Romney Tied to Global Warming Denier Group

Aides and staffers of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney are listed among the principals of a new Astroturf group set up last fall to deny the science of global warming.

The new group advertises itself as the American Environmental Coalition - “working to keep America beautiful, strong and prosperous.” But the sole focus of its expensive website is to question the science of climate change.

As for its outreach activities, the AEC seems intent only on attacking Romney's presidential competitor John McCain, the Republican candidate with the best record on responding to climate change.

The AEC site was registered by Gary Marx , executive director of the Judicial Confirmation Network and Mitt Romeny's Conservative Coalitions Director. Jay Sekulow, the co-chair of Mitt Romney's Faith and Values Coalition, is also listed among the AEC's members, a who's who of conservative Christians and oily advocates for the fossil fuel industry.

Take, for example, AEC co-chair George Landrith, whose Frontiers for Freedom survives on funding from such environmental stalwarts as ExxonMobil, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. The list also includes the likes of coal-blackened Pat Michaels and the tobacco and oil advocate-for-hire Steve Milloy.

So, Mitt Romney is campaigning on a platform to drill for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and subsidize liquified coal (see video) while his aides promote science stories by discredited and compromised “experts” like S. Fred Singer and Sallie Baliunas.

The AEC is not an environmental organization.

It is not a science site.

It's a deliberate and transparent attempt to mislead. Romney should apologize for being involved and distance himself from the tactics.

(Tip of the hat to Clean Air Watch and Energy Smart for their coverage of this story.

Here's a video of Romney in action recently:

If you like this story please consider signing up for our RSS feed so you can stay up-to-date on our latest posts. 


Richard, these comments from David Gergen are relevant to your post on Romney. Check out the link here. I would also add that Romney supporters are criticizing McCain for being the same as Al Gore, in an attempt to alienate.

Sorry, here is the link:

“Up yours David Gergen
January 15, 2008 - 12:29 ET by Lame Cherry
This is why liberals should not be seen or heard as their brains are in perpetual fart mode belching out intestinal gas for thought.
Gergen is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!!!”

Yeah, that sounds like really intelligent commentary over there Steve V…


But it is relevant when you consider that NewsBusters is a project developed by the conservative think tank: Media Research Center

MRC’s other projects also include:
Parents Television Council
Business & Media Institute

Among their other funding sources, they have received $202,500 from ExxonMobil.

But thanks for pointing out that
conservative think tanks built for spreading fake information, don’t think
conservative think tanks built for spreading fake information, are a bad thing.

AEC calls 2007 the “Year of Global Cooling”. And to be sure, we have seen some cooler temperatures recently on the west coast (it is a La Nina winter after all).

But NASA has just announced that 2007 tied with 1998 for second warmest year globally. This is all the more remarkable in that 1998 was an El Nino year (usually warmer).

See the graphs here (you’ll need to scroll down a bit):

I especially liked the AEC reference to 2007 being “the coolest this century.” Even if it was true, it would be irrelevant to the point of idiocy.

imagine if bush was behind some kids organization, in the meantime killing children in afganistan.? at least romney is doing something, i found a site with comments for and against romney,

Climate obviously has changed and will continue to change. The observation that ice is melting does not show that human activity is the cause. The assertion that humans are or ever can have a significant influence on climate by limiting the use of fossil fuel (a.k.a. limiting human production of carbon dioxide) is not supported by any historical record. Avoid the group-think and de facto censorship by Climate Scientists. Directly interrogate official government data that taxpayers have paid for from ORNL and NOAA as follows: If the carbon dioxide level from Lawdome, Antarctica is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel usage from it is discovered that the current carbon dioxide level increase started about 1750, a century before any significant fossil fuel use. If average earth temperature since 1880 from is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel use it is discovered that there is no correlation between rising fossil fuel use and average global temperature to 1976. The asserted hypothesis that, since 1976, increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the temperature to rise is refuted by the carbon dioxide level from and earth temperature from determined from the Vostok, Antarctica ice cores. If these are graphed on a higher resolution time scale it is discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level lags earth temperature change by hundreds of years. If Lawdome and recent carbon dioxide data and Vostok and recent temperature are plotted on the same graph since 1000 AD (or before) it is observed that temperature oscillates up to ±1.5ºC (half pitch about 100 yr) while carbon dioxide level remains essentially unchanged (between 9000BC and 1750AD). This will also show that the average global temperature 200 years ago was about the same as now, 400 years ago was significantly higher than now and current rate of temperature change is fairly typical. Recent measurements show that average earth temperatures in 2006 and 2007 were actually lower than in 1998. As shown at ,for most of earth’s history carbon dioxide level has been several times higher than the present. The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does not cause significant climate change. Actions based on the human-caused global warming mistake put American freedom and prosperity at risk.

1. Attend a local community college and learn how to construct a sentence and a paragraph.
2. Organize your thoughts before, not during your rant.
3. Learn how to use what we call a “link”. This is an internet term.
4. Actually read the web pages to which you refer. Your source, the “Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center” draws the exact opposite conclusion as you do.
5. Take a math class. Take a science class. Then try again.

1. Ad Hominem. Try refuting his arguments rather than simply implying that he is stupid. I don’t have any evidence that you are any smarter than the person you are replying to.

2. same as 1.
3. He posted several links do data from official sources, and explained how he correlated them and interpreted the results. This is something you can presumably do yourself if you do not believe his claims. If you are referring to the fact that these links are not blue and clickable, these are referred to on the internet as “hyperlinks”, and this message board does not seem to use them, as all the links on every post are regular non-hypertext links.

4. It is possible for people to draw different conclusions from the same evidence. This is why it is important for many people to look at the evidence and not simply trust that anyone who looks at the data will interpret it correctly.

5. Ad Hominem yet again. Implying that the person you are responding to has never taken a math or science class does not contribute to the discussion at all.

I am not saying I necessarily agree with Dan’s conclusions, but I find your presumed intellectual superiority to be very arrogant. Dan even if he is wrong is being relatively scientific in presenting his evidence and analysis of that evidence, all of which anyone is free to attempt to reproduce and then agree or disagree with. Simply calling someone stupid as a rebuttal doesn’t work in science.

Brian, I don’t recall seeing you name in these parts before. If you are new, please take note that to warmists, not only here but even over at the allegedly “science-based” website RealClimate, invective and personal insults are the principal currency of discussion.

Copied from the CDIAC reference:

According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.

Not hardly “exact opposite”. But I actually downloaded the numerical data from the noted sites and made my own graphs as everyone should who does not want to just accept what others say. ‘Best fit’ was obtained using 220 year lag on warm-up. You can copy the site addresses and paste them into the command line to get past the lack of link capability on this blog.

This is a pointless artical. The man believes something that can’t be proven either way. So, his belief is as good as any.

Well, I guess getting elected trumps other beliefs.

Utah has the lowest smoking rate in the US,even ahead of California, because of course, the Mormon church rather strongly discourages the use of tobacco. Mormon missionaries try hard to get existing smokers to stop. I had a (good) boss years ago who happened to be Mormon, and he certainly never smoked.

Hence, the combination of Romney with [Landrith, Milloy, etc] is most fascinating. I wonder how the Church of LDS might view this.

Good For Romney,

We need more people sticking up to stop this ridiculous Global Warming Theory. If government would focus on real issues instead of wasting so much time, money, and resources worrying about an issue that may or may not be real the Country would be a much better place.