Mitt Romney talks global warming in Myrtle Beach, SC

Mitt Romney reiterated his lukewarm belief in anthropogenic global warming at a December 17, 2011 town hall meeting at the Horry-Georgetown Technical College Grand Stand Campus in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

“I am not a scientist. I have not built a model of how the environment, the earth works,” Romney said, according to ABC News. “I think the Earth is getting warmer. I may be wrong. Number two, I think we contribute to that. Number three, I don’t know how much we contribute to that.”

The former Massachusetts Governor also chided fellow 2012 Republican presidential candidate and one time House Speaker Newt Gingrich for appearing alongside Nancy Pelosi in a 2008 television ad sponsored by Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection. 

Photo by Gage Skidmore [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)],
via Wikimedia Commons

Iowa City: Newt Gingrich Mic Checked for Climate Change Denial - Video

Newt Gingrich got a minutes long mic check from Occupy Wall Street protestors shortly after taking the podium to deliver a speech at the University of Iowa on December 14, 2011.

Among the long list of grievances Occupiers read aloud to the former House Speaker and Republican presidential candidate: 

"For your denial of climate change."

Video: Mic check segment begins at 2:00

Rick Perry on green energy subsidies

Rick Perry fielded a question about energy subsidies during the December 15, 2011 Fox News Republican presidential debate in Souix City, Iowa. 

Neil Cavuto, Fox News: Governor Perry, you have railed against the special treatment afforded Solyndra, as have the other candidates here tonight, and particularly the tax code incentives for green technology and allowances that have been made for this industry.

But as Texas Governor, you have afforded the same attention to the oil industry. Back in 2003, you signed a bill that reduced the tax payed by some natural gas companies that had helped them reap since better than $7 billion in tax savings.

So I guess what I’m trying to say is, “Are you guilty of the same behavior as Governor favoring an industry that you claim this President has favoring the green industry?”

Rick Perry: Today’s the 220th anniversary of the signing of the Bill of Rights and one of those, the 10th Amendment, I like a lot.

And the reason is because that’s how our founding fathers saw this country set up, where we had these laboratories of innovation.

It should be in the purview and the decision making process of a state. If they want to put tax policies in place that helps make them be more competitive.

We did it not only for the oil and gas industry, but we also did it for the alternative energy industry and the wind industry.

They came in droves, made Texas the #1 wind energy producing state in the nation.

But government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers from Washington, D.C.

That’s the difference.

If in the states, I’ll promise you Terry Brandstead in this state he knows how to put tax policy, regulatory policy in place to make his state more competitive. 

And you need 50 states out there competing with each other and Washington out of their hair. 

2011 Fox News Iowa Republican Presidential Debate: Keystone XL

The Keystone XL pipeline was a topic of the December 15, 2011 Fox News Republican presidential debate in Souix City, Iowa. Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann all weighed in on the issue, which has become a symbol for both sides in the ongoing debate over the future of the nation's policies on energy, the environment, and climate change.

Video and transcript of Newt Gingrich's remarks on Keystone XL:

Neil Cavuto, Fox News: Candidates, I want move on if we can to energy issues. And Speaker Gingrich, I’d like to begin with you. As you know, the President has rejected any efforts to tie a payroll tax cut extension with the Keystone pipeline and to reopen it, and to explore reopening it as well. He says any other way to connect it to would be akin to adding an extraneous issue. Given his opposition, and the likelihood that the Keystone issue could be up in the air for a year or more, how do you recommend Republicans deal with this to force the issue?

Newt Gingrich: You know Neil, I sometimes get accused of using language that’s too strong, so I’ve been standing here editing.

I’m very concerned about not appearing to be zany.

But I want to paint a picture for all of us.

The Iranians are practicing closing the Straits of Hormuz.

The Canadian Prime Minister has already said to the American president, “If you don’t want to create this pipeline to create 20,000 American jobs and bring oil through the United States to the largest refinery complex in the world, Houston, I’m going to put it straight west in Canada to Vancouver and ship the oil direct to China, so you’ll lose the jobs. You’ll lose the throughput. You’ll lose 30 or 40 years of work in Houston.”

And the President of the United States cannot figure out that it is – I’m using mild words hear – utterly irrational to say, “I’m now going to veto a middle class tax cut to protect left wing environmental extremists in San Francisco, so that we’re going to kill American jobs, weaken American energy, make us more vulnerable to the Iranians, and do so in a way that makes no sense to any normal, rational American.”

Neil Cavuto, Fox News: No offense sir, but you didn’t answer my question. What would you do to try to move on this within a year.

Newt Gingrich: What should the Congressional Republicans do?

They should attach it to the middle class tax cut and send it to the President.

Force him to veto it.

Send it to him a second time.

We had to send welfare reform to Bill Clinton three times.

He vetoed it twice.

By the third time, the popular outrage was so angry - 92 percent of the country wanted to have welfare reform - he decided to sign it.

It happened to be an election year.

I said to the President, you want to be totally out of touch with the American people, be my guest, but I’m not backing down when we’re right and you are totally wrong.

Transcript of Jon Huntsman's comments on the Keystone XL oil pipeline:

Neil Cavuto: Governor, on this same issue, if you don’t mind, the delay as you’ve pointed out stands to threaten thousands of jobs. In a recent speech, you said up to 100,000 jobs.

But the President’s supporters say a rush decision could cost the environment a great deal more.

What I’d like to ask you Governor, is there any condition under which a President Huntsman would say the need to protect our land trumps the need to provide more jobs.

Jon Huntsman: It’s always going to be a balancing act.

We’ve got land that everybody respects and appreciates, but the job we’ve got to undertake as American people is to fuel our future.

We have no choice. I mean, our economy has hit the wall.

I want to get rid of that heroin like addiction we have based on imported oil.

$300 billion transfers every year from this country to a lot of unpredictable relationships that are no more than transactional.

In order to get where this country needs to be, we need a relationship with Canada, from which we can draw materials, but I also want to make sure that I’m able as President to disrupt the oil monopoly.

There’s a one product monopoly in terms of product distribution in this country.

If we’re going to achieve real energy independence, we’re going to have to be able to draw from a multiplicity of products like natural gas.

We wake up to the reality, Neil, in this country that we have more natural gas than Saudi Arabia has oil.

I say, “How stupid are we?”

 When are we going to get with the picture and start converting to transportation, converting to manufacturing, converting to electricity and power generation?

It is completely within our grasp. It’s going to require a President who understands that delicate balance and who is going to be able to go out with an aggressive plan towards energy independence that gets it done for this country.

Transcript of Michele Bachmann discussing Keystone XL: 

Neil Cavuto: Congresswoman Bachmann, you were very critical of the extended shutdown after the BP oil spill that I believe last upwards of five, six months in terms of a moratorium.

I was wondering though, Congresswoman, if you were President, and there were such a disaster again, what would be an acceptable period for oil drilling to cease for you to get to the bottom of a problem?

Michele Bachmann: Well, what we needed to do was find out what the true cause of the problem was, and the Obama administration wasn’t willing to have a true and thoughtful investigation to get to the bottom of it.

President Obama jumped to conclusions and he put a moratorium on accessing American oil in the Gulf region that actually hurt the economy more than the original disaster.

But I wanted to add something on Keystone.

Keystone is extremely important, the pipeline.

This pipeline is one that would have brought at least 20,000 jobs, at least $6.5 billion worth of economic activity.

And if I was President of the United States, I wouldn’t have taken the decision that President Obama did. His entire calculus was based on his reelection effort, because quite frankly the radical environmentalists said to President Obama, “You pass Keystone, we’re not going to do your volunteer door to door work.

That’s what Barack Obama has done to this country. He’s put his reelection over adding jobs and making the United States energy independent.

I would have made the decision as President of the United States, we would’ve put Keystone online immediately.

FactCheck.org has scrutinized the oft repeated claim that Keystone XL could create as many as 20,000 jobs and dubbed that jobs figure "inflated", making the claim the proposed oil pipeline might create up to 100,000 jobs grossly inflated.  They also found Jon Huntsman's claim that the United States had more natural gas than Saudi Arabia has oil to be inaccurate.

Mitt Romney's "Newt and Nancy" ad

Mitt Romney's presidential campaign released a new YouTube video attacking Newt Gingrich today dubbed "Newt and Nancy" along with an accompanying website - NewtandNancy.com - stating:

When Al Gore needed support for his liberal global warming agenda, he turned to Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich to film an advertisement together. Filming an ad with Nancy Pelosi is another example of Newt Gingrich being an unreliable conservative and an unreliable leader.

Ron Paul: Global warming flip-flop

Ron Paul remained silent on the issue of climate science throughout the early stages of the 2012 election, but on November 30, 2011 his presidential campaign denied the scientific consensus on man-made global warming in a statement announcing the release of a new online ad targeting Newt Gingrich:

Much of the ad is in the former Speaker’s own voice, and after a few statements by Newt it follows with an image of him sitting on a loveseat beside former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the two chuckling over their agreement concerning as-yet scientifically proven anthropogenic global warming. 

Gingrich has come under frequent fire from climate change deniers for his obvious flip-flop on global warming. Now it appears as though Ron Paul himself flip-flopped on the issue. The Texas Congressman’s own fan site provides his quotes on the subject from three separate interviews, one from 2008 and two from 2009.

In 2008, Ron Paul had this to say about global warming:

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

By 2009, Paul was singing a different tune:

The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.”

It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful.

Naturally, RonPaul.com chalks this radical change in position up to "additional consideration and analysis" on the part of their candidate.

Still, the language employed by his campaign in November suggests that Paul is at least open to the idea that anthropogenic global warming can be proven.

Michele Bachmann: Global warming “unproven theory”

Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign has issued a statement describing man-made global warming as an “unproven theory”:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney have both endorsed the unproven theory of man-made global warming and supported big government policies like cap-and-trade as a result.

The Minnesota Congresswoman raised the issue during last night’s ABC News Yahoo Iowa Republican Debate.

“If you look at Newt/Romney, they were for cap and trade,” Bachmann claimed, according to a transcript posted by the Chicago Sun-Times. 

Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker, responded with his usual retort. 

“I have never-- I have-- I oppose cap and trade, I testified against it, the same day that Al Gore testified for it. I helped defeat it in the Senate through American solutions. It is simply untrue,” he said.

Factcheck.org disagrees. They found:

It’s true that Gingrich has never favored the approach taken by Democrats, but he said in 2007 that he would “strongly support” cap-and-trade if combined with “a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions.”

Furthermore, Gingrich said in House testimony in 2009 that he still might support a cap-and-trade system covering “the 2,000 most polluting places,” if packaged with incentives for nuclear power and “green coal,” among other things.

Judging by the latest poll numbers, GOP primary voters are not all that concerned about Gingrich’s past support for bipartisan solutions to global warming. The latest nationwide Gallup poll shows him in first place with 35 percent. Consistent climate change deniers Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann trail far behind, tied at 6 percent.

Video of Bachmann's "Newt/Romney rant" courtesy of ABC News: