Last Updated:September 20 @ 08:20 am

Santorum: Global warming is politics, not science

By Charles Babington

STEUBENVILLE, Ohio (AP) - Rick Santorum says President Barack Obama is pushing a radical environmental agenda that unwisely limits energy production and turns its back on science.

Santorum told voters in eastern Ohio on Monday that science is on the side of those who want to aggressively produce more oil and natural gas in America. He said the notion of global warming is not climate science but "political science."

Santorum said Obama and his allies want to frighten people about new oil-exploration technologies so they can get your dollars and turn it over to politicians to win elections "so they can control your lives."

Ohio's GOP primary is March 6.

Santorum also planned several campaign appearances later Monday in Michigan. Voters there go to the polls on Feb. 28.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 8.4/10 (109 votes cast)
Santorum: Global warming is politics, not science , 8.4 out of 10 based on 109 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

20 Comments

  1. genesalComment by genesal
    February 20, 2012 @ 3:38 pm

    I think it’s more a ‘liberal progressive religion’.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (40 votes cast)
  2. Fred WisniewskiComment by Fred Wisniewski
    February 20, 2012 @ 3:55 pm

    Santorum’s got it right. Hope America gets the message.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (45 votes cast)
  3. capricorn1Comment by capricorn1
    February 20, 2012 @ 4:00 pm

    global warming,going green is the new red.
    its about CONTROL of the masses.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (39 votes cast)
  4. jb80538Comment by jb80538
    February 20, 2012 @ 4:58 pm

    It’s about making lots of money for al gore and his pals! Nothing more.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (30 votes cast)
  5. coopsComment by bengates
    February 20, 2012 @ 5:01 pm

    It really stinks how Gore also misleads sincere conservationists and nature lovers and helps in demonizing the core of the religious right which comes from the principles of developing sacrifice and servanthood at hospitals and schools and building community. Based on true science not activism which seeks to mislead by allowing no absolutes and breaking the logic that order came from the Order the Maker and Orderer Creator not random chance disorder making ” order” from premodial soup. And then the idea we are all morally obligated to protect a planet that happened without God our Father.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (15 votes cast)
  6. coopsComment by bengates
    February 20, 2012 @ 5:04 pm

    Also interesting to note how the left paints conservatives as “controlling” and lying and the religious right as zealot charlatans when Gore was the one who ordered and lead the censorship movement back only 10 -15 years ago.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (23 votes cast)
  7. texasfarmerComment by texasfarmer
    February 20, 2012 @ 5:36 pm

    I’ll go green, when it is the most cost effective form of energy and without the subsidy. The bottom line is cost.
    The greenie weenies want to control how you live your lives. Not here.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.4/5 (20 votes cast)
  8. woodooComment by woodoo
    February 20, 2012 @ 5:57 pm

    Mr. Santorum is correct. This global warming hoax is going to be our downfall. Sorry that Mr. Gore is from TN. We apologize for him.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.4/5 (23 votes cast)
  9. celador2Comment by celador2
    February 20, 2012 @ 7:09 pm

    Sock it to ‘em , Rick!
    Lets get down to business and start that pipeline and other explorations the Hosue passed last week. They include shale oil, ANWR, outer continental shelf and fewer regulations for shale.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.2/5 (17 votes cast)
  10. begneli2011Comment by begneli2011
    February 20, 2012 @ 7:34 pm

    If the globe is getting warmer, or now cooler, so what.
    The global warming evangalists make these bad assumptions: 1. The globe is supposed to be unchanging, always the same. 2. The globe is getting steadily warmer. 3. Man is causing the warming. $. Any warming would be a disaster. In fact the globe 5000 years ago was 2 to 4 degrees warmer than today, and was so nice it was called the “Climactic Optimum”

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.2/5 (12 votes cast)
  11. jmpeakrunnerComment by jmpeakrunner
    February 20, 2012 @ 8:27 pm

    Santorum has made a serious mistake by discounting global warming with his simplistic denial. The facts are otherwise — the planet is warming, according to scientific data. The question is how large is the human effect. It is a fact that Carbon Dioxide from human activity is >30% higher than at anytime in the past 400,000 years (from ice core data). But the precise effect of that abnormal CO2 level is not well understood. A defensible stance for any candidate is to call for prudent action to lessen the release of CO2, but not radical action (e.g., cap&trade would invite corruption), while additional data are collected. Santorum’s simplistic denial will bring sarcastic attack from Obama’s political machine, and many independents and even some conservative Republicans who know the true state of the environment will be discouraged from voting for Santorum as a result.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.1/5 (20 votes cast)
    • makesenseComment by makesense
      February 20, 2012 @ 9:12 pm

      To add to your scientifically based argument above I would like to add this. The solution has to be gradual but fast to slow down the rapid increase in CO2 generation (due to the rapid increase in the world’s population – 7 billion strong today ) with all their CO generating activities, but try to keep people employed.

      The Liberals do not understand or refuse to accept that we cannot rely on wind and solar alone if we are to maintain our lifestyle. We need to push nuclear to replace coal as fast as we can. Research on fourth generation (cheaper, faster to build and safer)nuclear plants need to be really pushed hard. People need not get alarmed on nuclear safety. The Fukushima accident could have been avoided althogether with a simple economical design change had the company paid attention to the Bander Ache(?) tsunami in Dec 2005. To date this simple change had not been mentioned in any engineering or scientific meetings. (The Germans public have been so irrational they are closing their nuclear plants and reverting to coal powered plants …. thus will generate much much more CO2 in the future. The Greenpeace movement is totally confused as to what to do.)

      On the other hand many Republicans are denying completely that climate change is here(good examples of this are the comments above). They ignore the fact that 100 year records are being shattered in many places in the US and around the globe. The world is seeing heavier rains and consequently devastating floods (Pakistan, Midwest, Bangla Desh, Asia, Europe), heavy snow where none existed before (Rome’s snow last month is a good example), extensive fires (Texas and California), etc. They refuse to see that we should make prudent moves to protect our populations from future devastation.

      Both sides refuse to mention that the world’s population growth has to be reversed. I really do not like guys like Santorum to lead the country to a disastrous future due to his ignorance and at the same time I do not like to see Obama continue with his failed leadership. We need someone who will lead from the center but with both extreme sides pushing hard we are all doomed to suffer longer.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.8/5 (16 votes cast)
    • DedicatedComment by oldwriter
      February 20, 2012 @ 10:19 pm

      Jm ‘PeakRunner’ you say that ‘It is a fact that Carbon Dioxide from human activity is 30% higher than at anytime in the past 400,000 years.’ Well, in that case, you need to quit running over those peaks and cut down on that heavy breathing. It is YOU, Jm, YOU”RE THE ONE who is causing it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.8/5 (11 votes cast)
    • siquijorislandComment by siquijorisland
      February 20, 2012 @ 11:24 pm

      “A wide range of scientists and engineers from institutions around the world have signed an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal with a message for elected officials and candidates with regard to global warming.
      Here‘s the gist of the 16 scientists’ message addressing the growing political sentiment that something must be done for the environment before it’s too late:
      There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy.
      So why are many scientists and those in public office pushing an alarmist message that the world is already behind on curbing the effects of man-made global warming? (Related: See The Blaze coverage of the United Nation’s climate conferences) The scientists write that there are many reasons but suggest we first look at “cui bono?”, which means “as a benefit to whom”. Translated into today’s language, the scientists write to “follow the money”. The scientists expound on this idea:”
      Another example ot the unearned moral superiority of American liberals, and their demands to tell us how to live. They have bread a class for use of a better term of presumptuously ignorant who just know that I didn’t really study the issue and have no idea what I am talking about. The fact that I have studied the issue for years means nothing and facts do not mean anything. The cloud dancing has begun.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (11 votes cast)
    • WEBCommentaryComment by Bob Webster
      February 20, 2012 @ 11:54 pm

      jmpeakrunner and makesense are both wrong!

      There is no credible science to support human-caused-global-warming theory.

      There has never existed a consensus in the scientific community supporting the proposition that human activity burning fossil fuels for energy and transportation is having a significant impact on global climate. Those who believe humans are causing climate warming are at odds with the long history of science, the scientific method, and the need to challenge scientific theories.

      It is the nature of real science that every scientific theory is expected to be challenged until it is either rejected, modified or irrefutably confirmed as a scientific law. Not even the “Greenhouse Effect” theory has sufficient confirmation to view it as scientific law. In fact there are very credible challenges to the very existence of a greenhouse effect.

      Scientists refer to “Newtonian Physics” and Newton’s “Law of Gravity.” Yet Einstein’s widely-accepted propositions remain theory, still being carefully examined and challenged in the long and rigorous process of experimentation and observation required to confirm or reject every theory. Neither the “Greenhouse Effect” theory nor the weaker “Anthropogenic Global Warming” theory are exempt from the rigorous process of skeptical review through experimentation and observation. One cannot promote a theory to irrefutable “law” on the basis that it seems to “make sense.”

      Global climate is always changing from natural forces. There are changes that occur over several decades superimposed on changes that occur over centuries, superimposed on the variability of climate in an interglacial (thousands of years) of an ice age cycle (tens of thousands of years), superimposed on changes occurring over an ice epoch (many hundreds of thousands to several millions of years), which, in turn, are superimposed on changes that occur over ice eras (tens of millions of years). A host of natural factors contribute to these changes. Greenhouse gases have never been considered a major source for climate change over any climate period. Indeed, as a consequence of 70% of earth’s surface being covered by oceans, there is far greater evidence that greenhouse gases respond to climate change; they do not cause it.

      From the “Planet Earth” (Time-Life) series book (1983), Ice Ages (page 20): “Human beings have never experienced the earth’s normal climate. For most of its 4.6-billion-year existence, the planet has been inhospitably hot or dry and utterly devoid of glacial ice [no polar ice caps!]. Only seven times have major ice eras, averaging roughly 50 million years in length, introduced relatively cooler temperatures; humankind arose during the most recent [current] of those periods.” Further, “During the 65 million years of the current ice era, six ice epochs have occurred.” Continuing, “When the Pleistocene ice epoch began about 2.4 million years ago, advancing ice sheets marked the onset of one of the coldest climate interludes experienced on earth. These periods of especially vigorous glacial advance are known as the ice ages.” Finally, “The most recent ice age, preceded and followed by warmer times – interglacials – began about 120,000 years ago. It reached a bitter extreme some 50,000 years later, slowly moderated, then brought severe cold again about 18,000 years ago. In the last 10,000 years – the Holocene interglacial – three sustained cold spells sent temperatures below the current global average of 59° F. One of them, a time of crop failure and famine called the Little Ice Age, ran from the 15th to 19th Century.”

      Most previous interglacials have sustained global temperatures as warm as today’s for far few years than has the Holocene interglacial. In other words, the Holocene interglacial is atypically long and is thus overdue to end with a rapid return to bitter cold ice age temperatures.

      This information tells us that (1) earth is due to emerge from the current ice era which will bring about an end to the ice age cycles and ice epochs superimposed within the ice era, (2) earth’s “normal climate” is far warmer than anything feared by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (3) until earth emerges from the current ice age/ice epoch/ice era cycles, the expectation is for the onset of yet another ice age cycle as the Holocene interglacial ends.

      According to the geologic record of climate over the past 570 million years, there is absolutely no correlation or causative relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. Indeed, during one of the coldest ice eras in earth’s climate history (~450 million years ago), atmospheric carbon dioxide peaked at levels more than ten times higher than at present!

      In “Global Warming, Myth or Reality?: The Erring Ways of Climatology” (2005, Praxis Publishing) the late French Climatologist, Marcel Leroux (twice a PhD in climatology) examined greenhouse gases as a possible cause for climate change and concluded that, among possible causes for climate change, greenhouse gases were “far at the rear.” For an excellent non-textbook resource for the non-scientist, Prof. Robert M. Carter’s “Climate: The Counter Consensus” (2010), Stacey International, is an outstanding choice. Finally, “Slaying the Sky Dragon, Death of the Greenhouse Warming Theory” is a provocative new work worthy of consideration for its challenge to the orthodoxy that uncritically accepts greenhouse effect theory.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (16 votes cast)
  12. rben6Comment by rben6
    February 20, 2012 @ 10:07 pm

    I think global shifting is more to the point and it is obviously being influenced by human industrial and automotive problems which can be influenced by reasonable government intervention without stifling industrial inovation. I think we are doing that. What is Mr. Santorum complaining about? The Germans are obviously making a mistake if they plan on relying on coal and the Chinese as well.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.7/5 (7 votes cast)
  13. Comment by Charle Waldie
    February 20, 2012 @ 10:36 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV_QdARbSDM

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  14. abclarkeComment by abclarke
    February 21, 2012 @ 12:28 am

    This is GREAT! After Obamacare, this is a top priority. The science is AGAINST AGW. The first candidate I heard say so was Sarah Palin. Then Rick Perry. Now Rick Santorum. I’ve been thinking that if Romney would take this position, I could live with him. Now I’m on the Santorum bus.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.2/5 (10 votes cast)
  15. bloodboughtComment by bloodbought
    February 21, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

    Rick is right;this is political. SOVEREIGNTY INTERNATIONAL & ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES, INC.,(phone # is (207)-945-9878), did an excellent educational DVD called: Global Warming – Emerging Science and Understanding. One part exposes how about the 54 scientists in the UN’s ICCP, International Panel for Climate Change, were told by those over them to make their science line up with those in power political agenda. This DVD is very good with its science also.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)
  16. davidsmithComment by davidsmith
    February 24, 2012 @ 8:59 pm

    The only ppl who don’t believe in global warming are ppl over 55.

    There is so much research done by noaa, NASA, (both government agencies) and so many researchers at universities and organizations around the world giving unrefutable proof of global warming.

    Oil companies don’t want competition. Of course they deny global warming. Wind and solar are free energy resources. Oil companies would go bankrupt if we used them.

    And don’t know if you noticed, but which political party is more closely tied to big oil companies?

    Global warming makes sense. Cause and effect. Is it so hard to believe human beings can make an impact on the planet?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  17. Pingback: Part 3: Will President Obama be blamed for escalating gas prices as was Bush? « Nancy J. Thorner

Leave a Comment





Reference Pages

  • About
  • Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer