The GOP debate touched on Global Warming. Three presidential nominees spoke about Global Warming but only two of them were brave enough to be skeptical of it. They happen to be the two front runner candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. There is a very good chance that the 2012 US presidential election will include the question of Global Warming.
Here is Rick Perry on Global Warming
Not bad. I would suggest that politicians speak about policy on Global Warming. It's enough to say that you are skeptical of Global Warming and then drop a few names and/or experiments that are contrary to the warmist assertions. Warmists have made a convenient blacklist for us to draw from. Just direct the public to people like Richard Lindzen, and let scientists argue the science. Not more than one sentence should be wasted on settling the science of climate change in a political debate.
Rick Perry did well to mention his environmental record in Texas. Conservatives routinely outdo socialists in fighting real pollution and promoting conservation.
The question unasked and unanswered is what would Rick Perry do when the eco-lobby pushes for cap and trade, carbon taxes or the ideological shutdown of specific projects. Will he roll back carbon centered policy and regulations that are already in place? If he doesn't believe in Global Warming then its important to stop government practices that are based on environmental superstitions.
Now watch Michele Bachmann. The MSNBC hosts changed the subject from Global Warming to drilling in the Everglades, but she changes it back.
She does a lot better than Rick Perry. She goes after specific bad environmental policy occurring under the current administration. She points out that Obama is the ideological enemy of the coal industry (among others). This administration actively spends time destroying and blocking jobs when the US needs them more than ever.
There are many reasons to strip power from Obama in the next election. His record on the environment ties in with his terrible spending practices in general. Chasing green job dreams with borrowed money, punishing businesses for consuming energy, and blocking the expansion and exploration of existing cheap sources of domestic energy is central to the analysis of Obama's failure as a president.
The Governor of Utah came out with the usual progressive warmist line
about the myth of the 98% consensus. We may live in democracies but
reality is not a democracy. You cannot vote the earth into being flat any more than you can prove global warming with a simple show of hands.
That consensus myth has been debunked
repeatedly yet it's the one line any warmist can always remember. I've
heard enough that from our own Stephen Harper in minority mode and I
see no need to replay it here. Utah's warmist has no hope of being
president so you aren't really missing anything.
If the next election is going to be fought on Global Warming in part, candidates had better get their arguments together with facts and names. To argue convincingly will require the speaker to own the subject. Gaffes in this area will receive wide and public ridicule. The one complaint I have with Rick Perry's performance is that he came off unprepared; almost G.W. Bush like.
On the upside, winning this debate will dismantle a large chunk of useless and boundless big government bureaucracy. Removing planetary climate control from the US Government agenda will go a long way to raising prosperity of individual Americans and returning the world to sustainable growth. That is why this is so important, not just to Americans but to people all around the world and especially to Canada.
You can watch the entire debate here thanks to Ron Paul's team. Ron Paul is doing an excellent job and his social media campaign should be recognized for its excellence. I appreciate Ron Paul's ideological roots and I understand what he is saying. I only understand him because I have read widely of conservative principles. Watching the debate I couldn't help but think that Ron Paul sounded a little kooky. I know what Libertarians stand for and I agree with them in many ways. I don't know what limits Ron Paul sets on his ideology. How exactly will he transition the worlds largest economy into a Libertarian ideal? Hasn't everyone had enough of the hope and change stuff? Will he make ideological excuses if things turn out for the worse? Can the US even handle more severe and unproven changes? Its like getting a nose job after having a close call with flesh eating disease by a doctor who's never done a nose job. Risky. My intuition puts up a red flag when it comes to Ron Paul. I'll need to see a lot more from him and hear a lot more about what kind of president he would be before I could recommend him.