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?
This guy obviously doesn’t look hard enough. I doubt 90% of the scientists, at least, real ones believe in global warming. Maybe they believe in the scam part; but not that it exists..
That's true but we know who they really loathe the most. Three guesses but don't think you'll need two of them.
Jon Huntsman Sr is not dead.
That's why it's now "climate change" instead of "global warming."
Shep Smith has a better chance of being president than Jon Huntsman. Maybe his buddy Barrack will find another cushy job for him in his administration.
If 100% of people think the earth is flat, would you agree with them?? I'm sorry, but us HUMANS can NOT change climate!! Did the CAVEMEN help end the ICE AGE by driving SUVs??
No sale -- on you!!
Don’t worry Huntsmen Jr. does’nt really believe in global warming wink,wink,he just believes the government needs more of your money.
I see Huntsman has folded.
Geez guys, read the news.
You just hit on an extremely important point: When do changes in the weather become climate change?
Certainly, the weather everywhere varies to some degree - for example, the temperatures tonight or this week / month / year / decade / century in any part of the world won’t be exactly what they were last night or last / month / year / decade / century, although the variation will be different.
But, what I have noticed is that the climatists are starting to reduce the period over which they say climate “change” is occurring.
If I can define climate change from any base period I choose, I can definitively state that’s it’s getting cooler or warmer, whichever is the most politically correct. But, then, that is not science, it’s religion!
LOL, you must have knowm my MOM.
Well he did get good grades at talking points school!
“I see Huntsman has folded.”
Source? I can’t find news on anything of the sort. I do see where he has decided not to self-fund his campaign, and will instead rely on contributions of supporters.
Scratched!
I think you have greatly exaggerated the death of Sr. He just announced that he thought his son would make a great president.
Yep but GOD, not man is the driving force behind it... it is called NATURE... as in natural... as in by its intelligent design.
LLS
At one time 90% of scientists believed the world was flat. Why not use your own intelligence to see the fraud instead of being a stupid flat Earther?
AGW is shown as false in Al Gore's own film. Gore highlights a chart showing the levels of CO2 and temperatures over time and it looks very convincing until it's looked at closer and instead of CO2 leading and driving temperature the CO2 in actually trailing temperature by about 800 years. This phenom is easily explained as the oceans release CO2 as they warm and absorb CO2 as the cool.
Maybe one of the reasons Obama has shut down oil drilling in the U.S., and forced gad prices up up up. Take the peoPle’s freedom in transportation away so they will be forced to take Metro rail! I do not doubt that the gubmint arranged the oil spill in the gulf for it’s own purpose.
I love that picture. My dad has that on a wall in his house with the caption....”I told you so.”
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.