President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 23, 2007 01:05 AM UTC

McCain is GOP's Al Gore on global warming

  • by: Another skeptic

How can you vote for someone who’s not skeptical about Al Gore’s global warming alarmism? If McCain can’t ask the right questions about global warming, is he the right man for the White House?

Looks like he’s another Big Government Republican.


His opponents should take the free market approach to solving the problems of pollution and conserving energy, not join the Big Government Empowerment Brigade, which will do nothing but destroy the U.S. economy while doing nothing for the environoment nor energy conservation.

Seems to me that there is a real opening here for Giuliani, Romney, Brownback, et. al.

So McCain’s an extremist on social issues and on enviromental issues.

Is that why they call him a “moderate”?


51 thoughts on “McCain is GOP’s Al Gore on global warming

    1. The global warming alarmists are using suspect data, suspect science, suspect study designs and suspect big lie propaganda tools, which makes them radicals.

      McCain and Gore are getting out in front of the radicals on global warming, which makes them as radical as the alarmists they support.

      1. Every single one has fallen short of the mark.  Every revision of the climate models shows it’s worse than the last prediction, and every point of evidence backs that up.

        But aside from that, even if you’re not a global warming theory fan, renewable and sustainable energy is a national security priority; we can’t drill or mine our way out of dependence on foreign oil from unstable nations.

        1. William Rusher of the Washington Times explains the three forces driving “Warming delirium.”

          His concluding graphs:

          The third and final engine is, as you might expect, money. Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars the United States paid “scientists” (mostly in universities) last year to study this or that aspect of global warming? They are raiding this El Dorado with both hands, and you can imagine their attitude toward any colleague who dares to doubt their warnings.
            The latest incitement to panic over global warming is the recently released summary of a 1,400-page report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We won’t get to see the actual report till May, but the IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, says “I hope this report will shock people.”
            Given the media’s hype on human causes of global warming, it undoubtedly will. But the actual figures, when compared to those in the IPCC’s last report in 2001, are downright encouraging. Christopher Monckton, a British analyst, points out that the new summary “more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches.” (Al Gore predicts 20 to 30 feet.)
            Mr. Monckton adds that “The U.N. has cut its estimate of [the human] net effect on climate by more than a third.”
            Part of the problem is that the Earth’s temperature is always in motion, up or down. At the moment, it is trending slightly up — three-hundredths of a degree Celsius since 2001. Before that, in the midyears of the 20th century, it was actually falling — providing grist for the media’s hysterical predictions of a “new Ice Age” in the 1970s.
            Meanwhile, you can count on the liberals to demand savage cutbacks in the output of America’s “greedy” corporations (never mind what that does to the economy) and on the opportunistic hacks in the science faculties of our universities to carve still bigger grants for themselves out of the federal and state budgets to finance more justifications for the panic.

      2. believes that human activity has zero to do with climate change. You can argue about the degree but not that there’s no connection. Those who think that are the true radicals.

        1. From all the reading I’ve been doing, I’ve concluded that there are credible scientists, climatologists, solar scientists, etc., who don’t believe humans have had anything or much to do with global warming.

          The problem is that the science journals refuse to publish them, the funders refuse to support their research and members of Congress want to burn their books.

          It’s hard to be an honest scientist these days, because if you don’t agree with the masses, you are ostracized and your career is destroyed. That’s the reall story of global warming science today.

          1. being peddled by hard right blogs and pundits, but it ain’t necessarily so.

            I’m sure many of the climate change skeptics are accomplished and thoughtful people trying their best. But the reason they aren’t being published is that many don’t submit their papers because it would fail peer review. Of course the hard right will claim there’s a vast conspiracy and that there’s a “church” among those who say human activity has an impact on the climate. (Which is just common sense – when you have 6 billion people burning who knows how many gallons of fuel and tons of coal every day it takes burying your head in the sand to conclude that there’s no impact from it.)

            1. and not political, I can’t help you there.

              Peer review is all about protecting the establishment and the grants of the establishment from scholars who think outside of the box.

              Everyone knows that.

              1. So the peer review process that applied to vaccines, transplants, nuclear science, and any major finding you can name from the last 60 years, is “all about protecting the establishment and the grants of the establishment from scholars who think outside of the box”? Even when many of those findings are “outside the box?”

                Again, who is the radical here?

                    1. You’ll understand the Cliff Notes version clearly:

                      Big Tobacco wasn’t the first group to pressure science to give the results it wanted, and blank out the results it didn’t.  And they surely weren’t the last.

                    2. (a response to one of your other posts, actually) where I question why anyone would pressure science to come up with this particular result.

                      And again (I’ve posted this point a dozen times without anyone finding an answer), given that we have 6 billion people burning – millions? hundreds of millions, perhaps? – of gallons of fuel and tons of coal every single day, can anyone say with a straight face that that has no impact on our climate whatsoever?

        2. Because anyone who would DARE disagree with the Establishment and say that, oh, “global warming” is fed by an alarmist, anti-capitalist propaganda spinning normal climate change into something that can only be solved by socialist programs, well, they can’t *possibly* be credible, can they?

          That’s about as fallacious as it gets.

          Of course, it didn’t make Galileo any less excommunicated last time the Establishment used it.

          1. Just wrong.

            Many wise people can be wrong, even about things they are supposed to be experts in.

            Besides, given that even right wingers are accepting the reality of climate change, the evidence is compelling.

            (Tell me why on earth would “alarmism” over climate change, of all things, be the thing that the “establishment” [nice meaningless abstraction] latch onto? Of all the straw man arguments I’ve heard that one is just so hard to believe that anyone buys.)

        1. Don’t own energy stocks or funds, but some of my funds own energy stocks.

          Gold did well, and the rise in energy prices today didn’t do my energy-price-sensitive stocks and options any good today.

          Why did you have to mention stocks today, anyway? 🙂

  1. What about the science does not sit well with you?

    Aren’t you kinda being a loony by saying it is a conspiracy that science journals are not publishing this stuff?

    What do you know about it?

    1. Numerous articles are being published about how global warming skeptics are being intimidated by science journals, academic peers and even Jay Rockefeller and Elisabeth Snowe, who have called for the heads of the skeptics in an open letter.

      Global warming skeptics are being compared with Holacost deniers and are being called Nazis.

      Search the web, you’ll see the articles.

      Only those who haven’t been following this debate closely are unaware of the attempts, which are somewhat successful, to suppress global warming skeptics.

      They’re as welcome in academia as conservatives are in the liberal arts schools at the University of Colorado and other colleges and universities.

      If you want an academic career and grants, you believe in global warming.

      What do I know about it? I’ve been discussing it with scientists on another board and reading as much about global warming as I can. I’m not a scientist nor a scholar, but I follow both quite closely, because the politics are fascinating and disturbing.

        1. The other board is for a special group of folks. It has a political forum for them, but it would be inappropriate to link people who aren’t members of that group to  the board.

          I’ll try to find time to provide links to the articles, which have been published in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere.

              1. if a member of an administration does not follow the direction of the gov. then he will face pressure. I agree that this is tragic, but that is in the political realm not the academic.

                Besides the guy is saying “to this point” warming has been minimally effected by human activity (note:he admits some is caused by us). Al Gore and the other “alarmists” including me would agree with that. But that is also not the issue, the issue is that if you extrapolate the exponential increase in CO2 in the atmosphere that is very likely to cause global warming.

            1. Is this a disgrace or what? U.S. Senators trying to silence global warming skeptics.


              Lede graphs from a news release:

              WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 /PRNewswire/ — Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-Maine) in response to their recent open letter telling the CEO of ExxonMobil to cease funding climate-skeptic scientists. (…).

              Lord Monckton, former policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, writes: “You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to ‘senior elected and appointed government officials’ who disagree with your opinion.”

              In what The Charleston (WV) Daily Mail has called “an intemperate attempt to squelch debate with a hint of political consequences,” Senators Rockefeller and Snowe released an open letter dated October 30 to ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, insisting he end Exxon’s funding of a “climate change denial campaign.” The Senators labeled scientists with whom they disagree as “deniers,” a term usually directed at “Holocaust deniers.” Some voices on the political left have called for the arrest and prosecution of skeptical scientists. The British Foreign Secretary has said skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and must be denied access to the media.

              Responds Lord Monckton, “Sceptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually helpful in getting the science right. They do not, as you improperly suggest, ‘obfuscate’ the issue: they assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the ‘consensus’ argument and they compel necessary corrections … “

              Lord Monckton’s Churchillian reproof continues, “You acknowledge the effectiveness of the climate sceptics. In so doing, you pay a compliment to the courage of those free-thinking scientists who continue to research climate change independently despite the likelihood of refusal of publication in journals that have taken preconceived positions; the hate mail and vilification from ignorant environmentalists; and the threat of loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any pretence to uphold or cherish academic freedom.”

              1. Exxon is paying scientists to come to their conclusion. That is bad science, and that is why these senators want them to stop. Is anyone trying to suppress M.I.T. skeptics? no they are not, because they conducted real research through the scientific method, not backwards research.

              2. I’ve seen this bit before. He sounds good but the charge that the Senators’ letter “def[ies] every tenet of democracy” is itself pretty alarmist.

            1. Have to go to work now, will catch up on this stuff tonight.

              I’ll reply to see if anything is convincing given the facts of the earth’s population and increasing consumption of fossil fuels…

            2. I may not have time to go through all this. But Inhofe isn’t someone I recall as being friendly to environmental concerns. I’ll need to devote time to reading it (while I work, raise my daughter, plan a garden, learn about electricity to see if my house is up to code, plan my will, go visit friends in Seattle… what I’m saying is that it may be a while before I plow through all this).

          1. From the London Times:


            From an article by the former editor of the New Scientist:

            His lede graphs:

            When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

            The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

            Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

            Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the AdГ©lie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

            1. everything is a theory (THEORY of gravity) the point is most reasonable people (with or without a political agenda)get to a point where all prevailing logic leads to the same conclusion. The skeptics have never claimed to be 90% sure of anything, they are just banking on that 10%. By the way at any point in history scientists have been 90% sure of a lot of things that are now accepted by everyone.

            2. than this is significant and should be studied more. Although I couldn’t help but notice that the Times is publishing the book, giving rise to challenges of their impartiality in covering this aspect.

          1. I’m with you on the Nobel winner statement – no less an expert than Albert Einstein was later wrong, very wrong, in some of his scientific ideas (ie, that quantum physics was impossible) but then again that’s what I think of many of the experts who dispute climate change – that they’re knowledgeable but incorrect. But that’s beside the point. While it’s hard to fathom the Yellow River running dry in summer, if it is then that’s certainly proof of climate change, if not the human role in it.

          1. Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming — but they also might not.

            At least he sounds open minded. My own position isn’t necessarily that humans are the chief cause of climate change, but we must be at least a partial cause.

        2. From the Feb. 9, 2007 WSJ:

          Lede graphs:

          Global Warming Smear
          February 9, 2007; Page A10
          Mark Twain once complained that a lie can make it half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on. That’s been the case of late in the climate change debate, as political and media activists attempt to stigmatize anyone who doesn’t pay homage to their “scientific consensus.”

          Last week the London Guardian published a story headlined, “Scientists Offer Cash to Dispute Climate Study.” The story alleges that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, collected contributions from ExxonMobil and then offered climate scholars $10,000 so they could lobby against global warming legislation.

          Another newspaper, the British Independent, picked up on the story and claimed: “It has come to light that one of the world’s largest oil companies, ExxonMobil, is attempting to bribe scientists to pick holes in the IPCC’s assessment.” (The IPCC is the United Nations climate-change panel.)

          It would be easy to dismiss all this as propaganda from British tabloids, except that a few days ago the “news” crossed the Atlantic where more respectable media outlets, including the Washington Post, are reporting the story in what has become all too typical pack fashion. A report offered that, “A think tank partly funded by ExxonMobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.”

          Here are the facts as we’ve been able to collect them. AEI doesn’t lobby, didn’t offer money to scientists to question global warming, and the money it did pay for climate research didn’t come from Exxon.

          1. The problem I have with allegations that all this is a big untruth is the fact that research has been going on for 40+ years and has been building and building and building. While Mark Twain’s quote can apply to something that is just rushed out, it’s hard to see how it can apply to something that has been researched for so long.

      1. are suppressing their voices, who cares? Skeptics are getting published every day, including very notable ones. Save the conspiracy theories and the whining for the far left.

        And my question still stands; what part of the science is “suspect” to you?

        1. Credible scientist say the data used to project global warming is inadequate and quite suspect.

          Thats why I’ve seen posts that show 10 widely different projects from 10 different studies.

          As one scientist has pointed out, the studies aren’t blind, are totally controlled by individual scientists, each scientist controlling the entire study process, allowing data mining bias.

          He recommends, in part, separating the work so that it’s harder to create models that produce desired results and reflect researchers’ hunches and expectations.

          Thus, totally separate and separately funded and managed groups of scientists should:

          Create computer models.
          Create databases
          Gather data.
          Clean and test the data.
          Run the models.
          Analyze the results.
          Make recommendations for further research.
          Write reports.
          Make policy recommendations.

          Keep the science separate from the policy. Scientists should do science. Wonks should use the results of scientific studies to make policy recommendations and debate public policy.

          This applies to all kinds of scientific research and policy, not just global warming.

          The question I’ve not been able to get answered is who would manage such processes and fund them, and how much would it cost to have serveral such studies going on continuously, allowing various groups to try to replicate each other’s findings?

          1. NOAA, the ICE data center, and other government organizations already process their own data on their own models independent of one another except for sharing the latest in climate modelling theory.  Other nations do the same.  Every once in a while, they come together at the UN or other international agency and put together a report on the latest findings.

            NOAA scientists admit quite candidly that they don’t have “the final results”.  But they also admit that they can be pretty sure that humans are having an effect on the atmosphere, and that the climatology models and historical data are becoming more and more refined every time they run them.

            We don’t have completely accurate models even for real-time data (see Hurricane Prediction Models) – but we still use them, because they provide trends that can help to save thousands of lives.  In the same way, the models on global climate change are not in sync with each other; they can’t be expected to when scientists are constantly adding in parameters that were previously unaccounted-for.

            But those models are increasingly trending towards Bad News. CO2 is at record levels and is likely to spike much higher due to capacity limits in the oceans and thawing polar ice and tundra – that much is a fact proven by all available data sources.  Cyclical causes are ruled out by analysis of cyclical data – the current changes are out of all known cycles.

            As Aristotle has pointed out several times: how do you expect that as much Carbon Dioxide output that the Human race has released back into the atmosphere has had no effect whatsoever on the climate?  It must have; it’s common sense even with a simple Fermi estimate.

            1. Can the U.S. and Western Europe do anything to offset the rest of the world’s C02?

              Do humans add enough CO2 to have much of an impact?

              What’s the return on investment? Can we reduce risks to zero? Should we try? Is there a risk of over compensating? What is that risk and its consequences?

              What are the political and economic consequences of following Al Gore and his hypers and of ignoring him?

              Credible scientists say changes in the solar system are offsetting CO2.

              Who do you believe? Why? Why not?

              I don’t give any credence to the number of scientists who say one thing or another. They move in herds, like everyone else.

              I will give credence to qualified scientists whose integrity can’t be challenged. I don’t know who these people are or if they exist.

              1. where I mention Albert Einstein is that credible scientists can be completely wrong. When you say “I will give credence to qualified scientists whose integrity can’t be challenged. I don’t know who these people are or if they exist,” I have to ask if you believe that all (all!) of the scientists who support the “humans are driving climate change” hypothesis can be challenged on their integrity. Because if you think that even one can not, then it undermines your point.

                1. There can be some true believers who are simply mistaken.

                  I’m seldom a true believer, and I’m often wrong, but I try to be a wrong true believer with integrity.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

47 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!