Last week we posted on Mitt Romney’s full-body embrace of Al Gore’s global warming religion. Today, the Mittster doubled down in an article at Politico:

Mitt Romney won’t be doing any apology tours on climate change.

The early GOP presidential front-runner has broken with his party’s conservative ranks to declare global warming a real threat to the planet that merits some sort of action to curb heat-trapping emissions.

But the former Massachusetts governor is also quick to trash cap and trade, carbon taxes and other controversial policies that have been kicked around over the last decade in Washington.

I feel for Mitt.  What is one with no core beliefs and a penchant for pandering and flip-flopping to do?  Try to satisfy everyone, of course.  In this case, apparently, the solution is for Mitt to attempt a partial flip and hope to stick the dismount by landing with each foot on a mutually exclusive position without flopping on his butt and splitting his skinny jeans.

Unfortunately for Mitt, a gymnast he isn’t.

In an effort to secure the green vote he will have ’no apologies’ for his support of the anthropogenic global warming scam, the dubious nature of the evidence supporting it notwithstanding.  But, in order to shore up his conservative support (assuming there is any, itself a dubious proposition), he promises not to do anything about it. Wink, wink.  This promise, of course, is subject to revision as the Mittster’s position on cap and trade has undergone several, um, modifications in the past few years.  As Governor of Massachusetts in 2005, he touted the virtues of cap and trade as “good for business“.  Who’s business it was good for he didn’t specify. In 2007 he changed his position to be for cap and trade as long as it was applied globally or something. Now, naturally, he claims to be against it.  They don’t call him a turnaround artist for nothing, I guess.

In a post today at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey brilliantly captures the incongruity of Romney’s position (or positions as the case usually is with Mitt):

If one accepts the premise of AGW, doesn’t that more or less make it incumbent to craft policies that address it?  After all, the theory states that AGW is cumulative, which means that the longer it goes, the problem increases in at least an arithmetic projection, if not an exponential one.  It’s a bit like saying that the federal budget deficit is a real problem, but continuing to propose budgets with trillion-dollar annual deficits.

You know … like Barack Obama did this year.  Twice.

Exactly. And all the more reason for the Mittster to campaign to replace Joe Biden on the Democrat ticket, as the Wall Street Journal recommends, than to be the Republican nominee.