Huntsman says rejecting evolution, climate change is not a winning formula

myp · Aug 24, 2011

Kudos to him. One thing that always bugged me about the Republican party was their [general] view on evolution. On climate change, the rejection of empirical studies is also equally unfortunate, but in fairness, the other side often adds their own "baloney" to that debate to get what they want too (in terms of how bad climate change would be and how much humans have impacted it).

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/huntsman-wakes-up.html

Patrick · Aug 24, 2011

myp said:
Kudos to him. One thing that always bugged me about the Republican party was their [general] view on evolution. On climate change, the rejection of empirical studies is also equally unfortunate, but in fairness, the other side often adds their own "baloney" to that debate to get what they want too (in terms of how bad climate change would be and how much humans have impacted it).

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/huntsman-wakes-up.html

The problem with evolution is from a small minority in the republican party - the characterization of the whole party as holding those views is just broad-brush smearing. Climate change is a completely different matter - it's based on 1) carefully truncated temperature graphs, 2) rigged computer simulations, 3) bad tree ring data, 4) "votes" by scientists. At east anglia university, they said "oops we lost our raw data". A proverb in science is that big claims require big proof. And I haven't seen it - for the claimed anthropogenic cause.

David · Aug 27, 2011

Patrick said:
The problem with evolution is from a small minority in the republican party - the characterization of the whole party as holding those views is just broad-brush smearing. Climate change is a completely different matter - it's based on 1) carefully truncated temperature graphs, 2) rigged computer simulations, 3) bad tree ring data, 4) "votes" by scientists. At east anglia university, they said "oops we lost our raw data". A proverb in science is that big claims require big proof. And I haven't seen it - for the claimed anthropogenic cause.

The extent (of Human caused warming) is certainly up for debate but the data has shown that the planet is warming. In addition to this the amount of greenhouse gases we've dumped into the atmosphere makes the claim we have no effect idiotic.

skeptic-f · Aug 27, 2011

If half the active Republican Party members believe there is some truth to the Birther nonsense, I am quite willing to believe at least half don't believe in global warming and at least a quarter don't believe in evolution. This does not fill me with much confidence in their ability to make choose the right Presidential candidate.

DodgeFB · Aug 27, 2011

I don't say there is no global warming. But I really doubt the Al Gore version. But I know many sheepaple believe every word.

Patrick · Aug 27, 2011

David said:
The extent (of Human caused warming) is certainly up for debate but the data has shown that the planet is warming. In addition to this the amount of greenhouse gases we've dumped into the atmosphere makes the claim we have no effect idiotic.

Neither the concession of current warming, nor the assertion that greenhouse gasses cause SOME warming, is sufficient to prove the anthropogenic global warming claims. Extremely few would make the "no effect" claim, and when the few who support that are idea are picked up and amplified by the lib media, it's just an attempt to discredit and smear the legitimate opposition - a technique they use all the time - like when they desperately search through tea party rallies to find the one nut with a racist sign.

David · Aug 27, 2011

Patrick said:
Neither the concession of current warming, nor the assertion that greenhouse gasses cause SOME warming, is sufficient to prove the anthropogenic global warming claims. Extremely few would make the "no effect" claim, and when the few who support that are idea are picked up and amplified by the lib media, it's just an attempt to discredit and smear the legitimate opposition - a technique they use all the time - like when they desperately search through tea party rallies to find the one nut with a racist sign.

It doesn't take much effort.

A trip to Google will take are of that nicely.

Patrick · Aug 27, 2011

David said:
It doesn't take much effort.

A trip to Google will take are of that nicely.

Yaaaaaaa - we all remember eg when the congressional black caucus members trooped through a tea party rally, trying to provoke racial comments, and failing, so they had to lie about it.

Bloomberg's offer of a $100,000 reward for proof of any racial slurs remains unclaimed. This is vintage leftwingism - they full well know that in an unpolluted atmosphere of real debate, they lose, so they just toss the race card every chance they get.

myp · Aug 27, 2011

The thing about climate change is some of the things are most definitely true as per the data and empirical evidence including rising atmospheric pCO2. The problem comes (as usual) with the politics when people like Gore try to make these absurd claims which are nothing short of speculation with many guesses. There are some theories that suggest some warming might even be good for the world as plant life can do better. What the results of our current actions will be is arguable (as is whether it is all caused by humans), but some of the data is not.

Patrick · Aug 27, 2011

Huntsman is the McCain of 2012 - the lib media likes to prmote him, since they know the worst outcome that they could get from the 2012 election is yet another RINO. Of course, as with McCain. they would viciously turn on him, as with McCain when he got nominated, because they want to retain the leftwing presidency.

David · Aug 27, 2011

Patrick said:
Huntsman is the McCain of 2012 - the lib media likes to prmote him, since they know the worst outcome that they could get from the 2012 election is yet another RINO. Of course, as with McCain. they would viciously turn on him, as with McCain when he got nominated, because they want to retain the leftwing presidency.

We don't have a left-wing president. If we did forcing people to buy health insurgence wouldn't have ever happened, we'd of gotten a nationalized healthcare system instead.

Patrick · Aug 27, 2011

David said:
We don't have a left-wing president. If we did forcing people to buy health insurgence wouldn't have ever happened, we'd of gotten a nationalized healthcare system instead.

If obama isn't leftwing, there's no such thing as leftwing.

myp · Aug 27, 2011

Eh... left and right wing changes over time and depending on who you are speaking to. Forget the "wings", forget the ideological names, forget the parties- look at what they actually stand for and argue that instead of the labels.

Patrick · Aug 27, 2011

myp said:
Eh... left and right wing changes over time and depending on who you are speaking to. Forget the "wings", forget the ideological names, forget the parties- look at what they actually stand for and argue that instead of the labels.

Looking at what obama stands for, he is leftwing - no ifs, ands, buts, maybes, or perhapses.

myp · Aug 27, 2011

Patrick said:
Looking at what obama stands for, he is leftwing - no ifs, ands, buts, maybes, or perhapses.

I bet Lenin would have disagreed

Edit: Actually, so would the founding fathers considering they were liberals in their day (now known as classical liberals)

Brn2bfree · Aug 27, 2011

myp said:
Kudos to him. One thing that always bugged me about the Republican party was their [general] view on evolution. On climate change, the rejection of empirical studies is also equally unfortunate, but in fairness, the other side often adds their own "baloney" to that debate to get what they want too (in terms of how bad climate change would be and how much humans have impacted it).

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/08/huntsman-wakes-up.html

People who believe in 'man made global warming' have been brain washed by the liberal media.
Man can't control the weather...directly or indirectly.

myp · Aug 27, 2011

Brn2bfree said:
People who believe in 'man made global warming' have been brain washed by the liberal media.
Man can't control the weather...directly or indirectly.

Most certainly arguable- there are ways humans have been able to already (and inarguably) control the weather- cloud seeding for example is a proven thing that works and even those who don't believe in man made global warming will accept that.

Also, considering that it is all just chemistry, we can certainly affect it.

DodgeFB · Aug 28, 2011

myp said:
Also, considering that it is all just chemistry, we can certainly affect it.

Yes we can. But some of those scientific people see us like lab rats already. I had a couple of doctors that admitted they only saw my disease. They are called onco

DodgeFB · Aug 28, 2011

myp said:
Also, considering that it is all just chemistry, we can certainly affect it.

Yes we can. But some of those scientific people see us like lab rats already. I had a couple of doctors that admitted they only saw my disease. They are called oncologist.

myp · Aug 28, 2011

DodgeFB said:
Yes we can. But some of those scientific people see us like lab rats already. I had a couple of doctors that admitted they only saw my disease. They are called oncologist.

Not sure what you are trying to get at there...

Huntsman says rejecting evolution, climate change is not a winning formula

Similar threads