John Huntsman: scratch one candidate

Posted by: Phineas on May 17, 2011 at 3:01 pm

**Posted by Phineas

Not that I was likely to vote for him anyway, but this made it a certainty:

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.

So, if 90% of scientists said birds chirping in the morning as the sun rose actually caused the sun to rise, you’d take them seriously, John? If it were me, I’d ask what clown college they got their degrees from.

And who cares if whatever percentage of scientists (In what fields?) agree? Science is not about democracy or consensus; it is about empirically derived data, testable hypotheses, and the simplest explanation that best fits the observed facts. On all those scores, the “theory” of dangerous man-caused climate change fails. There is no detectable evidence for it that signals human origin for climate change. Quite the contrary, there are scads of evidence across many disciplines that climate change is a) always occurring; b) operates in a series of overlapping natural cycles; and c) is not anywhere near to exceeding what’s happened in the past per the geological record.

It sounds like the former governor and former ambassador could stand to read a good book or two on the topic.

Oh, and John, it’s never the moment for cap-and-trade, unless you like statist solutions for problems that don’t exist and are guaranteed to cripple your nation’s economy.

And Huntsman wants me to vote for him for president? Thanks, but no thanks. I’d rather vote for someone who understands basic science and economics.

via Hot Air

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

11 Responses to “John Huntsman: scratch one candidate”

Comments

  1. Drew says:

    “Science is not about democracy or consensus; it is about empirically derived data, testable hypotheses, and the simplest explanation that best fits the observed facts. On all those scores, the “theory” of dangerous man-caused climate change fails. There is no detectable evidence for it that signals human origin for climate change. Quite the contrary, there are scads of evidence across many disciplines that climate change is a) always occurring; b) operates in a series of overlapping natural cycles; and c) is not anywhere near to exceeding what’s happened in the past per the geological record.”

    Truer words were never spoken. In a prior life, before getting into the private equity business, I was an engineer. The history of the, ahem, “science” here is a sordid tale………..oh, and follow the money.

  2. thomas mc donnell says:

    90% of scientists once thought the earth was flat.

  3. Neo says:

    You can tell that Huntsman is really plugged into the Republican rank-and-file .. NOT.

    I realize that Presidents often have little time to do basic research, but it’s obvious that Huntsman has already outsourced his opinions … the hallmark of an empty suit

  4. raddave9 says:

    I live in Utah–I never voted for Huntsman–you couldn’t pay me to vote for him. He is the epitome of a RINO …He is no more a conservative Republican than is Barack Obama.

  5. Frederick says:

    If John Huntsman is the Republican nominee, for the first time my adult life I won’t bother to vote.

    There is no way I could ever vote for a man who voluntarily worked for Obama.

  6. Carlos says:

    “And who cares if whatever percentage of scientists (In what fields?) agree? Science is not about democracy or consensus; it is about empirically derived data, testable hypotheses, and the simplest explanation that best fits the observed facts.”

    In those two sentences the THEORY of AGW falls apart. It doesn’t make any difference if 100% of scientists agree that, “in their opinion”, anything is valid. Until they have the proof in verifiable facts to back up their opinion, it’s not science.

    And raddave9, Huntsman appears to us from outside Utah to be no more a conservative Republican than does Mitt, either. Or Johnny Mack. Or, for that matter, GW.

  7. Drew the Infidel says:

    The only “global warming” Al Gore can attest to is when his marriage hit the boiling point.

  8. Carlos says:

    Everyone else can attest to AWG around Algore simply by the amount of hot (useless, nonsensicle) air he releases every time he opens his useless yapper.

  9. ruralcounsel says:

    Huntsman apparently is unwilling to do the heavy lifting to understand how politicized the global warming science scene has become. While I think that puts him in the same class as a majority of Americans, it doesn’t bode well for someone aspiring to be a leader.

  10. John says:

    Scientists almost always are financed by grants. If they want grants they have to toe the line on global warming or anything else the administration wants. Would you argue against global warming if you knew you were cutting off your own paycheck? Global warming, like Al Gore, is a farce. Just my opinion.

  11. captaingrumpy says:

    There must be a reason this Republican was allowed to live in a Democratic America,and have a Gov, job.
    I could not vote for a man that worked for Obama and said he was a republican. Does not compute.