Gardner’s Weasely Flip-Flop on Human-Caused Climate Change

Was that what you wanted to hear? Good.

Was that what you wanted to hear? Good.

Politico's James Hohmann reports from yesterday's debate between Sen. Mark Udall and GOP challenger Cory Gardner, moderated by Manu Raju:

“Carbon pollution is real,” said Udall. “We’re prepared to put a price on carbon … I support putting a price on carbon.”

Gardner repeatedly pressed Udall to say what exact price he would put on carbon, but the senator declined. The Republican acknowledged that humans play a role in global warming and said he supports trying to reduce carbon emissions, but he said it cannot be done in a way that kills jobs.

“There is no doubt that pollution contributes to the climate changing around us,” said Gardner… [Pols emphasis]

As Huffington Post's Sabrina Siddiqui notes for the record and our readers know well, that's a big change from what Cory Gardner has said in the past about humanity's impact on global climate change:

Democrats were quick to point out that in January of this year, Gardner voted against an amendment that would have explicitly stated that climate change is real. The measure, which failed to clear the House Energy and Commerce Committee, stated that "Congress accepts the scientific finding of the Environmental Protection Agency (contained in the proposed rule referred to in section 4(2)) that '[g]reenhouse gas (GHG) pollution threatens the American public’s health and welfare by contributing to long-lasting changes in our climate that can have a range of negative effects on human health and the environment."

Gardner also rejected the theory of man-made climate change as a Colorado state representative in 2010. "I think the climate is changing, but I don't believe humans are causing that change to the extent that's been in the news," he said at the time. [Pols emphasis]

Much like when Gardner was caught red-handed lying to voters about his record on renewable energy, we assume there's some kind of semantic interpretation of his exact words that will allow Gardner's campaign to claim this is not the wholesale reversal on this issue it plainly appears to be. When cornered with the fact that the bill Gardner claimed he "cowrote the law to launch our state's green energy industry" had failed to result in a single renewable energy project, you'll recall his campaign responded that the ad says he wrote the bill "to launch," not "that launched" the industry. The tacit admission in their defense that the entire premise of the ad was false didn't even faze the Gardner campaign, and the ad continued to run for weeks afterward. To us, this seems like a very odd way to run for office, but Gardner has kept this race competitive close all summer. So clearly it's a tactic that has worked in the short term.

Unfortunately for Gardner, that only works so many times. With only very few exceptions, the press has stopped buying Gardner's reversals uncritically, and the fact that he's objectively not being honest is finally sticking in the public consciousness. And now, adding climate change to a growing list of issues, Gardner has gifted Democrats the means to defeat him–by living up to the charge that he will say anything to get elected.

17 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. FrankUnderwood says:

    Maybe he'll treat this like personhood.  You know, opposed to climate change at the state level but not so much at the federal level……

    He's starting to make Beauprez look like a man of conviction and principles.

  2. BlueCat says:

    Kind of underlines the points made in those two  scathing Gardner trashing Udall endorsements.

  3. MichaelBowman says:

    This – from the man who signed the Koch, Inc. "Climate Pledge"  (which promised no Congressional action on climate in exchange for Koch money/support) and promised his lemmings at CPAC that he'd defund climate research?  Geezuz…

  4. Andrew Carnegie says:

    The handlers of the Liar of the Year (co-winner with the Liar in Chief) are claiming their opposition is not honest.  Ya can't make this stuff up.

  5. Canines says:

    Can any of these Republican candidates even talk in a comprehensible manner on the subject? What is "…I don't believe humans are causing that change to the extent that it's been in the news" even supposed to mean? So, humans are causing the change, but the news is saying it's even worse than the human-caused climate change that Gardner believes is happening? Is that it?


  6. Craig says:

    Pols is so far behind the times.  This has been going on for years and years with the Republican Party.  It's just that Democrats don't bother to read the careful words.  They buy the stuff as a lie and just say it is.  What these are are really "Republican Truths" which I define as a statement that when taken literally is true, but is intended to mislead the public.  They've been doing this for years and getting away with it.  I was at a debate last week for HD 25 candidates.  The Republican candidate, in a response to a badly worded question about abortion answered that "he is a small government guy" and he opposes "Amendment 67" and he's personally "pro-life"  You see all these things are true, but they avoided the point of the question which was what would he do in elected office.  Fortunately, he told us previously in the debate that he would make decisions first based on his conscience, second on what his district wanted and third on party.  So you have to put these two disparate answers to conclude that the guy is anti-choice and is going to be voting for all the crap the Republicans put forward, because, really, he has to because he's a Republican.   Same is true with the email that made its way around the internet a couple of years ago.  Said that Obama painted "Air Force One" with his campaign logo.  That was actually since Obama's campaign painted a campaign owned plane with the logo and since Obama rode on that plane once, it was technically "Air Force One" which is the moniker applied to any plane in which the President flies.  It was certainly meant to mislead.  So a Republican Truth is when there is a statement that actually is true but meant to mislead.  They do this all the time.  And their acolytes buy this stuff.

  7. Elusive says:

    Yes, and it is called presentation of facts in isolation, clearly intended to mislead the viewer/listener.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.