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; I’m 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 we’d listen to them. I respect science and the professionals behind the science so I tend to think it’s better left to the science community – though we can debate what that means for the energy and transportation sectors.
Matt [David, Huntsman’s communications director,] says you’ve changed your mind about cap-and-trade.
Cap-and-trade ideas aren’t working; it hasn’t worked, and our economy’s 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 isn’t 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 what’s happening to our planet…
If anyone knows about the need to clean up the planet, we do; we’ve been living somewhere [Beijing] where you feel like you’re 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.
That’s 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?
for the same reason he believes in chewing Trident Sugarless Gum....
his beezillianaire dad...... the kid is a dud
Oh man...do we really need this dolt in the mix?
Well, I just differentiated between weather and climate change. Weather varies over shorter periods of time (e.g., hour to hour). Climate is variale over longer periods - Yes, I’m aware that this was your point. Plus, different parts of the country see a wider variation of weather change than other parts. Texas, as compared to CAm, sees wildly different weather changes generally speaking.
Huntsman didn’t realize his dreams by allowing other people to do his thinking for him. Why start now? This caving to the left is maddening. At least now I know that I definitely don’t want him as President.
That does it for me. I’m moving to Arizona.
A lot of Mormons are pretty conservative. But not all of them. Mitt is a Mormon. Dingy Harry is a Mormon. I’d say they are to Mormons kind of like Teddy Kennedy was to Catholics.
Research. If you are going to talk about something you know nothing about, do some research. This will kill any chances Mr. Huntsman might have had (remote as it was) of being considered for a Presidential candidacy. See ya!
SHERRY, SHERRY BABY!
Yeah, which SUV caused it to warm in England during the Roman period? It got warm enough to grow grapes there. Now, it is way too cold.
It’s not often that incompetence in leadership identifies itself in the interview process. Newt did the same thing last week.
Sad thing is the average moderate is just as stupid. Liberals? Brainwashed, which doesn’t count. Plenty of smart people on the left, but deprogramming a lifetime’s worth of bad science and bad policy is a tough proposition.
Folks need to understand that this argument of “science” has long been used to push agendas.
1 Tim 6:20 KJV - look it up.
Huntsman is not the guy.
Was he ever seriously one one?
Right on right on right on!!!
LLS
Galileo, he is not.
No, you are confusing the son with his father.
John Huntsman Sr. was a humble, successful businessman with faith, graciousness and a strong sense of integrity. He died a little while ago.
John Huntsman Jr. has very little in common with his father.
90% of the world’s scientists also believe in government grants.
That's why the global warming alarmists changed highly debatable "global warming" to indisputable "climate change."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.