CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




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 21, 2008 11:47 PM UTC

You Don't REALLY Believe Global Warming, Do You?

  • by: Colorado Pols

With Doug Bruce gone, the role of resident looney tune in the Republican Party needs to be filled. Rep. Kevin Lundberg seems more than up to the task, given his political history and his press release today essentially claiming that Global Warming is a hoax.

Click below for the full press release.

Obama’s Global Warming Policies Are Not Based on Scientific Evidence

Where are the Facts?

The Republican Study Committee of Colorado (RSCC) challenges President-elect Obama to provide any evidence that the opinions he cited in his first major policy statement on global warming are based in reality.

RSCC chairman, Rep. Kevin Lundberg, said “It sounded more like something a Hollywood speech writer would put together for a movie script, rather than a serious policy statement for a president-elect.”

On Tuesday, November 18, President-elect Obama laid out his policy intentions concerning global warming in a speech to a global climate summit,

convened by the governors of California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas and Wisconsin.

His speech was politically correct, but the facts were simply not there. Just about every “proof” he cited was, at best, an outdated myth.

Where are sea levels rising which are shrinking coastlines? Where is there any scientific evidence that hurricane storms are either larger, more

frequent, or related to any long term global warming patterns? A careful analysis of the details reveals that each of these examples are without merit and that there is a significant and growing debate about whether or not anthropogenic global warming has had much effect at all. There are also serious doubts that radically restricting and restructuring industrial activity can meaningfully alter any long term weather patterns.

The RSCC has conducted several hearings on global warming and our nation’s energy resources. They have looked at the facts and will not be deceived by such shallow rhetoric.

An example of the serious doubts many scientists have can be found in Christopher Monckton of Brenchley’s article published by the American

Physical Society. The facts reported are that globally-averaged land and sea surface absolute temperatures have not risen since 1998, and may have even fallen since


The only fact that is indisputable is the severe stress that cap-and-trade tax schemes, unrealistic renewable energy mandates, and Kyoto-like treaties

will have on our faltering economy. We cannot afford to squander our children’s future on outdated notions from global warming alarmists.

We expect more from our nation’s next leader and call on him to correct these errors.

Surely your information is more better than the man who is going to be the next President. Surely.


30 thoughts on “You Don’t REALLY Believe Global Warming, Do You?

    1. Gore Nazis demonize anyone who points out that science has not proved that humans have anything to do with global warming.

      Gosh. It’s cold around here.

      1. The science on this is very clear – we humans have been a major cause of global warming. Someone who counters wishful thinking with facts is not a scientist – they are just a reasonable rational human being.

    1. …that it’s for personal reasons (saving money on energy costs) rather than contributing to societal benefits (cleaner air, fewer carbon emissions, etc.)?

      1. I don’t think it had to do with money, as far as I can tell it was conservation.  Maybe he sees the threat of running out of energy, just not what reaching that point will do to the earth?  Seems like an odd line to draw and get in a fight about.

      2. Energy is too cheap.  Most of the green modifications that can be done to a home take many years to pay off, if they ever do.  That’s why most of these green initiatives are so slow to take hold.  Why spend thousands to save hundreds or even tens of dollars.  Most people who really embrace conservation do it for the societal benefits.

  1. Among their conclusions (consensus among hundreds of climate scientists):

    “The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR (last report, 5 years ago), leading to very high confidence that the

    global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming”

    More detail than you ever wanted is here:

  2. Uncomfortable facts are simply dismissed as myths. No one is allowed to breach the ideological cocoon. Ironclad ideology dictates all policy positions. As I said in a post the other day, these people look at a five foot by five foot block of wood and a round hole the diameter of a pin and tell all of us the block of wood is going through the pin hole because ideology dictates it will. The obvious reality and silliness of their position is irrelevant. Ideology governs all situations.

    As the ‘Lexington’ column in the latest edition of the Economist stated:

    “There are any number of reasons for the Republican Party’s defeat on November 4th. But high on the list is the fact that the party lost the battle for brains.”

    The article goes on to describe the fact that highly educated people are voting Democrat. The intellectual muscle of this country is abandoning the Republican Party in droves because of people like Rep. Lundberg. Over thirty years ago when I became active in the Colorado Republican Party there were a few fringe people in the party like Lundberg (mostly from the John Birch society) but they were laughed out of the room for their goofy ideas. Today, they control the Republican Party.

    The Republican Party is beoming irrelevant to the people of the United States of America. Once it does, it will become extinct and people like Rep. (soon to be Senator) Lundberg will be left out in the dark howling at the moon.  

      1. A desire to return to the superstition and poverty of the middle ages should not be celebrated, even when it comes from our opponents. Every person with these views retards the progress of the human race and aims their children at failure.

  3. The Republican Study Committee of Colorado (RSCC) challenges President-elect Obama to provide any evidence that the opinions he cited in his first major policy statement on global warming are based in reality.

    The opinions Obama cited are scientific analysis of objective evidence.  The GOP position is to reject evidence and scientific method in favor of determinist reasoning that starts with a conclusion (human causality of Climate change is false) and backs into “evidence”.

    The right acts like lawyers defending a case rather than a scientist seeking truth.

    But then Lundberg is a nut.

  4. Pitting Rep. Lundberg against one of the CU scientists who won the Nobel Prize for their work on climate change! And Rep. Flat Earth would even be allowed to bring notes!

    1. Seriously, how do we set that up? I would help sell tickets to see any academic debate LundBORG or any other of the “focus on someone else’s family” nuts in the Colorado GOP.  

    2. that it’s all a big conspiracy on part of Global Warming Inc? Of course they’re going to hand out Nobel prizes for this, the greatest hoax ever!

      Anti-climate change flat-earthers are impervious to facts.

  5. He cites an article published by the American Physical Society – making it seem as if the APS endorses the writer’s view – when in fact the article was just an unsolicited letter to the editor, and the APS actually prefaced it with the following telling statement:

    The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

    “We expect more from” our legislators – even a mouth-breather like Lundberg – “and call on him to correct these errors.” To quote Lundberg.

    But we’re not holding our breath.

  6. (and I don’t think this) global warming is not man-made, what about when we run out of oil?

    Why not just go the sustainability route because ITS SUSTAINABLE. This is exactly why Repubs are irrelevant: they are unsustainable in every way, shape, and form.

    Their economic policies even without being coupled with their utterly contradictory (and radically ineffective) social policies, are still unsustainable.  

    1. Lundberg is an idiot, but like Doug Bruce, he can’t cause any harm while his party is in the minority. Mostly he just becomes a giant time-waster.

  7. Lundberg’s house is off the grid entirely because he believes in the apocalypse and doesn’t want any utility company to have records on him.

    Republican members of the state legislature are black balled by the rest of their caucus if they publicly acknowledge that global warming is an anthropomorphic phenomenon. They are threatened with a primary if they err on official dogma. The official line:  it is caused by sun spots.

    The luxury of denying global warming (and believing that lower taxes will solve virtually every problem confronting society today) can only be indulged in by a party that has no prospects of enacting its policies.  If these guys were in charge, we’d be in a huge world of hurt.

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

43 readers online now


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