According to Rick Santorum, it is.

Strange.

Brad Johnson has context and analysis here.

I think Rick Santorum is trying to destroy America.

Comments

  1. #1 dean
    February 10, 2012

    Most of the Republican candidates are, in my opinion, smart enough to realize that when they say shit like this they are telling a bold-faced lie. I don’t think that of Santorum: he seems to be so mind-blowingly stupid that it is very easy to think he really believes this. It goes along with his claim that birth control “allows people to act sexually in ways they shouldn’t”, for instance.

    Is he trying to destroy the country? He we would certainly put it at risk if, by some complete breakdown of our citizenry, he became president, so yes, attempting to destroy the country could be considered a consequence of his political goals.

  2. #2 Quantico Cat
    February 10, 2012

    Wow. Santorum is not very well spoken on this matter, but is he wrong? Well, let’s see… What EXACTLY is the plan for transitioning us off of traditional energy supplies? What are the specific replacement technologies, and what is the time line for the making the switch? What are the important milestones? These are basic, fundamental questions that any rational person would want answered before agreeing to legislation and policies that will clearly upend our current way of life. Where’s the plan? I’d like to see it. If we had a detailed plan we could know without a doubt if Santorum is right or wrong. Is that too much to ask for?

  3. #3 scidogs
    February 11, 2012

    big plans are for big goverment,the invisible hand of the free market will take care of the details quantico.

  4. #4 StevoR
    February 11, 2012

    “A leftist plot to destroy America?”

    I guess that explains conservative evangelical Christian scientist Katharine Hayhoe believing in Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating. She also wrote a chapter for one of Newt Gingrich’es books discussing climate change – that was later taken out and had her harrassed see here :

    Destroy the USA specifically? Funny how climate change is harmless to the rest of planet and no other nation recognises the scientific reality or taking steps (like, say, the Ausie carbon tax & ETS introduced by our PM Julia Gillard this year) to reduce the speed of the Global Overheating or anything right? Oh wait ..

  5. #5 Quantico Cat
    February 11, 2012

    scidogs, where do you draw the line for government involvement? Before or after cap and trade?

  6. #6 Norm
    February 11, 2012

    Greg, your OP title is:
    “Is climate change is a leftist scientific conspiracy to destroy America?”

  7. #7 Greg Laden
    February 11, 2012

    Norm, your comment says “Greg, your OP title is: “Is climate change is a leftist scientific conspiracy to destroy America?””

  8. #8 Norm
    February 11, 2012

    Maybe I’m crazy but shouldn’t the title be either:

    “Is climate change a leftist scientific conspiracy to destroy America?”

    or

    “Climate change is a leftist scientific conspiracy to destroy America?”

    but

    “IS climate change IS a leftist scientific conspiracy to destroy America?”

    Just sounds really … wrong.

    But again, maybe I’m just crazy. If I am just crazy, I apologize.

  9. #9 Greg Laden
    February 11, 2012

    Oh, you mean the extra “is”?!? I supposed that depends on what is is.

  10. #10 Norm
    February 11, 2012

    Hurray! I’m possibly not crazy!

  11. #11 george
    February 12, 2012

    SUGGESTION:

    How to tell somebody you don’t believe in AGW.

    Science, won the day for scepticism, the scientific method when properly applied won the day. It is the solid foundation that sceptics
    are able to base their argument upon. Science can’t be politicised, truth of fact can’t be denied, a syntax of logic will always destroy beliefs that are without truth.

    The Science says:

    Pressure is the required variable only if one compares Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement across planets. For any individual planet, it is
    the atmospheric mass that effectively controls thermal enhancement. There is no confusion with the pressure-controlled lapse rate with the
    atmosphere of a given planet.

    Why Now? It’s the science;

    • The climate of Earths’ atmosphere results from a formation of a climate machine by combining solar isolation and force of pressure.
    Coupled with spatio-temporal chaotic systems of irradiation and radiation of surface and atmosphere, dynamic heat distributions of
    oceans, a multiple pole thermodynamic atmosphere, with a gravitational velocity and planetary harmonics, spinning on an uneven axis around a
    Sun, with fluctuation of solar isolation, immersed in a space that has galactic electromagnetic winds.

    • The physical construct of a planet, with or without an atmosphere, retains ancient energy by the force of pressure on its mass. Otherwise
    planets could not exist.

    • Planets attract cold by the density of its mass and distribute heat by the dynamics of mass. Space attracts heat by the sparsest of its
    mass.

    • Heat rises, cool sinks. Atmosphere cannot back radiate heat to a warmer surface than the atmosphere which, cools with height.
    Thermodynamic gas laws describe the mechanisms of weather in the troposphere.

    Ref: General Remarks on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and the Planetary Spaces; by Baron Fourier.

    The pressure of the atmosphere and bodies of water, has the general effect to render the distribution of heat more uniform. In the ocean
    and in the lakes, the coldest particles, or rather those whose density is the greatest, are continually tending downwards, and the motion of
    heat depending on this cause is much more rapid than that which takes place in solid masses in consequence of their connecting power. The
    mathematical examination of this effect would require exact and numerous observations. These would enable us to understand how this
    internal motion prevents the internal heat of the globe from becoming sensible in deep waters.

    Where NASA got the science wrong:

    Arrhenious in 1897 screwed up about the conservation of energy in gaseous mass , he flipped out about the relationship of carbon to life
    in a stupid greenhouse.

    Dopey Hansen in the early 80’s flipped out about Arrhenious’ mistake and caused all his stupid mates to believe in an invalid scientific
    principle. They spent billions in chasing argumentum ad populum.

    When, if they had followed a correct method of science, by applying scepticism, they
    would have found the answer that has been there, right under their noses.

    Climate is a multidisciplinary field of science, and cannot be treated as a pseudoscience, necessary of propitiation. Science will correct
    this fatal mistake.

    The force of pressure encloses our atmosphere not a greenhouse.

    So, when somebody asks why you don’t believe in AGW you can say;

    “It’s the science, stupid.”

  12. #12 Wow
    February 13, 2012

    “So, when somebody asks why you don’t believe in AGW you can say;”

    I don’t know.

    Problems are many.

    “Pressure is the required variable only if one compares Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement across planets.”

    Doesn’t mean anything.

    “There is no confusion with the pressure-controlled lapse rate with the atmosphere of a given planet.”

    Is wrong. gravitational potential energy and the specific heat capacity define the lapse rate.

    And the equation with pressure/temperature is

    PV=nRT.

    Note that pressure AND volume are there. Where do you talk about volume? Nowhere.

    “• Heat rises, cool sinks.”

    Wrong. Total potential energy is required to be higher to allow rising. Otherwise you would not be able to get inversions. Go read a book on weather.

  13. #13 Quantico Cat
    February 13, 2012

    Environmentalists have made some tremendously important contributions over the years. But, here’s the thing… They are ALL IN on this. The environmentalists have bet the farm on AGW. And, maybe they are right to do so. But, if they are not, or if AGW manifests itself as something other than a catastrophe, they will have undermined their credibility to a point where they will not be able to recover it. Their ability to influence will be effectively destroyed.