Huntsman: I believe in climate change because 90% of scientists do

posted at 1:50 pm on May 17, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

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?

Update: The 90% claim is a canard, says The American Pundit, and was exposed as such years ago.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Didn’t the UN predict 50 million ‘climate refugees’ by the year, ummm – 2010?

I’m sure that prediction was based on ‘science’ – of some sort.

Yet the prediction never materialized.

Funny, that.

catmman on May 17, 2011 at 5:42 PM

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/fifteen-foolish-forecasts-how-did-environmentalists-get-it-so-wrong-on-earth-day-1970

davidk on May 17, 2011 at 5:47 PM

polls indicate that as many as 34% say that they think UFOs are real.

That means 66% don’t believe in UFOs, so UFO Deniers are cool

J_Crater on May 17, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Examples?

pseudoforce on May 17, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Here’s one: ClimateGate.

hicsuget on May 17, 2011 at 5:48 PM

All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring.

Where did Huntsman say AGW? He may have indicated he is open to the idea… but all he said “climate change is occurring”. Not humans are definitely changing the climate.

You are arguing over something he didn’t say.

Huntsman… at least in that quote, just said scientists say the climate is changing. And he has been out of the country for two years.

Given the fact that he thinks the economy is far more important, proves he isn’t in the Al Gore range of belief, because the world should have millions of refugees by now if Al Gore had been right.

My guess is Huntsman is about in the main stream of the rest of us. We don’t really know what is real and what is hype.

Obviously the stuff the UN said would happen, hasn’t happened. So anything out of the UN is hype.

What is the science now?

Of course, anyone who claimed to be an expert over the last decade has no standing to give an opinion. Their credibility is gone.

We need unbiased scientists… do they exist?

petunia on May 17, 2011 at 5:49 PM

How does Science justify itself, scientifically?

With an appeal to Metaphysics.

Philosophy precedes Science.

And which Philosophy, determines what Science.

Even Darwinian Evolution has had to evolve, or die.

profitsbeard on May 17, 2011 at 5:52 PM

There is probably no science more settled, no theory more conclusively proven, than Darwinian evolution. Anyone who denies it is either ignorant of the facts or a liar, and in neither case are they qualified to judge a scientific controversy. Siding against them is the intelligent thing to do.

hicsuget on May 17, 2011 at 5:47 PM

BS. The science of thermodynamics and gravity are an awful lot more settled than Darwinian evolution. He believed that natural selection could form new species and that has yet to be conclusively proven. We strongly suspect evolution has occurred but the precise mechanism is as yet unproven and/or unknown.

sharrukin on May 17, 2011 at 5:53 PM

That Huntsman couldn’t locate his arse with two hands and a map. It’s amazing that the GOP field is narrowing so quickly and exiling these quacks without the necessity of primary battles. If you love Obama you’ll love his Hunstman.
As for AGW, the other posters here have done a brilliant job of debunking this hoax. It’s probably the greatest hoax perpetrated on the public in the past 150 years.

eaglewingz08 on May 17, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Obviously the stuff the UN said would happen, hasn’t happened. So anything out of the UN is hype.

What is the science now?

Of course, anyone who claimed to be an expert over the last decade has no standing to give an opinion. Their credibility is gone.

We need unbiased scientists… do they exist?

petunia on May 17, 2011 at 5:49 PM

You can add NASA’s James Hansen to the list as well as the UK MET Office and the UEA CRU to the list of disreputable persons and organizations.

catmman on May 17, 2011 at 5:56 PM

I want to know what the solid state of the weather/environment is supposed to be. There must be some preferred ideal state the planet is supposed to be in if its falling out of it because of human beings. Anyone care to outline it for me?

Sharr on May 17, 2011 at 5:36 PM

All I know is ideally, there would be lots of rainbows, and unicorns. “Barack H Obama” ;)

Dr Evil on May 17, 2011 at 5:57 PM

How does Science justify itself, scientifically?

With an appeal to Metaphysics.

Philosophy precedes Science.

And which Philosophy, determines what Science.

Even Darwinian Evolution has had to evolve, or die.

profitsbeard on May 17, 2011 at 5:52 PM

But, but evolution is settles science!

lalalalalalalalalalalalalalallalalala

davidk on May 17, 2011 at 5:59 PM

The Climate Changes – The Sun Gives Off Heat – Water Is Wet.

But Huntsman thinks he can do something about one of these things, otherwise why bring up “Climate Change” in the first place. Everyone talks about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it. The only thing Huntsman, is in the running for is the “Darwin Award”

Dr Evil on May 17, 2011 at 6:00 PM

And which Philosophy, determines what Science.

Even Darwinian Evolution has had to evolve, or die.

profitsbeard on May 17, 2011 at 5:52 PM

THANK YOU!!

leftnomore on May 17, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Examples?

pseudoforce on May 17, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Here’s one: ClimateGate.

hicsuget on May 17, 2011 at 5:48 PM

The e-mails spoke for themselves. I don’t know if a denier hacked them. There was at least as much dishonesty and ass-covering among the scientists in those exchanges as anything that’s been going on among deniers.

pseudoforce on May 17, 2011 at 6:02 PM

BS. The science of thermodynamics and gravity are an awful lot more settled than Darwinian evolution. He believed that natural selection could form new species and that has yet to be conclusively proven. We strongly suspect evolution has occurred but the precise mechanism is as yet unproven and/or unknown.

sharrukin on May 17, 2011 at 5:53 PM

I used to think that way too, in an attempt to find a “reasonable,” “balanced” middle between the “dogmatic atheists” and the Creationists. As it turns out, high school biology classes, the print media, and educational television do a disgraceful job of presenting and explaining the current state of scientific understanding. I’d recommend Dawkins’ The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution, or a similar book by another reputable scientist. It’s not just an untestable historical suspicion based on an incomplete fossil record; it is testable and falsifiable and has been verified in laboratory and natural experiments.

hicsuget on May 17, 2011 at 6:03 PM

100% of those whom I know in various scientific fields believe in climate change.The climate always changes.

However, I have never met more than a handful who believed with 100% certainty that AGW was indeed caused by primates.

kregg on May 17, 2011 at 6:03 PM

The Darwin Awards - natural selection winners. In Huntsman’s case he eliminated himself from the Presidential hopeful pool.

Dr Evil on May 17, 2011 at 6:03 PM

All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring.
Where did Huntsman say AGW? He may have indicated he is open to the idea… but all he said “climate change is occurring”. Not humans are definitely changing the climate.
You are arguing over something he didn’t say.
Huntsman… at least in that quote, just said scientists say the climate is changing. And he has been out of the country for two years.
Given the fact that he thinks the economy is far more important, proves he isn’t in the Al Gore range of belief, because the world should have millions of refugees by now if Al Gore had been right.
My guess is Huntsman is about in the main stream of the rest of us. We don’t really know what is real and what is hype.
Obviously the stuff the UN said would happen, hasn’t happened. So anything out of the UN is hype.
What is the science now?
Of course, anyone who claimed to be an expert over the last decade has no standing to give an opinion. Their credibility is gone.
We need unbiased scientists… do they exist?
petunia on May 17, 2011 at 5:49 PM

The answer is when anybody’s solution invariably hits you hard in the pocket

don’t believe it

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Regulating carbon would have no impact at all on this.

amazingmets on May 17, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Of course it wouldn’t. The obvious engine powering AGW theory is leftish wealth-redistribution ideas.

pseudoforce on May 17, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I used to think that way too, in an attempt to find a “reasonable,” “balanced” middle between the “dogmatic atheists” and the Creationists.

Balanced middle?

We don’t think the same.

It’s not a social balancing act to me. Its not hanging out with the cool kids, nor is there any room for compromise. You are either right or wrong. It isn’t always easy to find out which is which, but it has nothing to do with politics.

As it turns out, high school biology classes, the print media, and educational television do a disgraceful job of presenting and explaining the current state of scientific understanding.

Absolutely true.

I’d recommend Dawkins’ The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution, or a similar book by another reputable scientist.

Dawkins is a sloppy thinker and I would hardly call him reputable.

It’s not just an untestable historical suspicion based on an incomplete fossil record; it is testable and falsifiable and has been verified in laboratory and natural experiments.

hicsuget on May 17, 2011 at 6:03 PM

So you keep saying but it sounds more like an article of faith than it does scientific reasoning.

sharrukin on May 17, 2011 at 6:09 PM

On May 2 where I live, the high temp for the day was in the low 50′s.

One week later – 7 days – the high temp was 40 degrees hotter.

Amazingly I, my trees, my house, the neighborhood, the city, etc. didn’t burst into flame.

Over the next few months, the temps will get hotter and hotter. Then for a few months, they will get colder and colder. Sometimes it might even rain (hopefully). When it gets colder, that rain might turn into snow or ice.

OMFG!!!!

catmman on May 17, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Bye bye Huntsman.

GarandFan on May 17, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Even if AGW did exist there is no consensus- proof, that wealth redistribution would solve it’s negative effects. And Carbon Credits – Why does Al Gore insist on using so much carbon – transportation, if it’s life or death of the planet at stake? Hint: because AGW is a lot of horse sh1t.

Dr Evil on May 17, 2011 at 6:13 PM

We need unbiased scientists… do they exist?
petunia on May 17, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Science has become a theology.

They vet the future PHD students to ensure they’re not crazies who doubt in the word of Al Gore, admitting only those who will continue the meteorological crusade against the greedy capitalist fat cats. Obviously, only people with PHDs can be considered world-class scientists.

Scientists want their works to live on and have a bias towards like-minded people, which is problematic when they’re trying to decide who has the best growth potential.

It’s a problem with academia, the only discussion they want is among themselves, deciding if the views of Noam Chomsky or Cornel West best represent the truth about government.

amazingmets on May 17, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Toast…..

HBowmanMD on May 17, 2011 at 6:15 PM

That dog won’t hunt…sman.

steebo77 on May 17, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Dawkins is a sloppy thinker and I would hardly call him reputable. sharrukin on May 17, 2011 at 6:09 PM

I agree he turned into a hysterical little girl when The Pope made a state visit to England. If there is no God as he claim why does he care where the Pope visits? It’s hardly any of his business as he is spiritually unaffiliated ;)

Dr Evil on May 17, 2011 at 6:21 PM

I agree he turned into a hysterical little girl when The Pope made a state visit to England. If there is no God as he claim why does he care where the Pope visits? It’s hardly any of his business as he is spiritually unaffiliated ;)

Dr Evil on May 17, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Precisely. I read The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. There was some good points in them, but I didn’t find them terribly persuasive.

He lets his politics and anti-theology influence his thinking far too much.

sharrukin on May 17, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Earth vs. humanity: Global warmists to hold mock trial in Sweden

“It’s a civil court case to see whether we’ve breached our relations” with the planet, “and to see how to restore that relationship,” symposium chair Johan Rockström told reporters at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

The “trial” will be one of the sessions at the third biennial Nobel laureate symposium on global sustainability — a three-day event that opened in the Swedish capital Tuesday.

Yeah for the life of me, I cannot understand the loss of respect for scientists these days? /

sharrukin on May 17, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Yeah for the life of me, I cannot understand the loss of respect for scientists these days? /

sharrukin on May 17, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Without Bush in office, it’s really hard to hold a mock war-crimes trial!

amazingmets on May 17, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Yeah, and 52% of Americans believe in Hope and Change, and 51% don’t believe in paying taxes.

So what?

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 17, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Do “90% of the scientists” believe in anthropogenic global warming? “Climate change” is a meaningless term; the climate is always changing.

Pretty sure that’s not what the interviewer meant by climate change.

If Huntsman opposes cap and trade — and he should clarify whether he supports any other economically disastrous “solutions” — who cares whether he accepts mainstream climate science?

RightOFLeft on May 17, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Spouting logic like that makes me want to see him release his grades. Does this make him qualified to be a ‘serious’ candidate for the right? Oh well, at least, the msm won’t mistake him for someone who’s so intelligent he’d make a great president.

Kissmygrits on May 17, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Huntsman: I believe in climate change because 90% of scientists do

No wonder the Democrats are so anxious to get this fool to be the Republican candidate: with Huntsman as the Republican nominee, everyone would stay home.

NOTE TO POTENTIAL CANDIDATES: Announcing that you can be “had” by simple exposure to multiple copies of phony reports is a poor way to start a campaign. The presidency requires someone much more serious, much more capable of critical thinking, and much less gullible.

landlines on May 17, 2011 at 7:11 PM

RightOFLeft on May 17, 2011 at 6:46 PM

It only specifies that he doesn’t support it while the economy is in its current doldrums. He did support it when the economy was roaring along and I have no reason to believe that he wouldn’t support again if we got the economy roaring again. Anybody that would support government interventions that will cripple the economy and harm people don’t deserve to get a vote from conservatives.

chemman on May 17, 2011 at 7:15 PM

I just think that’s a horrible way to phrase it. May as well say, “I have no idea if it’s true or not. I’m not a scientist.” And just leave it at that.

I mean didn’t 90% of scientists supposedly believe the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it at one point? I know some disagree with that story, but it’s demonstrably true that 90+% of scientists have frequently believed something that was 100% wrong.

Furthermore, scientists are constantly telling us that something causes (or might cause) cancer before telling us a year later that it’s actually very healthy. Remember when eggs were supposed to be bad for you?

If 90% of scientists truly do believe something, I’m certainly more likely to listen, but that doesn’t automatically mean I’ll agree, nor should anyone.

Esthier on May 17, 2011 at 7:16 PM

chemman on May 17, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Point taken. He is being too coy about his plans if the economy ever manages to recover.

RightOFLeft on May 17, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Another self-confessed moron! Bye,bye Huntsman. Do idiots grow up to be politicians?

ultracon on May 17, 2011 at 7:26 PM

And I agree with 90% of Conservatives who think you shouldn’t run.

huckleberryfriend on May 17, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Newt Loops
Willard RomneyCare
Union Mitch
Cap and T-Paw
“I Believe!” Huntsman

Tenpins, I tells ya…tenpins.

SuperCool on May 17, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Don’t forget to rock ‘n’ roll! Here’s a vid of Huntsman’s favorite artist: “Let’s find the solution, to stop the pollution.”

Django on May 17, 2011 at 7:44 PM

I mean didn’t 90% of scientists supposedly believe the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it at one point?

A couple nitpicks… Scientists have always known the Earth was round (so did anyone who ever watched a boat dropping below the horizon from the beach). Even if you want to include the natural philosophers that came before there was genuine science, I think it was common knowledge among the educated class dating back to at least ancient Greece.

If there’s anything like a birthdate of the enterprise of science, it’s probably Galileo proving empirically that the Earth went around the sun. So, it’s not really true that 90% of scientists thought the Earth went around the Sun, either. Not that it was such an unreasonable thing to believe before telescopes were invented. The ancient astrologers who came up with the geocentric model had the big picture wrong, but you could set your watch by their solar predictions, so to speak.

The history of science isn’t scientist bumbling over each other to occasionally get something right. Like Newton said, he saw a little further because he stood on the shoulders of giants. Granted, a lot of those giants (including Newton) misunderstood some basic facts about the universe.

If I’m understanding you correctly, I agree that Huntsman could have justified his position better with more than a appeal to authority. But what can he do? Whatever data, or studies, or experiments he cites still rely on those same scientists that haven’t always had things quite right. And any fact of modern science poses the same problem. Skepticism is healthy, but at some point doesn’t science earn the benefit of the doubt, considering all the things that they’re right about?

RightOFLeft on May 17, 2011 at 7:49 PM

This one’s even better, though it lacks the environmentalist theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uDUSxaPaDc&NR=1

Django on May 17, 2011 at 7:50 PM

aggh, “So, it’s not really true that 90% of scientists thought the Earth went around the Sun, either.” Meant the other way round.

RightOFLeft on May 17, 2011 at 7:51 PM

That would be the same 90% that are on the Government payroll?

tom0508 on May 17, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Excellent critique of the disproved theory of AGW. Thank you, Ed.

Basilsbest on May 17, 2011 at 7:57 PM

As a recovering organometallic chemist, I note that one ugly data point can destroy a beautiful theory. AGW has a number of holes, including predictions from 15 years ago that did not pan out, poor modeling, solar activity neglected, and the urban heat island bias (more data collected in urbanized areas vice at rural or wilderness locations).

In addition, if you were serious about AGW, you would not use thermodynamically inefficient wind turbines, but replace all coal plants with nuclear plants, open Yucca Mountain for recycling waste, promote better electrical motor efficiency, and perfect oxidative methane carbonylation. The latter is a C1➝C2 means to replace oil with abundant natural gas as a petroleum feedstock.

NaCly dog on May 17, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Where did Huntsman say AGW? He may have indicated he is open to the idea… but all he said “climate change is occurring”. Not humans are definitely changing the climate.

petunia

Might want to read it again. It’s quite clear they are talking about it being man made, not to mention the entire issue of climate changed/global warming is based on it being caused by man. That’s the point of cap and trade legislation….to encourage man to stop doing things that allegedly cause climate change. No one is saying we need to tax the hell out of coal because the climate changes naturally.

Bye bye, Huntsman…we hardly knew ya. Maybe you can swap fairy tales with Newt and Nancy on a couch somewhere.

xblade on May 17, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Another one bites the dust.

No wonder Rick Perry’s thinking of jumping in.

MikeknaJ on May 17, 2011 at 8:47 PM

No wonder Rick Perry’s thinking of jumping in.

MikeknaJ on May 17, 2011 at 8:47 PM

He’s not.

steebo77 on May 17, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Why won’t ANY dissent from the 2001 IPCC statement that warming over the last 50 years can be attributed to human activity?
ernesto on May 17, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Because intellectually honest scientists conclude that there’s not enough evidence to make the attribution… or to deny it. There’s just insufficient evidence to take a position on this AGW theory, one way or the other.

Remember, at this point it’s just a theory. And the burden of proof is on the theorists. So far, the proof is not there.

petefrt on May 17, 2011 at 8:52 PM

petefrt on May 17, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Rosie had a theory too. She said fire doesn’t melt steel, but she never has proven it. :)

petefrt on May 17, 2011 at 9:02 PM

As some pinko bitch once said, “Stick a fork in him, he’s done.”

woodNfish on May 17, 2011 at 9:09 PM

I’ve seen good science denied by large swaths of the public (think Darwinian evolution), and bad science swallowed by dishonest academics (think Keynesian economics).

hicsuget on May 17, 2011 at 5:27 PM

The sad fact is that trying to get the public to accept good science and reject bad is like trying to herd cats. There are a very few notable nonsense-debunking sites (like Snopes) and a kajillion notable nonsense-promoting sites. And things just get worse from there.

IMHO, it’s not entirely the fault of the Internet. The ‘net is just showing loud and clear how gullible, fickle, and undiscerning John Q. Public is.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 17, 2011 at 9:26 PM

And another one gone, another one gone, another one bites the dust.

This winnowing down is easy when candidates like Gingrich and Huntsman make such fantastically ignorant statements.

JeffB. on May 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Huntsman: Science is above my pay grade.

Dean_L_Can on May 17, 2011 at 9:48 PM

Good. Just like Newt he has already ended his run, even if he refuses to acknowledge it.

TQM38a on May 17, 2011 at 9:57 PM

However, I have never met more than a handful who believed with 100% certainty that AGW was indeed caused by primates.

kregg on May 17, 2011 at 6:03 PM

If it existed, it would have to be.

unclesmrgol on May 17, 2011 at 10:29 PM

A couple nitpicks… Scientists have always known the Earth was round (so did anyone who ever watched a boat dropping below the horizon from the beach).

Right. That’s why I wrote “supposedly” and mentioned that the story is in dispute. I wasn’t trying to use it as a factual story but rather to try to make a point about the majority not always having the truth with an easily recognizable story.

Granted, a lot of those giants (including Newton) misunderstood some basic facts about the universe.

Basically my point.

If I’m understanding you correctly, I agree that Huntsman could have justified his position better with more than a appeal to authority. But what can he do? Whatever data, or studies, or experiments he cites still rely on those same scientists that haven’t always had things quite right. And any fact of modern science poses the same problem. Skepticism is healthy, but at some point doesn’t science earn the benefit of the doubt, considering all the things that they’re right about?

RightOFLeft on May 17, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Science? Science is inanimate, and it’s simply not possible for a layman to definitively know he’s giving the benefit of doubt to it and not a scientist’s opinion, especially when we create incentives for coming to a specific conclusion.

So… yes, but that doesn’t change my earlier comment.

Esthier on May 17, 2011 at 10:39 PM

At this rate Palin won’t have to even campaign; she will
be the only one left standing!

Amjean on May 17, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Huntsman is a tool. Of course there’s climate change. Everyday. What he wasn’t man enough to say was that he believes in Man made global warming, the Goracle’s moneymaking scheme.

This is a potential republican POTUS candidate? A Republican Governor who left his office after two years to be the obamanation’s Ambassador to China, only to leave that Post after another two years to contemplate a run for the Republican nomination for POTUS. Now he states his belief in a manufactured, and Goracle endorsed, lie? What the republican party needs is people of character, not characters…

Gohawgs on May 17, 2011 at 11:28 PM

The Earths climate has been changing since it was formed billions of years ago. The climate will continue to change forever. The only solution — adapt to changing conditions, or follow the Democrats and raise taxes, that works for everything.

Dasher on May 17, 2011 at 11:55 PM

John Huntsman is ignorant of the differences between the terms “climate change” “global warming” and “man-made global warming” (anthropogenic global warming). Hey John:
* climate changes all the time
* for the last 10 years we’ve experience global cooling
* the majority of scientists DO NOT believe in AGW, in other
words, man’s activities cannot possibly cause the earth
the warm; sun-spot activity is the likely cause
* AGW adherents have been caught lying to throw out
competitive research results (see Climate-gate)

Mr. Huntsman, you’re a ignorant fool!

Mark7788 on May 17, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Jon Huntsman is an ignorant man. His intellect is proven neither curious nor honest.

exdeadhead on May 18, 2011 at 12:22 AM

Those of us who live in his former state tried to tell you he was a rino, big time.

Bambi on May 18, 2011 at 1:24 AM

Did 90% believe in planets embedded in crystal spheres at one point? Oh, that was when science was in the lap of the Church.

AshleyTKing on May 18, 2011 at 1:58 AM

“Eppur si muove.” (And yet, it moves.)

~~ Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

RedPepper on May 18, 2011 at 2:24 AM

“Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.”

~~ Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)

RedPepper on May 18, 2011 at 2:26 AM

I really don’t know why he is even bothering to run. Is he so out of touch he thinks he has a snowball’s chance in a functioning blast furnace?

{^_^}

herself on May 18, 2011 at 6:24 AM

Remember, at this point it’s just a theory. And the burden of proof is on the theorists. So far, the proof is not there.

petefrt on May 17, 2011 at 8:52 PM

But the grant money is and that takes precedence over truth or proof or anything else.

SKYFOX on May 18, 2011 at 6:45 AM

Huntsman: I believe in climate change because 90% of scientists do

Next. [ Newt: Shut up and sit down with Nancy... ]

silverfox on May 18, 2011 at 9:01 AM

It’s discouraging how many democrats over at Taegon Goddard’s link still believe in the global warming hoax.

Perhaps if we reframed Huntsman’s statement in terms they would understand? Comparing climatists with cancer specialists is incorrect. A more fitting comparison would be with cultural anthropologists.

All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the anthropology community said negros are inferior* we’d listen to them? I expect science and the professionals behind the science to comport themselves within standards which are common to the science community – something that climate scientists have consistently failed to do. We need to debate what that means for the energy and transportation sectors, and let the issue be decided at the voting booth rather then through the political edicts of morally compromised leadership and appointed bureaucrats.

*It’s a well known fact that Anthropology was invented after the Civil War to give racism and allow racists scientific sanction.

papertiger on May 18, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Huntsman: I believe in climate change because 90% of scientists do

Lets re-write that a bit, and see if the logic works:

“I believe in child pornography because 90% of pedophiles do”.

BobMbx on May 18, 2011 at 11:19 AM

You misunderstood. What I haven’t researched enough to form an opinion on is the feedback effects or lack thereof.

sharrukin, Badger40, Sharr
There is probably no science more settled, no theory more conclusively proven, than Darwinian evolution. Anyone who denies it is either ignorant of the facts or a liar, and in neither case are they qualified to judge a scientific controversy. Siding against them is the intelligent thing to do.

hicsuget on May 17, 2011 at 5:47 PM

One can disagree itnelligently with some things regarding ALL hypothese & theories.
As far as misunderstanding your statement, you still don’t have enough information regarding CO2′s role in the atmosphere if you even think at all that any of it, natural or man-made, can so drastically affect the global climate.
CO2 has NEVER been found to be a driver of climate.
And CO2 is NOT your major greenhouse gas.
And temperature affects IT, NOT the other way around.
I remember a guy named Bretz who proposed catastrophic glacial floods being the cause of the scablands landscape in E. WA.
Everyone at the time swore he was wrong.
Fortunately, he was alive when he was vindicated.
There are all sorts of examples like this in science.
It is OK to disagree with what the ‘majority’ of scientists say & do.
If they have intelligent beefs, it does not mean they are ignorant.
The theory of Evolution is currently defined as a change in genetic frequencies.
Darwinian evolution, as he originally described it, was off the mark.
He never could explain the agents of change.
Not everything he said turned out to be true.
Scientists should never be held upon a pedestal.
Even those like Einstein.
Bcs it may turn out someone will prove them wrong.

Badger40 on May 18, 2011 at 11:36 AM

When algore starts acting like it’s a potential global catastrophe, I may start taking him seriously.

Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do.

runawayyyy on May 18, 2011 at 3:59 PM

“DEAR EDITOR: I am 51 years old.
“Some of my Republican friends say there is no climate warming.
“Papa says, ‘If you see it in THE HUFFINGTON POST it’s so.’
“Please tell me the truth; is there climate warming?

“JON HUNTSMAN, JR.”
“ADDRESS UNKNOWN.”

JON, your Republican friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, JON, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, JON, there is climate warming. It exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no climate warming. It would be as dreary as if there were no RINOS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in climate warming! You might as well not believe in Obama’s Hawaiian birth! You might get your papa to hire men to watch on all the weather channels all the time to catch climate warming, but even if they did not see climate warming, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, JON, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No climate warming! Thank God! it lives, and it lives forever. A thousand years from now, JON, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, it will continue to make glad the hearts of Democrats.

(with apologies to “Virginia”)

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on May 18, 2011 at 9:41 PM

‘All I know is 34% of people say UFOS are real. If 34% of oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them’

J_Crater on May 18, 2011 at 10:54 PM

I’ve never seen anyone claim that agreement on AGW totals to 90% of all scientists, or even all climate scientists.

The general consensus seems to be that there is better than a 90% that most of the warming (and resultant climate change) is caused by human activities. Whether this means “90% of all scientists” , who knows?

I don’t think that there is even one major American scientific society that doesn’t discount the consensus among American scientists concerning anthropogenic global warming.

oakland on May 19, 2011 at 6:35 AM

CO2 has NEVER been found to be a driver of climate.
And CO2 is NOT your major greenhouse gas.
And temperature affects IT, NOT the other way around

I don’t think you’d find any agreement with these statements in the scientific community.

What prompts you to make such claims? The fact that they are repeated over and over again by folks of a certain persuasion? Or, do you have scientific knowledge and sources that verify this?

oakland on May 19, 2011 at 6:39 AM

* climate changes all the time
* for the last 10 years we’ve experience global cooling

First statement is correct. The second one has no facts to support it (quite the opposite).

oakland on May 19, 2011 at 6:41 AM

Oakland @ 6:39

That’s an interesting question about co2 as the driver of climate.
Carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration over geological timescales.

You know how they figure that out? By counting the stomata on the leaves of fossilized trees. Leaf pores vacuum up co2 and as the ppm rise the amount of pores decrease.
Scientists raise trees in co2 enriched greenhouses then count the stomata to compare with the fossil then use that to guage how high the co2 level was in the past.

Interesting stuff. Most modern trees have a ceiling, because they evolved in a relatively co2 deprived atmosphere, they’re leaves will only close down stomata up to about 400 ppm. But some trees survive from the time of dinosaurs. This one the aracucarias tree doesn’t have a ceiling, because it evolved when co2 was 20 times higher than today.

Strange thing though, the araucaria used to be widespread in the carbon rich world of the dinosaur, but now it only grows in the Chilean Andes. Prefers the cold.

papertiger on May 19, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5