Skip to comments.Utah's Jon Huntsman: I believe in climate change because 90% of scientists do
Posted on 05/17/2011 11:39:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Jon Huntsman gave a relatively brief interview to Time, but it’s likely to create longer term problems for his rumored presidential run in the GOP. Huntsman says he opposes cap-and-trade proposals because “this isn’t the moment,” but he buys the climate change argument because “90% of the scientists” say it’s happening. If 90% of oncologists identified a carcinogen, Huntsman says, he’d believe them too (via Taegan Goddard):
You also believe in climate change, right?
This is an issue that ought to be answered by the scientific community; Im not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer wed listen to them. I respect science and the professionals behind the science so I tend to think its better left to the science community though we can debate what that means for the energy and transportation sectors.
Matt [David, Huntsmans communications director,] says youve changed your mind about cap-and-trade.
Cap-and-trade ideas arent working; it hasnt worked, and our economys in a different place than five years ago. Much of this discussion happened before the bottom fell out of the economy, and until it comes back, this isnt the moment.
Will it ever be the moment, though? The environment never takes priority because it never seems like something has to be addressed this quarter or else, but if you look at whats happening to our planet
If anyone knows about the need to clean up the planet, we do; weve been living somewhere [Beijing] where you feel like youre killing your kids sending them out to school every day. But putting additional burdens on the pillars of growth right now is counter-productive. If we have a lost decade, then nothing else matters. Ask Japan about that.
Do “90% of the scientists” believe in anthropogenic global warming? “Climate change” is a meaningless term; the climate is always changing. “Global warming” is also meaningless in a policy sense, as warming due to natural changes can’t be reversed by political policy. I have seen plenty of claims of “consensus” on AGW, but I’ve never seen anyone claim that agreement on AGW totals to 90% of all scientists, or even all climate scientists.
The better evaluation is whether the modeling for the claims of AGW bear out in terms of data. On that score, the answer is an emphatic no, as one former AGW theorist discovered. Bruce McQuain wrote about David Evans last weekend and his conversion to AGW skepticism:
This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
Thats the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
And when should people like Huntsman stop buying what scientists claim? When they cease being scientists:
At this point, official climate science stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
At least Huntsman says he opposes cap-and-trade … for now. When the economy recovers, will Huntsman decide to support government intervention in energy production and consumption in response to bad science? Do we want to find out the hard way?
TITLE : Jon Huntsman: The Potential Republican Presidential Candidate Democrats Most Fear
No, by definition, 100% of scientists believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming,
because if they don’t, they aren’t scientists.
Yeah, PLEEEZE DON'T THROW ME IN THAT BRIAR PATCH!.................
Climate change is happening, but there’s never been a time when climate change wasn’t occurring to some extent.
The question is, to what extent does human activity have an effect on climate? Huntsman doesn’t address this.
Scratch this clown off the list.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
However, those who believe in man-made climate change are mentally irregular.
Don’t know much about him. This is the guy Glenn Beck claims to most look up to personally though. He’s spoken many times about his affection and admiration for the man.
I’ll have to do some research...
If the dimocRATS are saying they fear this person or that person as the GOP candidate, you can be sure they are lying.
Why would Democrats most fear their own puppet??
Glenn looks up to his father John Hutsmann Sr...
If 90% of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?
We call them the 4 seasons.
Wrong party, dude.
Ahh, I see now...My bad.