Romney Skeptical on Human Role in Climate
Critics think he's shifting to the right
By John Johnson, Newser Staff
Posted Oct 29, 2011 9:23 AM CDT
Mitt Romney speaks during a town meeting in Manchester, N.H., Friday.   (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

(Newser) – Mitt Romney's views on global warming are back in the news. This week, he reaffirmed his skepticism about humans contributing to climate change. CBS News detects a "rightward shift" as the campaign goes on, and both Democrats and Rick Perry agree, notes CNN. Judge for yourself, as Politico rounds up some of his statements on the subject:

  • Thursday: "My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us."
  • August: "Do I think the world's getting hotter? Yeah, I don't know that, but I think that it is. I don't know if it's mostly caused by humans."

  • June: "I don't speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that. ... I don't know how much our contribution is to that, because I know there's been periods of greater heat and warmth than in the past, but I believe we contribute to that. And so I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you're seeing."
  • His 2010 book No Apology: "I believe that climate change is occurring—the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control."

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Romney Skeptical on Human Role in Climate is...
53%
18%
1%
13%
11%
3%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 54 comments
Watching4theMODS
Oct 30, 2011 11:23 AM CDT
Would he change his mind if an elder talked out of his hat and said humans were the cause. It is an honest question. Americans need to know where this man stands.
SilenceDogood
Oct 30, 2011 7:10 AM CDT
I call bullshit on kokuaguy. There are enormous gaps with the factual basis that “Scientist” base their models on regarding the current climate change; 1. What caused the LIA or Little Ice age. 2. What cause the MWP or Medieval Warm Period. 3. If we cannot produce sound data to support these abrupt climatic changes how are we assume that the current theory of climatic change is valid? Or more simply put. If we cannot understand why the earth warmed considerably in the Middle Ages and cooled considerably around 1600 to 1800, and this was clearly before mankind burnt all of the carbon fuels we could lay our hands on; then what credibility does the current theory of global warming have, other than sensationalism? "Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts. But a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science." -Jules Henri Poincaré
kokuaguy
Oct 30, 2011 2:53 AM CDT
I call bullshit on Youllbanthis and Guvner. You know damn well that the science is indisputable which proves that global warming is occurring, the Arctic polar ice cap and the world's glaciers are disappearing, the climate is changing and "weirding" radically, the ocean is acidifying, and if trends continue our grandchildren will have twice as much CO2 in their atmosphere by the end of this century, and will live in conditions that have not been seen on this planet in millions of years. You know also that this is human caused. How is it possible that all of the fossil carbon deposits laid down in the earth over billions of years could be extracted and burned in a little over a century without having an effect on the atmosphere? You and Guvner are shills for the fossil fuel industry -- big coal, big oil/gas, etc. You won't debate the climate science because you can't. You deleted the NBU article "A Psychologist Looks at Climate Science Denial" because you made fools of yourselves trying to make the that case that "new climate science" debunks the I.P.C.C. findings and the conclusions reached by 90% of the world's scientific organizations.