Jon “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming” Huntsman now thinks the science is less than settled. Via Grist:
At an oil-sponsored event at the Heritage Foundation, presidential candidate Jon Huntsman reversed his prior defense of climate science. Huntsman, who famously mocked his fellow candidates for questioning global warming in August, was asked by NewsBusters blogger Lachlan Markey if humans contribute to climate change. Huntsman said that the “scientific community owes us more”:
I don’t know, I’m not a scientist, nor am I a physicist, but I would defer to science. . . . The scientific community owes us more in terms of a better description or explanation about what might lie beneath all of this. But there’s not information right now to formulate policies in terms of addressing it overall, primarily because it’s a global issue.
“Call me crazy,” but I think this is a flip-flop.
Not so much a flip flop as a complete evasion of the question... Such are the requirements to win the Repub nomination...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseso Mr. Huntsman, is it global warming or climate change ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is one of those things where it makes sense to change one's mind. I have a scientific background and I have changed mine. So much truth was hidden back when there was so much funding for those woking the AGW track. I went through a lot of the release from Climategate I as well as reading and studying what some of the more silent scientists had said. I even bought data and processed it myself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood for Huntsman. He has learned a valuable lesson - there is no such thing as settled science.
My issue with Huntsman is this information was out in public before he announced his candidacy so why didn't he run out of the gate questioning the "settled science?" As I recall, he started off his campaign mocking those of us who do not believe in man made global warming / climate change and said the science was settled. Perhaps my timeline is off...but I don't think so.
I think he finally realized he stands no chance of winning with his initial position on global warming, I think the pivot is too late. His debate with Newt will be interesting to watch.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood for Huntsman?
Please. I knew it was a fraud many, many years ago. All it took was to read McIntyre's takedown of MBH98 and then to know that Mann wasn't laughed off the planet for his shoddy, moronic paper.
Huntsman is just trying to woo the conservatives who mock anyone who fell for such a transparent fraud. It shouldn't take a politician this long to learn the truth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAGW is based on the premise that the current warming is unprecedented and the unprecedented warming is due to the excessive co2.
To demonstrate the unprecedented nature of the warming, the AGW proponents have produced the hockey stick. The hockey stick downplays the warmth of the MWP and the cooler little ice age by claiming both events to be regional and not global. When a AGW proponents provide a credible scientific explanation as to how we can have two separate 300 year regional climate anomalies, then I can put more scientific faith into AGW.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAGW is based on computer simulations that pretend to model how increased CO2 will affect global climate.
These models are reliable only IF they account for ALL OF the factors that affect the climate, IF the way in which they affect the climate is fully known and calculable, and IF all the interactions and feedbacks are accurately represented in the model.
Given that we're not even sure about the mechanics of cloud formation—and that the model couldn't reproduce the past—there's zero reason to consider the models as anything but elaboriate CGI fantasies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot a complete flop from flip. That statement begs the IPCC to be more convincing. Still wrong on fundamental levels. So, is he deferring to science or to physics? And isn't all scientific information global? This guy is nothing more than someone who understands science in the least watching a "documentary" on 10 ways the world might end and unable to think for himself. McCain - Part Duh.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnybody who flipflops can also flopflip.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI cannot get over how right wingers turn science into a political issue.
The science is there. Global warming is into an advanced stage.
No amount of political posturing by Hunstman or any of the rest of these scientific giants can change what is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly backwards. Not right-wingers turning science into politics, but left-wingers turning politics into science.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat global warming? It's been cooling for the last 13 years.
There is no science behind the myth of man caused global warming.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere were a handfull of computer models that failed when they tried to predict the present using historical data.
We need to build a conservative case for market-based solutions.
But please don't keep repeat unsupportable claims like "the earth is cooling;" which actually hurts the conservative position. Even the handful of climate scientists who remain skeptical of the degree of climate change don't claim this anymore.
Like it or not, 2005 and 2010 tied for the hottest year ever (average earth temperature, from 26,000 temperature sensors on sea and land).
Real skeptics demand to see all the evidence, not just a few cherry-picked data (like from 1998 to present) that happen to support a pre-determined view.
On the myth of cooling since 1998 check out External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse