“The science behind “global warming” doesn’t really explain why the past models haven’t been accurate, or why there are holes big enough to drive a Mack Truck through in the current models. There is currently no support for the contention that it’s caused by humans,” says Republican congressional candidate David Crowley.
And Crowley is joined by many other wanna-be politicians with their heads firmly planted in the sand when it comes to the realities of human-caused global warming.
The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) has a project up and running for the Fall’s House of Representatives races asking candidates 5 questions on the environment including one on global warming.
Here’s a few of the responses they have received so far:
CA-53 Edward Teyssier: “That human activity is a significant cause of global warming has been soundly rebuked by qualified scientists using sound methodologies. While the earth has undergone numerous cycles of warming and cooling trends there is no indication that human activities, either now or in the past, had a significant effect on these trends.”
ID-Senate Pro-Life (that’s really his name): “I am an organic farmer. I am an enviromentalist by nature. I do not, however, believe in global warming caused by pollution. We need to stop pollution for other reasons.”
KS-04 Steven Arthur Rosile: “Evidence developed since 2001 shows that this issue is essentially over. According to David Evans, Australia’s chief scientist on climate from 1999 to 2005, there is no observable heat signature in the atmosphere to show that greenhouse gases are responsible for trapping heat and satellite data show Earth’s temperature stabilized in 2001 and actually dropped 0.6C in 2007. That is 85% of the 0.7C increase recorded over the previous 100 years.” Google David Evans climate change.”
MO-06 Dave Browning: “At this point I do not believe that the scientific evidence supports the position that global warming if the same exists, is not a function of sun activity rather than human activity. No study I have been made aware of uses mandlebrot mathematics (chaos math) to do its projections. It is a fact that the mathematics of climateology requires the use of chaos mathematics to describe it as it is a chaotic system. The use of liner models is just BUNK.”
MO-07 Kevin Craig: “I haven’t seen any evidence of “severe impacts” during the “Medieval Warm Period.” Global warming following the “Little Ice Age” couldn’t have been caused by human industrialism. Cutting energy consumption by 20-80% will result in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people without noticeable decline in global warming. Any policy proposal must answer: what are the costs; what are the assured benefits. http://KevinCraig.us/greenhouse.htm”
NJ-02 Peter Boyce: “Scientists warn?” Go to www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm#36
OR-3 Delia Lopez: “If you look at history you see variations in temperature, from ice ages to times when it has been much warmer than now. The corelation between CO2 and warming has been disproven. Th esun is responsible for most warming. Between 1940 and 1980 when CO2 levels were rising, temperatures were falling. Temperatures have been falling again for 6 years, some scientists are warning of an ice age, again! That was the big fear when I was in school. Then came the hole in the ozone layer.”
OR-5 Douglass Patterson: “I believe there is a global climate change taking place, which appears to be cyclical every 50-100 years. I doubt very seriously that there is such a thing as the so-called “global warming” event taking place.”
SC-05 Frank Waggoner: “Not all scientist agree with that premise, at least 36,000. We cannot predict what the water vapor levels in the atmosphere going to be ten days from let alone 10 or 12 years. Environmental problems can be better solve through monetary and fiscal policy reform so that manufacturing does not have to depend on large economies of scale and mass production to be competitive.That is a better solution to new and global taxes. I feel that the evironmental movement is more about politics than clean air.”
Luckily, with the exception of two Republican candidates, those who responded with the typical climate denial talking points represent fringe parties and have very little chance of ever being elected.
