Mitt's flip-flop-flip on the reality of global warming
Romney Surrogate Praises Obama Initiatives For Reducing CO2, Says Romney Is ‘Not A Denier’ Of Climate ChangeSince last summer, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been saying that “we don’t know” if humans are causing climate change — flipping in the opposite direction from his earlier position as Governor, when he called for a “no regrets policy” on addressing climate change. But as we head into the general election, a surrogate from the Romney campaign now indicates the candidate has again changed his stance, declaring that he is “certainly not a denier” of climate science.
Stunz mostly danced around the questions on climate, criticizing EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and dismissing any domestic action without more international coordination. But in providing her answers, she also strongly hinted that a Romney Administration would engage in international talks on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Up until now, Romney has been focused exclusively on appealing to voters on the extreme right — and in the process turned his back on previous support for efficiency, renewable energy, and reducing carbon emissions. But with polls showing that that a large majority of Americans understand that climate change is accelerating, support government action on the issue, and strongly desire more renewable energy, the Romney campaign may be faced with another decision: Should the candidate flip back to a more moderate stance?
They may need to bring out the Etch A Sketch on this one.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/11/514528/romney-surrogate-praises-obama-initiatives-for-reducing-co2-says-romney-is-not-a-denier-of-climate-change/
"dismissing any domestic action without more international coordination" - I'm sure "voters on the extreme right" (who oppose US membership in the UN and WTO - among other international organizations - on "national sovereignty" grounds, will be really happy to have the US sign a binding international agreement on climate change. Perhaps they won't mind too much if any agreement is just a 'feel-good' document with no enforcement provisions. It's precisely the 'enforcement provisions' (international organization forcing the US to do something) that will set "voters on the extreme right"'s hair on fire.
= new reply since forum marked as read
without any help from the Third World. China produces more total carbon emissions because it has 4 times our population, but each American is responsible for much more pollution than any individual from the Third World. (Perhaps the reason why bush wanted to have nothing to do with Kyoto.)
The only way to "outsource" global warming gases is to send them to Mars or someplace else. The melting polar caps don't really care whether the carbon emissions come from the US, Asia, Europe or Africa.
It is going to take a binding international agreement (yes, the kind that "national sovereignty" folks " on the "extreme right" - and elsewhere - will hate because the international organization that enforces any climate agreement will have to have 'teeth' to force countries to live up to their commitments. Mitt's voters "on the extreme right" are not going to like that as it will remind them of other international organizations that they want the US to withdraw from. And it does smack of the "g" word.
You'll notice that I tried to bring my response around to the point of the OP which was that mitt's understanding of climate change is "evolving" as his political needs "evolve" (though he is probably reluctant to use the term "evolve".) 
"China produces more total carbon emissions because it has 4 times our population"
Patently false. China has an export-driven economy, not an internal consumption based economy.
That means the Chinese are burning coal to make products for US consumers. This way, manufacturers escape US environmental regulations! 
