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
November 14, 2013 04:32 PM UTC

Audio: GOP Gubernatorial Candidates Deny Climate Change

  • by: Colorado Pols


The Durango Herald's Joe Hanel reports on the first debate between the four top Republican Colorado gubernatorial candidates for 2014: Sen. Greg Brophy, former Sen. Mike Kopp, Secretary of State Scott Gessler, and 2010 third-party nominee Tom Tancredo. Yesterday's debate was taped for later airing by the public television Aaron Harber Show. Hanel's story is worth a read, but what may be the most interesting exchange from this debate, for whatever reason, didn't rate a mention. Here's audio and a transcription of the answers by these four candidates to Harber's question about climate change.

The short answer, as you might have guessed, is none of them think it's a problem.

AARON HARBER: Welcome back to the show, we're with our top Republican candidates for Governor, uh, rapid fire segment, for this segment and next segment. Mounting CO2 emissions and levels, concerned about climate change, the belief that this is contributing to global warming. Do you think this is true, and, how you believe if it is how it's affecting Colorado's environment?

GREG BROPHY: No I don't think it's true nor a problem. You know, I run a carbon sequestration factory in eastern Colorado, where we come from we call that a corn farm. So I like CO2 in the air, my corn plants do a good job of putting it into the ground.

HARBER: So you're for more CO2, then.



MIKE KOPP: I'll tell you what, going after a problem like trying to mitigate CO2 can cost millions and millions of dollars, and even if you do have some success, it's immediately eaten up by the likes of China. We're killing people who are just trying to put food on their table. We shouldn't be doing that.

HARBER: Scott?

SCOTT GESSLER: I think there's been a lot of hysteria surrounding, uh, CO2. And I think, when you look at, rationally, over the last decade or so, there's not been a, uh, there's actually been a reduction here in the United States. In part, because we've become more efficient than that. And I think the fact of the matter is, when we push out industry, when we hurt our economy, other countries pick up the slack, and pollute more than we ever did. So I don't think that the response we've seen from this government has been right once.


TOM TANCREDO: I saw a great debate a while back between an environmentalist and someone who wasn't, I suppose, who wouldn't categorize that way. She, the environmentalist, was claiming that the earth had gotten warmer as a result of man's action, and the other person said, indeed, that's not the case, in the last few years, it's actually gotten colder. And so, what's happening, which one is it, and she says, well I don't know but it's something though. Right? It's something. Something is changing, yeah, it always is changing. That is the nature of our environment. Our, our, it is so, it's such hubris the idea that we as human beings actually control that process. Um, yes, there is climate change, there always has been, there always will be. And the idea of spending billions of dollars going after CO2, frankly, is silly.

Noted for the record, folks. Climate change deniers one and all. And proud of it…

Although in the case of Brophy, this is the first time we can recall a candidate actively saying that we should have more CO2 in the air.


29 thoughts on “Audio: GOP Gubernatorial Candidates Deny Climate Change

  1. BREAKING: All 4 GOP governor candidates agree with GOP majority.

    Are you trying to prove this is a partisan liberal mouthpiece or what? There's no consensus beyond the extreme left on climate change.

    1. Yeah!  Damn tootin' that Marxist-socialist science stuff!  They don't call 'em 'weathermen' for nothing! 

      In an official statement, The American Meteorological Society said: “There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea “level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking.”

      “The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.” link


      1. Yeah – but those are experts. We must stand up aginst those experts.- Don McLeroy.

        The three stages of climate denial:

        It isn't happening – brought to you by the "All the Evidence About Tobacco Isn't In Yet" group.

        IT'S NOT MY FAULT – Pretty much the standard goto response for all conservatives.

        We can't do anything about it anyway. (It isn't the oil and coal companies that are making money, it's Al Gore. Besides, he's fat.)

    2. Gee Moddy, I guess it must be that  GOP majority belief in gravity that keeps your ass from floating off into outer space??? . . .

      . . . what a maroon !!!

    3. Good news:  According to a recent Pew Poll, most Americans think that climate change is caused by humans. That includes all adults, Dems, Republicans – in fact, everyone except tea partiers.

      Bad news: Only 40% of Americans think that climate change is a threat to their way of life, compared to almost everyone else in the world except our buddies in the Middle East.

      So Moderatus, you are isolated in your beliefs like a polar bear on a shrinking ice floe.


      More bad news: only 34% of the public viewed new climate change policies as something that is essential for the White House and Congress to tackle this year.

    4. What's strange about these statements is that the general consensus on climate change has been trending towards accepting that it is actually happening. There is still misplaced skepticism about the cause of climate change, but many, many Republican elected officials have long since agreed that change IS happening.

    5. Perhaps you'd like to take this argument up with one of the Gipper's closest friends?  [yes, I realize you'd be arguing with a ghost].  She's practically prophetic in her predictions.  How I long for the party of yesteryear…



  2. And disagree with reality.  Global temperatures have not 'gotten colder.'  

    Tancredo just shows, again, that he's an idiot. Apparently an idiot among idiots speaking to idiots.  I hope they give him a speaking role at the 2016 RNC in Denver.  

    Gessler's statement is ambiguous at best.  The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to increase.  The rate has been decresing, maybe, but CO2 emissions are among the easier inputs to measure so we don't know what else we're missing (methane from gas wells for instance, and vented from coal mines).  Oh, and Brophy is for more CO2. Because he grows corn. Seriously?  

    1. Hey, give 'em a break!  They were probably still intoxicated from breathing each other's CO2 (and methane — Farmer Shorty knows what I'm talkin' about 🙂 in the ride over together in that cramped clown car.

    2. It's all part of the whole every opinion is equally valid presentation that has taken over popular journalism. You know, like Obama says he was born in Hawaii. This guy says he was born in Kenya. Lets give both opinions equal weight as we practice pretend journalism for the masses. 

      1. This is what I hate Blue Cat.  The media entertains complete idoicy just as much as sanity.   There is no balance or dichotomy between the two, and there is no equal validity, as they would like to have it.  One is crazy, and the other one is not.  When can they evolve and acknowledge that.

  3. What I don't understand is why so many on the right decide on this specific issue to ignore the science. I can understand ignoring the science on evolution or the age of the earth as it threatens their belief in God. But why ignore the science on this particular issue?

    1. They are trapped by their history, ideology and their followers.  It is really a sad place to be.  There is no "reason" there. They just can't stop.

    2. If you accept the science on Global Warming, then the Oil Industry business model is threatened. There is a huge amount of money riding on the disbelief in Global Warming.

  4. I had an invitation to the taping but couldn't make it due to a prior commitment. Dang it! I miss the clown car show! 

    Keep it it up science and reality deniers, Hickenlooper has nothing to worry about from any of these clowns.

    1. I also think it is a political winner NDA because it shows a certain connection with reality that most people get.  For reference the biggest typhon to hit the Phillipines followed the biggest typhon to hit India in the same year not to mention the thousand year floods along the Front Range.  The damage to lives and property from these mega climate events dwarfs any kind of cap and trade tax that companies would have to pay.  It is being a penny foolish.

  5. In these types of situations, the better question is what would it take for you to believe this is a problem we should do sometihng about. Or  As governor what would it take for you to support legislation that …<insert goal>

    It's reasonable to infer from some of these answers the corresponsding reply – notihng could convince me of climate change that we can do or should do anything about – but it is still better to let them say it.

    This works for most contentious issues – fracking, for example. New water storage. 

    1. That only works with agressive follow-up, as otherwise the question only serves as a topic for the candidate to riff on about job creation, energy needs, blah blah blah…

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

64 readers online now


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