The New York Times points out that there’s nearly universal consensus among Republican presidential candidates that global climate change poses a significant threat. The only real division is in how serious that they say that threat is, with some calling for drastic action and others suggesting more gradual change in human behavior. This marks a stark difference from just a few years ago, when the standard line for Republicans was to deny the existence of global warming and then claim that, even if it is real, it’ll be really swell. Fred Thompson is the one-man version of this, having executed an about-face on the matter in just the past six months.
Comments are closed.
Actually, I think the New York Times is wrong about this.
It would be a shame if the Republican candidates jumped on the bandwagon just as the wheels were falling off.
In the not-too-distant-future, the day Al Gore joined fellow Nobel Peace Prize recipients Le Duc Tho and Yassir Arafat will be regarded as the high-water mark of global warming hysteria.
What, specifically, are they wrong about? Have they misrepresented the positions of any candidates?
Actually Smails, the “high-water mark” (good pun) will be the day you are vehemently explaining to your AllState agent that the “flooding” (two in one sentence), which has devastated your home must be covered, because climate change caused the storm and man caused climate change.
Im sure Arafat will save you a seat.
oh good judge, i was worried that you missed your download, but I see you got the talking points firmly implanted.
(funny thing is these people think they are being clever and not just repeating what all the other zombies are repeating)
Actually, the really amusing thing is when you doom-and-gloomers finish watching An Inconvenient Truth and reading a chapter from Earth in the Balance, you hop on the Internet (which St. Al invented!) and label others “zombies” without even a hint of irony.
I’ve never watched that movie or read that book. Actually, I’ve never heard of that book.
Waldo, I wonder how serious the GOP’s candidates really are. Don’t forget that Dubya pledged to regulate carbon emissions during the campaign, too — then promptly reneged as soon as he took office. Several candidates are now towing the 2007 Bush line — global warming is a threat but if we lifted a finger to stop it, we’d kill our economy. The question has to be asked, do you support cutting carbon emissions 80% by 2050, the minimum scientists say is needed to curb the worst effects of global warming? If not, it’s hard to take their environmental commitment seriously.
But President Bush made that pledge during the general election, IIRC, when he was trying to move to the center. During the primary is when candidates tend to appeal to their bas, in order to gain the nomination.
This issue is for Republicans what raising taxes is for Democrats. On the campaign trail, they say just enough to appease moderates and sound sincere (IOW, they lie through their teeth), but the other side knows they’re full of crap. And once they’re elected, the other side is proven correct.