the maximum amplitude of the internal variability to be roughly 0.1 deg C over that time period, and so given the warming of ~0.5 deg C, I’d say somewhere between 80 to 120% of the warming. Slightly larger range if you want a large range for the internal stuff.

Absent the increasing GHGs, we probably would have cooled, since

  1. We’ve had a couple of big volcanoes.
  2. We’re just coming off “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.”.
  3. The underlying long-term trend had been cooling (see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds, see figure below).


The more important point is that the rapid increase in the human-driven component of the forcing are increasingly dwarfing the small, slow natural forcings, rendering them increasingly irrelevant (see “Humans boosting CO2 14,000 times faster than nature, overwhelming slow negative feedbacks“).  In the Anthropocene Epoch, humankind’s destiny is in its hands.

Consider two DotEarth posts on “Andrew A. Lacis, the  NASA climatologist  whose 2005 critique of the United Nations climate panel was  embraced by bloggers seeking to cast doubt on human-driven climate change” (Part I and Part II).

Lacis had commented on the Fourth Assessment, “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary.”  The deniers got all hot cool and bothered, writing, “Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic.”  After pointing out the IPCC authors’ response, “Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature,” WattsUpWithThat (aka cult central) wrote, “Simply astonishing. This is a consensus?”

Then Lacis explained exactly what he meant:

Human-induced warming of the climate system is established fact….

My earlier criticism had been that the IPCC AR4 report was equivocating in not stating clearly and forcefully enough that human-induced warming of the climate system is established fact, and not something to be labeled as “very likely” at the 90 percent probability level.


The bottom line is that CO2 is absolutely, positively, and without question, the single most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It acts very much like a control knob that determines the overall strength of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. Failure to control atmospheric CO2 is a bad way to run a business, and a surefire ticket to climatic disaster.

Doh! He thought the IPCC ‘consensus’ was some watered down, least-common denominator piece of wishy-washiness that understates our scientific understanding, which it is.

But the cultists aren’t interested in the science, of course.

Related Posts:

  • How carbon dioxide controls earth’s temperature;  NASA’s Lacis: “There is no viable alternative to counteract global warming except through direct human effort to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level.”
  • NASA:  “We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade” and “there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s.”

40 Responses to Mitt Romney IS a Member of a Cult: Likely GOP Nominee Asserts, “We Don’t Know What’s Causing Climate Change”

  1. Peter Bellin says:

    I never have understood why the EPA wants to drive energy costs up:

    “I really do believe that the EPA wants to get its hands on all of energy and be able to crush it to cause prices to go through the roof.” To applause, he concluded that “the EPA should not be regulating carbon dioxide.”

    Is an explanation ever offered as to why EPA wants to cause energy costs to increase? Does the EPA have a financial interest in the cost energy, generating more profit to the agency when energy costs go up?

    Oh, wait, that reminds me of some other entity…

  2. Insane says:


  3. prokaryotes says:

    Very worring this is, because it makes things much worse.

    Anti science stand, is the worst possible reaction to a potential catastrophic climate change situation.

  4. Merrelyn Emery says:

    Agreed that climate science denial now has the hallmarks of a cult. Their normal trajectory is that they peak and then start to contract during which period they become much more extreme. It could be entering the last stage.

    Anybody still think Obama looks like the worst choice? ME

  5. Peter Mizla says:

    I guess the question here is how low Mitt Romney will fall to be the President of a soon to be collapsed oligarchy.

  6. Jeff Huggins says:

    Four Specific Names and Some ACTION (please!)

    Romney went to Harvard, gained his initial success at Bain, and entered the world stage by heading up the Olympics in Salt Lake City.

    So …

    Drew Gilpin Faust is the President of Harvard University. From what I’ve read, she must certainly understand the reality and gravity of climate change. If not, there are plenty of Harvard scientists who do, and who can help her. She and Harvard should “go public” in urging Romney to understand the reality of climate change and to get real. To NOT do so would be to do a huge disservice to the public and to Harvard itself.

    Steve Ellis is the current worldwide Managing Director of Bain & Company. He’s based in San Francisco. Orit Gadiesh is the current Chairman (Chairwoman) of Bain, based in Boston. Like Romney, she was a Baker Scholar at Harvard B-School. Unlike Romney, she served in the Israeli army. In my view, given the stakes involved and the fact that every human being has a deep responsibility to humankind, both Steve and Orit should “go public” in urging Romney to understand the reality of climate change and get real. Too, of all people, someone from Israel ought to be deeply concerned about climate change and ought to be quite happy to do what’s possible to prompt the world to end its addiction to oil. Bain folks are plenty, plenty smart to be able to understand the reality of climate change.

    Jacques Rogge (Count Rogge) is the current President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the head of the worldwide Olympic movement. He’s Belgian, a former surgeon (meaning that he ought to be able to understand science), and a yachtsman (meaning that he probably loves the ocean and, hopefully, nature). Count Rogge should also “go public” to urge Romney to understand the reality of climate change, to be honest about it, and to get real.

    Thus, these four people, representing Harvard, Bain, and the Olympics — the organizations involved in Romney’s history — could easily, and SHOULD, do something to prompt Romney to get real, to get honest, and to become responsible with respect to climate change. Four people. Four people who can be contacted and who could easily do something easy but, in effect, big.

    The four, again, are: Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust, Steve Ellis, Orit Gadiesh, and Count Jacques Rogge.

    These four members of the human species — a species that’s about to reach 7 billion in population — could and should do a great favor, indeed duty, to humankind by appealing to Romney publicly to get his act together regarding climate change.

    Indeed, Harvard owes it to the public. And Harvard’s own credibility will go a long ways towards the toilet (I can say this because I’m also from Harvard) if Obama and/or Romney under-perform when it comes to prompting and leading the U.S. to address climate change. Bain also should — and I mean that quite literally, in the deepest moral sense — do whatever it can to prompt Romney to get real. On the Bain & Company website, they say this: “Our commitment to social impact is in our DNA.” Well good for you. And again, Orit especially should be concerned about climate change, among all the rest of us as well.

    Count Rogge is Belgian. He and the IOC should be quite motivated to do whatever they can to ensure that Romney, or any American President or candidate for President, gets real and becomes responsible with respect to climate change.

    In my view, these four people could write a simple joint letter to Romney. A one- or two-pager. Direct. If they’re too busy, I’d be happy to draft it for them. It may be polite, of course, but also factual and quite clear. This sort of thing: “Climate change is real, it’s caused primarily by humans, it’s a vital problem, and humankind needs to face and address it responsibly. The U.S. is a leading culprit and must necessarily be a big part of humankind’s attempt to address the problem. We appeal to you, (Mitt Romney), as individuals, as well as on behalf of our organizations — Harvard University, Bain & Company, and the International Olympic Committee — to understand the problem, honestly admit it, help educate the U.S. public about it, help shift the dialogue from irresponsible denial to positive can-do responsibility, and help lead the U.S. to address the problem if you do become President. We also ask the same of the present President, Obama.”

    That sort of thing.

    To summarize: Those four people could and should do such a thing: a simple but vital letter. They should make it public. The media should — and undoubtedly will — cover it. These four humans, named above, enjoy the leadership positions, the platforms, and so forth that put THEM in the positions to do this sort of thing. “With understanding comes responsibility.”

    So then, how do we make an appeal to those four individuals to do this? Who has a platform to do it? Joe and CP, and CAP. What do ya think?

    We need to get concrete here, people. Part of that involves doing things that come down to two, three, or four people — people who can and should help make their views known, living up to the responsibility that all humans share but that their positions allow them to act upon.

    I’ll repeat the names and appeal to them here to do something:

    Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust (Harvard)
    Steve Ellis (Bain)
    Orit Gadiesh (Bain)
    Count Jacques Rogge (IOC)

    I’ll also list this name — Joe Romm — hoping and asking that Joe will use his ClimateProgress platform and network of contacts to get this idea, and these sorts of ideas, to the people who can actually make them happen. If we don’t do this and other things like it, we’ll only have ourselves to blame, and it will seem a bit hollow if we continue to see a train of complaints about Romney (as valid as they are) if we don’t act on concrete and potentially vital ideas like this one. That much should be crystal clear.

    Let’s be concrete and action-oriented, and timely. Let’s shake things up. My goodness, many people have gone to jail for the climate change cause, and thousands are camping in public squares as part of Occupy Wall Street. This idea, and this proposed letter, is the very least that folks like those mentioned should be eagerly willing to do, in order to make a vital difference. If this letter is written, by these folks, the media will cover it, big-time, and I’m sure that many other organizations will also be willing to help it gain circulation and coverage.

    Be Well,


    Jeff Huggins
    U.C. Berkeley, Chemical Engineering, class of 1981
    Harvard Business School, class of 1986, Baker Scholar
    McKinsey & Company, 1986-1990
    Concerned parent and citizen

  7. Joan Savage says:

    If he’d like to represent more of the American people, he should be revise his use of that word “we.”

  8. Raul M. says:

    What was it that a friend of a scientist said way back in the sixties or early seventies? Something like ” don’t worry when we get those blinders to fit properly and we sit down comfortably and we have the optimistic view”.
    I think that was when another said ” we won’t be able to see much with those blinders on” and the friend said “yes, I know.”

  9. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Peter, if Romney can believe the gold tablets and Jesus visited America palaver, then he can believe anything. Magical, wishful, thinking, the puerile belief that you can twist reality (at least inside your head) to suit your ego, is the bane of humanity.

  10. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Merrelyn, I think Obama is the worst because he is the dissembler, the con-man who pretends to be what he is not, then sells out the patsies that he has conned to his real masters, the rich. With Perry, Romney et al, at least you know, more or less, just how mad they really are.

  11. BillD says:

    Who would have thought that the leading contenders for the GOP would make GW Bush seem like an environmentalist? If a replican wins, the republicans will claim a mandate for tearing down the EPA and massive increases in air and water pollution.

  12. Chad says:

    I’ve always loved Gavin’s 80-120% quote. It’s sad how few conservatives are willing to admit that uncertainty cuts both ways. Apparently in libertopia, error bars only extend in one direction…

  13. Roger Shamel says:

    In a word, YES! Jeff is absolutely right. Focusing on key people is becoming critical.

    Lets’s do it. I also went to Harvard, and will start working on that connetion. I’ve written to Romney and will expand these efforts. Who else is willing to take action along these lines?

    We need to focus on the top, including, as Jeff said, Obama. Call 202-456-1111 to ask Obama to ‘come clean’ on climate. Go to; ‘like’ it.

  14. Merrelyn Emery says:

    Mulga, if one of the maddies gets up, what happens next? Assassination is not guaranteed.

    My real worry is Perry as I think once in power, Romney may well revert to his previous stance which will be easy to do by saying such as “well, now the science is a lot clearer” etc.

    I still think it’s possible (50/50) that Obama will veto the pipeline and give a fantastic speech about global warming. Wanna bet? ME

  15. Mike Roddy says:

    I don’t care about Romney’s religion, but am certainly interested in whether he is human. Programmed and focus group tested cliches might work for a while, but after a while they sound hollow.

    I’m confident that the American public will reject the fraud from Boston. Were he to be elected, there would be nothing to oppose. You need an actual, thinking human on the other side to get that little exchange going.

  16. Hank says:

    You folks might want to get used to all this. Romney is very likely to be the next president of the United States.

  17. Colorado Bob says:

    Joe –
    Via Andrew Sullivan :

    * permalink

    28 Oct 2011 01:33 PM
    Quotes For The Day

    “I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past but I believe we contribute to that. And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing,” – Mitt Romney, June 3, 2011.

    “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us,” – Mitt Romney, October 27.

  18. Mike Roddy says:

    Romney is not alone, of course. If you want to be a big time Republican, you’d better play ball with the ones who can provide the horsepower when you need it. Nobody cares who’s right, of course. That’s for suckers.

  19. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    My brain and hip-pocket say ‘Yes’, and I’ll give you good odds, but my heart says ‘No’, because I’d hate to profit from another’s disillusion. I hope that you are correct and I a mere cynic, but I doubt it, I’m afraid.

  20. Merrelyn Emery says:

    Ah Mulga, you are too good and generous by half, a survivor from our long lost past, ME

  21. Paul Magnus says:


    looks like we are leaving it up to mother nature to curtail our CO2 emissions.

  22. lemmonmc says:

    I’ll take that bet.
    after reaffirming his unofficial motto of “words speak louder than actions” his unwavering, cult of personality, loyal liberal subjects, will vote him into a second term. Obama once reelected will in fact continue with all of his former moderate republican plans which also includes approving the KeyStone XL. All the while with a heart warming democratic smile on his face, hypnotizing his followers with the thought “at least it’s not the Republicans” (never mind republican, democrat, physics doesn’t care which political party carries out a course of action which dooms our future). The lesser of 2 evils argument begins to fail logic the more and more evil the lesser becomes, and over time that seems to be exactly what’s happening to the Democrats.

  23. Edith Wiethorn says:

    Your specific operative method for connecting Romney’s intelligence with climate science & action has a powerful parallel in the life sciences. Every message has a chemistry & effective messaging delivers it to the pre-programmed receptor.

    Put another way, your approach is expert fly-fishing, as compared to a net or flailing the water with a net.

    Two respectful suggestions:

    Ask Senator Sheldon Whitehouse to advise on wordsmithing your draft letter. People who join signatures can suggest improvements. It is well to know that everyone is already immersed in what they are doing …

    And start preparing an Appendix of previous joint statements signed by thought & domain leaders. “joint climate statements” search yielded some interesting results for both the obfuscation of the “hooked on hope” approach and also for lucid language. Examples:
    Also dated 112409: same headline/caps
    AP report: Joint climate statement hazy
    Date 121009: content is a clear statement on climate science policy

    I know how to bitly urls, but I think source identity still sends a message.

  24. Roger says:

    With further thought, perhaps folks should picket the institutions listed on the resumes of the candidates who are unable to appreciate climate change. Let’s ask them to distance themselves from the candidates who don’t get it. In fact how about if the schools invalidate any degrees awarded. Yes, this would be unprecedented, but so is Climate Change.

  25. Sam Clark says:

    Perhaps Romney has been given enough rope to hang himself? Let’s hope he stays in the anti-science camp, gets the nomination, and then fails to get elected on the basis of his idiocy. Meantime, keep the focus on demonstrating to the mainstream that man-made CO2 is the cause etc. The mainstream gets the fact that things are heating up, but are not sold on human causation.

  26. Merrelyn Emery says:

    Hang in there Paul. North America is not the world, ME

  27. Sam Carmalt says:

    One would like to think that in a republic it is possible to vote for someone because of who they are and the positions they espouse. But this is no longer possible. To get the nomination, Romney, who from his record as Massachusetts governor seems to deserve consideration, has to toe the national party line. More worrying, if elected he can only govern if he continues to follow the party line. Hence one’s vote is no longer for the individual but for the party. Not voting at all, which is tempting, then becomes a willingness to accept the worst policies of the winner.

  28. Spike says:

    As Krugman says on his Blog

    “I sometimes like to say that modern conservatism isn’t an attempt to turn the clock back to the Gilded Age, it’s an attempt to roll things back to before the Enlightenment, with all that godless talk about numbers and evidence and all that. Doesn’t sound that silly now, does it?

    Never mind Darwin — let’s go after Newton!”

  29. Peter Mizla says:

    I hope you are right- then let him and the rest of the republicans figure out a way to resolve the issues they have created the last 31 years!

  30. Lionel A says:

    These people, such as Mitt Romney, like to eat and eat well. For how much longer can their favourite expensive morsels be sourced from an environment where there is a growing disconnect between organisms in the food chain. Climate change as the globe warms, unevenly, is causing stresses that threaten extinction across many biome types.

    A recent book, ‘Driven to Extinction: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity by Dr. Richard Pearson’ is a reasonable primer on some of the mechanisms involved and how these have been determined.

    I can just see a Pythonesque sketch where a GOP flipper (or a Delingpole, Will, Bolt, Monckton, Michaels, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Carter, Plimer etc.) is in a restaurant and as they go through a number of menu choices they are informed that a particular choice is ‘OFF’ because the ingredients of the particular dishes are unavailable because of this and that environmental factor due to climate change.

    Maybe this is an idea that could be exploited by those in the media business. Does anybody have suitable contacts to explore this idea.

    A extension of this could be to intervene in the deniers actual supply chain to make the effect a reality, not going to the extent of causing ecological damage but to simply pretend that there are problems.

  31. Tom lenz says:

    The entire GOP is becoming cultish. They believe in whatever gets them elected. Huntsmans sensible statements about GW were blasphemy and now he’s about as popular in his own party as a whistleblowing ex-scientologist at a Tom Cruise Temple of Zenu E-meter rally.

  32. John McCormick says:

    Ah, yes, Lionel. Listening to the Mitt talking about anything; from the Ohio collective bargaining initiative to health care to global warming, to whatever, brings me to the conclusion that the Mittster is to the manure born.

  33. Roger Painswick says:

    Are you frothing at the mouth, or have you just come out of Starbucks ?


  34. eric says:

    it seems pretty clear that Perry doesn’t believe AGW theory.

    Not so sure about Romney. i think, rather, he is just trying to get the ticket for president. If there were a more widespread acceptance among the public of AGW and any of the various proposed solutions, I think Romney would cave in a second. He may be a mormon, he may be conservative and he may flip flop, but stupid he does not appear to be. By contrast, im pretty sure perry, cain, bachman etc. would pander to an ever increasingly delusional and denialist faction until they were ousted.

    if you listen carefully, you can always hear romney giving himself little outs just in case the public opinion sways.

  35. Peji San says:

    I fear that the whole GOP have bought into the sci-fi fantasy that we can eat up all the resources on this one and then just move to another. They depend on science for everything in our society and yet deny science.

    (note: Michelle Bachman’s migraine meds were largely developed through taxpayer funded grants by those lying scientists she mistrusts so! …who ARE these people?)

  36. Paul Magnus says:

    New Scientist has an article out in its latest issue…
    Unscientific America

  37. Merrelyn Emery says:

    Lemmonmc, you’re on.

    I start from the premise that all politicians are just politicians who want to be in power for as long as possible, and go out looking good. Obama has the chance to be seen as a saviour of America, one of the ‘greats’.

    Not only is he well aware of the laws of physics and chemistry, he is also well informed of the changing international situation and the fact that there are a lot of very angry countries out there. He knows that the US is no longer rich enough, or respected enough, to push the rest of the world around, or to be isolated from it.

    There will eventually be a UN agreement or treaty, probably sooner rather than later. Being excluded, and probably sanctioned, would be a further disaster for the USA.

    Obama will make a wide ranging speech about climate change when the time is right and he has all the pieces in place. He will cancel the pipeline, announce immediate plans for dealing with the climate emergency and detail the USA’s ‘leading’ role in the UN agreement to save the planet. Don’t know when but it will happen, ME

  38. Peji San says:

    It is called politics. I am not exactly a fan of Romney’s, but I do understand that his so-called “flip-flopping” is entirely a political move to get elected. He is certainly the lesser evil of the GOP candidates, regardless of what he is compelled to say to win. I agree, stupid he is not.

  39. Charles Zeller says:

    In the 1990’s, who’d have thought we’d be hearing statements such as these from someone wanting to lead the US in 2013? Oh well. As a hard-wired optimist, this is the best GOP news yet. If Mr. Romney’s base demands his professed solidarity, though incessant bookkeeping warfare will top the list, climate progress will be a higher profile issue in the 2012 campaign. More voters will be challenged to conceptually grasp basic proven premises of climate science. The candidates, taking opposite positions, will be forced to explicitly address science in the context of energy policy. Keep an open dialog with every objective person you can about the science and energy solutions. Make it interesting. Never give up.

  40. prokaryotes says:

    1 more Nominee


    Only in America