Before going off to the Council on Foreign Relations to give a speech on foreign policy, former Minnesota governor and 2012 GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty appeared on Fox & Friends Tuesday morning. Asked about his stance on cap and trade, he acknowledged that he had changed his mind. He added, “I denounced it for a variety of reasons, one of which is the science is bad and it’s in great dispute,” repeating once more that there is a “scientific dispute” about the issue of climate change.

But there isn’t.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reviewed the scientific analyses on the subject in 2007 and found that it is “very likely” — greater than 90 percent certainty — that most of the increase in global temperatures since the mid-20th century was due to increased greenhouse gas emissions. The American Association of the Advancement of Science wrote in 2007, “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” The National Academy of Sciences also agrees that global warming is real and largely man-made.

Pawlenty has shifted from saying that global warming is real and human-caused to voicing skepticism about the science. In a 2007 press release, he said, “[O]ur global climate is warming, at least in part due to the energy sources we use. We cannot solve it by ourselves, but we need to lead and do our part. We also need to push for an effective national and international effort.”

And at the National Governors Association Meeting he said, “We should have listened to President Carter… We should not spend time on voices that say [climate change] is not real.” But, in December 2009 when asked about the Copenhagen Climate Change summit, he said the science was “unsettled.”

Leaked e-mails from Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon asked its journalists to “refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.”

Gov. Mitt Romney has acknowledged this fact. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman has reflected the GOP standard on cap and trade, while once supporting it like Mr. Pawlenty, now saying that it can’t be done in the recession. And that’s the position of most Republicans. Republicans like Sen. John McCain and Lindsey Graham supported a cap-and-trade plan, but fears of a bad economy and being attacked from the right led them to disavow the plan.

Watch it:

Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Collin Peterson are two Minnesota Democrats who broke with their party on restrictions to the Environmental Protection Agency in its monitoring and enforcement of greenhouse gases. Klobuchar’s votes were criticized by environmental groups while at least one conservative took her to task for not supporting strong enough restrictions. During the budget showdown, Peterson played an important role in a controversial measure to prevent the EPA from monitoring greenhouse gases.

Environment Minnesota, in an email to supporters, blasted Klobuchar for her votes last week. “With these votes, Sen. Klobuchar had a choice: stand up for the health of our children, elderly citizens and other vulnerable populations, or do the bidding of America’s biggest polluters. And Senator Klobuchar chose to side with polluters.”

ThinkProgress called Klobuchar one of the 17 “dirty Democrats.”

Klobuchar voted for the Baucus amendment which would have exempted agriculture and small emitters. It failed with the GOP opposing it for not being strong enough and only a handful of Democrats voting “aye.” Klobuchar also voted for the Stabenow amendment which would have put restrictions on the EPA enforcement of greenhouse gases for two years.

Phil Kerpen of the Koch brothers–backed Americans for Prosperity trashed those measures calling them “phony amendments that only pretended to stop the EPA’s job-crushing regulations.”

The White House praised the Senate for rejecting the efforts that Klobuchar backed.

“The administration is encouraged by the Senate’s actions today to defend the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect public health under the Clean Air Act,” President Obama said in a statement. “By rejecting efforts to rollback EPA’s common-sense steps to safeguard Americans from harmful pollution, the Senate also rejected an approach that would have increased the nation’s dependence on oil, contradicted the scientific consensus on global warming, and jeopardized America’s ability to lead the world in the clean energy economy.”

The Senate cast its votes to curtail the EPA’s authority on greenhouse gases last Wednesday, and the House — with the help of a few Democrats — attempted to add them to the budget resolution that almost shut down the government.

Rep. Peterson was at the heart of those efforts.

He was a cosponsor of the attempt to curtail the EPA. According to the New York Times, he offered legislation because of “all this stuff the EPA is doing to ethanol and every other damn thing they are doing.”

In a statement, Peterson cited agricultural concerns.

“This bill hits the pause button on EPA’s current efforts to regulate greenhouse gases,” he said. “America’s farmers and ranchers are committed to preserving our natural resources for the next generation, but what we’re seeing from EPA could potentially interfere with conservation efforts already underway. EPA’s regulations would not only make it harder for agriculture producers to meet increased demand but raise costs on all consumers. If Congress fails to act the economic effects could be devastating.”

The measure was cosponsored by Peterson as well as Republican Reps. John Kline and Michele Bachmann, and was eventually pulled in the final budget agreement late Friday night.

Environmental groups are going after Minnesota members of Congress who have voted to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas pollution. A recent poll shows that votes by Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann and Chip Cravaack aren’t popular in their districts, and Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat, is getting attacked from both sides — the GOP says his stance against EPA regulation is “wishy washy,” while interest groups say he’s siding with foreign oil producers.

In late February, the U.S. House voted to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gasses as air pollution in an amendment to the government spending bill. That bill would be valid for the rest of 2011. Voting for the ban were Republican Reps. Erik Paulsen, John Kline, Bachmann and Cravaack who were joined by DFLer Peterson.

Peterson has backed up his opposition to the EPA Thursday by signing on to a bill that would permanently bar the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

The Truman National Security Project (TNSP), a national security nonprofit that views dependence on foreign oil to be a national security concern, criticized Peterson in an email to the Minnesota Independent. The group has created a campaign called Operation Free: Secure America with Clean Energy.

“Representative Peterson has said we need to rein in the EPA, but what really needs to be reined in is this Congress’s addiction to oil,” wrote TNSP press secretary Laura Britton. “In light of the unanimous agreement of our military and security leadership that oil money funds terrorism and puts our troops in unnecessary danger, we are surprised and disappointed in Peterson’s decision to support this shortsighted proposal. We urge Peterson to stand up with our veterans, military leaders, and security experts in defending the EPA’s efforts to protect America through clean energy policies.”

Peterson also took heat from the Republican Party of Minnesota which called him “wish washy.”

“Collin Peterson once again proves that Minnesota deserves better leadership than he can offer,” GOP chair Tony Sutton said in a statement on Thursday. “After voting for the job killing cap and trade bill in 2009, Peterson now says ‘the EPA needs to be reined in’ and blocked from reducing the gases that are blamed for global warming. Minnesota deserves more than a wishy washy leader who is unwilling to take a firm stand. There is no telling how long Peterson will stand against the EPA before he changes his mind again.”

Shortly after the vote to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases in the continuing resolution, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) commissioned a poll by Public Policy Poling that found voters in Bachmann’s and Cravaack’s districts opposed that vote.

In the 6th Congressional District, 64 percent of voters said they opposed Bachmann’s late-February vote to “block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution.” That sample included 60 percent of independents and 35 percent of Republicans opposing the vote. The poll also found that 69 percent of voters wanted the EPA to “reduce carbon pollution without delay,” with 65 percent of independents and 47 percent of Republicans agreeing.

“Americans are clearly persuaded that their health needs should take priority over the profits of polluters” said Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling. “Political affiliation doesn’t appear to count for much when constituents are asked whether their representatives in Congress should be siding with the public’s health or the political clout of polluters.”

The poll also found that 73 percent – including a majority of Republicans – think “EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed” and 78 percent agreed that the United States should be “protect(ing) the air we breathe and the water we drink with safeguards that hold corporate polluters accountable for the pollution they release into our environment.”

The poll was conducted from February 18 to 19 and had a sample size of 956 with a margin of error of 3.2 percent.

“The message is as clear here as clean air: People in Rep. Bachmann’s district want Rep. Bachmann to let the EPA do its job instead of putting the profit-driven agenda of big polluters ahead of the health of their children,” said Samantha Chadwick of Environment Minnesota.

In Cravaack’s district, the poll showed similar numbers: 67 percent of voters, which included 58 percent of independents and 36 percent of Republicans, opposed efforts to “block the EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution.”

In the poll, 73 percent of voters said they thought that “EPA scientists, not Congress, should decide what pollution limits are needed.” That included 53 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Independents.

The poll has a sample size of 1,022 and a margin of error of 3.1 percent.

Rep. Mike Beard (R-Shakopee) is pushing for more new coal-fired power plants in Minnesota, but the Shakopee Republican is undeterred by reports about the effects of carbon-emitting energy production on global warming. His reason: He believes God will prevent the planet from running out of fossil fuels while also eliminating the harms associated with climate change. While Beard speaks from his religious tradition, many others in Minnesota’s faith communities believe it’s dangerous to wait for divine intervention to solve our environmental problems — and they say it’s the duty of people of faith to preserve the planet for future generations.

In an interview with MinnPost’s Don Shelby on Tuesday, Rep. Beard explained his recent push for new coal-burning power plants in Minnesota.

In the Minnesota House, Beard has taken aim at clean air standards — in particular those that curb carbon dioxide emissions by power plants. He introduced HF72, which would lift the ban on new coal plants, and he also introduced HF509 to repeal the 2007 plan — touted by Gov. Tim Pawlenty — to curb greenhouse gasses and build Minnesota’s renewable energy infrastructure.

“A lot of what Beard knows he learned in church,” wrote Shelby. “One Congressman, talking about global warming, recently said that God wouldn’t allow man to do anything to destroy the planet. Beard told me, ‘It is the height of hubris to think we could.’”

That congressman, Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, made his remarks before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in November. “The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over,” he said. “Man will not destroy this Earth.”

Rep. Mike Beard

Beard also told Shelby that God would prevent the planet from running out of fossil fuels like coal: “God is not capricious. He’s given us a creation that is dynamically stable. We are not going to run out of anything.”

While the view that humans can have negative impacts on the earth is prominent among some conservative evangelical Christians, it’s not the view of the majority of faith traditions in Minnesota.

It’s certainly not for Chuck Dayton, a retired environmental lawyer who has been following the push for more coal-fired power plants in the state. He says there are no pending applications for coal plants in Minnesota and that specific exemptions exist that already allow for new coal plants in some cases.

He pointed out that coal has become expensive “because of the cost of transportation fuel, and that the cost of natural gas had plummeted.”

“Minnesota does not need new coal-fired power,” he said.

Dayton is co-chair of a new coalition of faith groups in Minnesota called Minnesota Interfaith Power and Light. The group works to educate congregations about how they can reduce carbon dioxide emissions, provide educational opportunities for people of faith on the issue of global warming and contribute a faith-based voice to public policy surrounding climate change issues.

He said that many people of faith view the Genesis commandment of “dominion” as a call to exercise stewardship of the earth. “There are a number of devout evangelicals who believe that it is the command of God to protect the earth, and eminent theologians have identified compassion as the the main common element in all religions.”

“We are already beginning to see the devastation that a warming world can bring to human beings,” he told the Minnesota Independent, citing wildfires in Russia and floods in Pakistan as recent examples of human suffering from a changing climate.

“So the question for congregations in America is, ‘How can we Americans, who are more responsible per person than any nation on earth for the growing burden of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, sit by while our country does nothing to try to solve the problem?’” he asked.

Of the thought that God will prevent humans from negatively impacting the Earth, as Beard and Shimkus have argued, Dayton is not convinced.

“It’s just plain wrong-headed to think that divine intervention will fix everything,” he said pointing to the six great extinctions thus far in the planet’s history. “One could say, ‘Well, life persisted and got better, ’cause here we are, the pinnacle of creation, so that was all a part of God’s plan.’”

He continued, “But suppose that immense human suffering results from global climate change, that tens of millions and perhaps hundreds of millions of human deaths occur because of it, not to mention the loss of a quarter of all species on the planet?”

“Life will continue, of course, but this is a harm that we have the power to prevent,” he said. “Most religions believe that we have free will. We can sin and we can do bad things to the earth; its our choice and we must suffer the consequences.”

Dayton pointed out that many large Christian denominations have already taken a strong stance on the issue of global warming.

The United Methodist Church said, “We, as stewards, have failed to live into our responsibility to care for creation.” The U.S. Catholic Bishops said that the Church’s “response to global climate change should be a sign of our respect for God’s creation.” The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America said, “We see the despoiling of the environment as nothing less than the degradation of God’s gracious gift of creation.”

The Southern Baptists, Episcopalians, Quakers, Presbyterians, prominent Muslims and many Jewish traditions have spoken of the urgent need to curb greenhouse gasses.

Dayton’s group is part of a national network of Interfaith Power and Light, and last weekend congregations across the country spoke about the issue during their worship services. “Minnesota’s response was very strong with over 30 churches talking about the subject,” he said.

And some religious leaders are even exploring a return to non-violent civil disobedience over the issue as a sense of urgency has been growing.

“By the time the worst disasters begin to appear, the burden [of greenhouse gasses] in the atmosphere is there and will remain,” said Dayton. “We could not then change it by stopping all carbon emissions. So the need is to act now.”

Sen. Al Franken told the Rochester Post-Bulletin that he has changed his mind on nuclear power due to a conversation with former Vice President Al Gore. Nuclear power has become a hot topic in Minnesota politics as legislators, mainly Republicans, look to lift the ban on new nuclear power plant construction. That plan has already passed one committee in the Minnesota House.
Franken said that with newer technologies, nuclear waste handling and storage capabilities can be improved and nuclear power can play a role in curbing global warming, the Post-Bulletin reports.

“Yes, (the nuclear waste) will be around for hundreds of thousands of years, but I am kind of hoping we will, too,” Franken said. “And I am kind of hoping that just as we’re going from a decade to map the human genome to a day or two days or whatever it is that we will be more and more sophisticated on storing the waste.”

He said it was a conversation with Gore that helped him change his position on the use of nuclear power to reduce greenhouse emissions.

“Nuclear has to be a part of the solution to that,” he said.

Franken didn’t directly address the lifting of Minnesota’s ban on construction of new nuclear plants, but the Post-Bulletin editorial board came out in favor this week of lifting the ban on nuclear power plant construction, which has been in place for 17 years in Minnesota.

Concerns about air pollution and global warming are blocking the construction of new coal-fired plants, and although wind energy is an important part of our future, it won’t keep up with our state’s increasing appetite for energy. Our two nuclear plants provide one-quarter of the state’s electricity — more than all “green” energy sources combined — but their futures beyond 2030 are uncertain at best.

The bottom line is that Minnesota needs to keep all of its energy options open.

Edwatch, a controversial conservative education watchdog group, announced that its operations will close at the end of the year. Founded as the Maple River Education Coalition in the late 1990s, the group was an incubator for the political career of Rep. Michele Bachmann and drew the ire of elected officials in at least three political parties. The group was pro-gun, anti-homosexuality and opposed to federal intervention in local education.

“Twelve years ago the Maple River Education Coalition was born around the center island in my kitchen,” wrote Renee Doyle, Edwatch’s president in a statement. “Today I am announcing that EdWatch is closing its doors. We do this with a deep sense of accomplishment and a conviction that, while the work is never complete, the time for this change is right.”

Doyle started EdWatch along with Julie Quist, who is now a Bachmann staffer and is wife to Allen Quist, a perennial religious right candidate who lost a bid for the Republican primary to challenge Rep. Tim Walz earlier this year.

Doyle said that many of the members of the EdWatch board have moved on to bigger things. “However, as the peril to our nation has increased, and because the battleground is much broader today than when EdWatch was created, we have each been called to other, expanded areas of duty,” she said. “Many of us now serve under or are publically-elected officials, or we are lobbyists, writers, speakers or everything mentioned. We sense the urgency of the hour in which we live. For this reason we have chosen to bring the corporation to a close to concentrate on our individual responsibilities to this nation.”

In addition to Quist and Doyle, other members of the board at its closing included Michael Chapman, who founded the American Heritage Research, which serves to “expose worldview bias and the censorship of America’s true Christian heritage within mainstream public school curriculum;” Dr. Karen Effrem, who will be launching Education Liberty Watch in 2011; Larry Pratt of the Gun Owners of America which is a right-wing version of the NRA, and David Thompson, a conservative radio host who was elected to the Minnesota Senate in November.

EdWatch’s web site describes Education Liberty Watch as “a new organization with much the same mission” and says updates about the new group will be posted on the EdWatch site.

Doyle concluded the letter to supporters by saying, “Our work is not done. We all continue as watchmen on the wall and gatekeepers of a free society. May the Lord bless us all as we continue to stand as truth-seeking and freedom-loving Americans!”

During EdWatch’s 12 years, the group gained quite a bit of notoriety. It’s most famous graduate is Bachmann, who got involved with the group prior to her winning election to the state Senate in 2000.

Former Gov. Jesse Ventura had strong words for the group in 1999: “The ‘Maple River Group,’ that thinks UFOs are landing next month. Well they do! They think it’s some big government federal conspiracy! ”

The group criticized Gov. Tim Pawlenty in 2006 for “promotion of homosexual agenda.”

“Homosexual advocacy groups are being funded by grants from the state Department of Health under his authority,” wrote EdWatch in a letter about Pawlenty. “Additionally, under Governor Pawlenty’s supervision, his administration is actively promoting the indoctrination of students into a homosexual worldview and value system.”

It also opposed changing history curriculum that portrayed Christopher Columbus in anything but a positive light, opposed the teaching of evolution without mentioning the Christian story of creation, and promoted science curriculum that denied the existence of global warming.

Why is this significant? Republicans have long argued that there is no sense in capping greenhouse gas emissions in the United States if major emitters like China refuse to impose caps of their own. The announcement appears to deflate that argument, although Republicans can still make the same argument about other major emitters that are not capping their emissions.

This development was not lost on environmentalists, who pointed out the irony that China has acted before the United States to reporters yesterday.

The state-run China Daily reported yesterday:

The country is set to begin domestic carbon trading programs during its 12th Five-Year Plan period (2011-2015) to help it meet its 2020 carbon intensity target.

The decision was made at a closed-door meeting chaired by Xie Zhenhua, deputy director of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), and attended by officials from related ministries, enterprises, environmental exchanges and think tanks, a participant told China Daily on Wednesday on condition of anonymity.

“The consensus that a domestic carbon-trading scheme is essential was reached, but a debate is still ongoing among experts and industries regarding what approach should be adopted,” the source said.

State Sen. Mike Jungbauer

No Republican contenders in the 2010 gubernatorial contest — except environmental activist Leslie Davis — believe in global warming, according to a report from Minnesota Public Radio. Perhaps most strident is state Sen. Mike Jungbauer (East Bethel), who told attendees at a recent State Fair debate that global warming is “pure, unadulterated BS.”

While the other GOP contenders were less colorful in their declarations, none would own up to believing that climate change owing to human activity is a credible, significant issue. House Minority Leader Marty Seifert (Marshall) declared such concerns to be “theoretical.” Rep. David Hann (Eden Prairie) labeled global warming an “excuse” to shift towards alternative energy sources.

Their stance is in contrast to current Gov. Tim Pawlenty — as well as mainstream scientific opinion.

There is, however, one Republican gubernatorial hopeful who acknowledges the validity of global warming: Leslie Davis, a perennial candidate and environmental activist. He’s highly unlikely to end up being the party’s nominee.

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

Audio after the jump.

Smart Politics notes it’s not the first time since the election of President Obama and a new Democrat-led Congress that Bachmann dubbed her conservative compatriots “foreign correspondents reporting to you from enemy lines.” The metaphor, combined with her “armed-and-dangerous” rhetoric, drifts close to Sean Hannity’s excited speculation about a militant right-wing reaction.

But if she sounded like any kind of journalist, it was a 1950s writer for the show-biz rag Variety. Here’s what she said about climate-change doubter Christopher Horner, who she is bringing to the Sixth District for two appearances in April: “He gave a boffo speech out in D.C. … people’s socks will be knocked off.”

Think Progress has the full audio from Bachmann’s Saturday appearance on WWTC-AM.

Here’s the key minute (h/t DumpBachmann):

Related: Bachmann: Democrats are ‘ripping the guts out of freedom’

But as a surrogate for Sen. John McCain, Pawlenty these days is crooning lullabies to the party’s base of (mostly religious) global warming doubters.

On the Glenn Beck radio show Tuesday, Pawlenty reversed himself. After three years of advocacy to mitigate global warming, Pawlenty the surrogate disagrees with Pawlenty the governor.

But, you know, in my view is this: you can argue that the world, the globe is warming as it always has for natural reasons. But I think the weight of the science indicates that at least some of it — you could argue it’s half a percent or something more substantial — is caused by human behavior . . . But, in the wake of this energy crisis, where people are struggling to pay the bills, that debate on cap and trade has fallen to the background for understandable reasons.

To repeat: Pawlenty the governor has advocated for cap and trade. From Minnesota Public Radio, November 2007:

“Gov. Pawlenty said the cap-and-trade market is a good way to reduce pollution. ‘If you unleash the requirements and incentives and attractive features of a market, people will respond to it,’ he said. ‘Some will respond by reducing pollution directly. Others will respond by buying credits or offsets in the marketplace, with the ultimate same net effect.’”

And at a National Governors Association meeting in 2008, he said global warming was real:

“We should have listened to President Carter… We should not spend time on voices that say [climate change] is not real.”

And in a press release from the Office of the Governor in 2007, it’s people that cause the problem:

“[O]ur global climate is warming, at least in part due to the energy sources we use. We cannot solve it by ourselves, but we need to lead and do our part. We also need to push for an effective national and international effort.”