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 2 3 5

Have the judges started ringing the gong yet?

teke184 on May 17, 2011 at 1:51 PM

WRONG! Thanks for playing please drive through.

400lb Gorilla on May 17, 2011 at 1:52 PM

No, the guy came out onstage with the big hook.

Emperor Norton on May 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM

And….DOWN GOES FRAZIER! Don’t know much about Huntsman, other than I can now welcome him to the ever-growing “I just eliminated my chances to make a serious run at President” club. Buh-bye.

search4truth on May 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Have to say he seems pretty reasonable for a greenie. If the majority had his views we wouldn’t be having nearly as many problems from that group.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM

I can’t believe these idiots think that in the political climate of the past year they somehow need to tack left. Are they really this blind to the public will?

Caiwyn on May 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM

So, Huntsman can’t do any critical thinking on his own, huh?

Just why is it, again, that this guy is a viable life form?

ajacksonian on May 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM

In related news, a new report reveals that 90% of all scientists are funded by the government, most recieve grants for their support of cap and trade.

swamp_yankee on May 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM

He’s getting campaign tips from Newt.

novaculus on May 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Climate change is happening. As it has happened for billions of years.

Only kool-aid drinking fools think it’s happening because of SUVs.

angryed on May 17, 2011 at 1:54 PM

I think he was channeling his inner Newt Gingrich.

Yakko77 on May 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM

..toast..

The War Planner on May 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM

So he has no common sense.

Typical gov’t flunky.

bloghooligan on May 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM

I can’t believe these idiots think that in the political climate of the past year they somehow need to tack left. Are they really this blind to the public will?

Caiwyn on May 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Depends on if the right devolves into a circus of crazy. But we’ve lost quite a few clowns in the last two weeks alone…

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM

I believe in climate change.

It’s the part about me using incandescent lightbulbs and driving a vehicle with an internal combustion engine being the cause of climate change I don’t believe.

Left Coast Right Mind on May 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Well it’s not like Huntsman was going to be the Nominee…Won’t even get passed the primaries.

hawkman on May 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Man, the Democrats fear this guy.

/

DrAllecon on May 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM

I believe in voting against politicians who rail about climate change because science shows 90% of our deficit spending comes from them.

HitNRun on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Someone has to cover the Commie Leftist wing of the GOP

faraway on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Pssst Mr. Huntsman climate change has always occurred…even before man.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

In related news, a new report reveals that 90% of all scientists are funded by the government, most recieve grants for their support of cap and trade.

swamp_yankee on May 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Bingo!

No Birthers!
No Truthers!
No Warmists!

cartooner on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Another moron shoves foot into mouth and out of the running. 90% of scientists DO NOT concur with man-made global warming. Also, most scientists agree the IPCC form of ‘science’ is broken crap. IPCC cherry picked studies, confused propaganda with science, and overstated confidence levels (is Hunstman saying Himalayan Glaciers will be gone in 24 years?). Data was hidden which disproved their conclusions (tree ring data either disproves today is really the warmest, or that tree rings are no good in measuring historic climate – all hidden in “hide the decline”).

Moreover, new science shows most of the warming since 1600 is from changes in solar output (http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/16508).

yes, the earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age – yet there is no proof it is caused by CO2 or humans, and there is no mathematical proof that the 0.8°C increase in the last 100 years is even real (the best global index is +/- 3°C per year is).

What a crock.

AJStrata on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Believing in climate change is one thing…

Using it as an excuse to wreck a nation is quite another.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Man, candidates are dropping like flies lately! Let’s go ahead and weed out the nuts early.

ConservativeMom on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

We are having an outbreak of Suicide by RINOism

faraway on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

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

Next question: Did Huntsman check to see how many scientists among that 90% believed that climate change is man-made and is not a natural occurance?

pilamaye on May 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

A majority once believed the earth was flat, so it must be so.

Besides, climate change isn’t debated at all. Anyone who’s ever been outside knows that climate changes. The question is – is MAN causing it?

hawksruleva on May 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Huntsman: I believe in climate change because 90% of scientists WHO RECEIVE LARGE GOBS OF CASH TO STUDY IT do

mankai on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Man, the Democrats fear this guy.

/

DrAllecon on May 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM

No really , they get those laugh induced heart attacks.

the_nile on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

And everyone on CNN and MSNBC says we are racists

faraway on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

In related news, 90% of Black voters vote for Democrats,regardless.

So now I, too, know who to vote for. Or not

jamie gumm on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Poking the dead fish in the water with a stick

“Mr Huntsman? You asleep?”

thebrokenrattle on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Is that your final answer?

Answer: He is no longer a viable candidate.
Question: Who is Huntsman?

right2bright on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

We are having an outbreak of Suicide by RINOism

faraway on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Better now than closer to the Iowa Caucuses.

teke184 on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Man, candidates are dropping like flies lately! Let’s go ahead and weed out the nuts early.

ConservativeMom on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Works for me. If we can cut Newt, Huck, Huntsman, and Trump in a week, we’re making good progress.

I almost wish everyone else would step aside and let Cain and Romney duel.

hawksruleva on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

What’s did they put in the water down there in Foggy Bottom? Candidate after candidate is committing political suicide.

sharrukin on May 17, 2011 at 2:01 PM

I’m not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring.

I’m sure 90% of scientists once believed in a geocentric universe. So what? Since when is science subject to a vote, especially when most of the voters are being paid or intimidated into voting for one side?

Does Huntsman have any critical thinking skills of his own or does he think we should make public policy based on a dubious theory that’s won a rigged popularity contest?

RadClown on May 17, 2011 at 2:01 PM

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

mankai on May 17, 2011 at 2:01 PM

If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them.

I’d like to think the oncological community would have based their opinions on reproducable evidence, not computer model projections.

DrAllecon on May 17, 2011 at 2:01 PM

As a PhD STEM scientist, let me just say this to Huntsman: herd mentality is alive and well in academia. If it appears that 90% of scientists agree on AGW (and even that’s debatable), it’s likely because many are chasing federal funding or due to problems inherent in the peer-review process. You want to believe in X, fine; but don’t do it because 90% of scientists believe it. Do it because you think it’s supported empirically.

LastRick on May 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM

I thought Palin was the stupid one.

faraway on May 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM

The eugenics movement had the facade of being scientific as well. There is nothing more elitist than than believing that your point is already proven because of who you are.

mwbri on May 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM

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.

Hmmm, you needed it to be tried to figure out it wouldn’t work, when anyone with two brain cells already knew it wouldn’t work.

Good Lord, why do we even have a Republican Party?

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM

I’m not a meteorologist.

But did he spend the night at a Holiday Inn?

pilamaye on May 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM

In the case of Jon Huntsman, this apple fell pretty far from the the old apple tree. He doesn’t sound like his father.

I agree with him to some extent – there is climate change. It’s called Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter and has been happening since the beginning of time.

It wasn’t hard to figure out that these “settled science” people would change the name from global warming to climate change (to cover all contingencies) after the climate started proving what fools they were.

iamsaved on May 17, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Good post, Ed. Unfortunately you are applying logic and common sense the AGW issue. Huntsman is a politician, which means there’s a 90% chance he’s an elitist who hangs with other elitists who in order to set themselves apart engage in ‘avant garde’ group think (since being rich has never been enough to truly be an elite). ‘Avant garde’ group think is not based on logic, common sense, or real scientific evidence. It is esoteric, amorphous and, well frankly, incomprehensible to us troglodytes. So of course Huntsman believes in AGW.

Guess who else will not get my vote in the primaries?

JimP on May 17, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Suicide by RINOism
LOVE that one….keep up falling….

SDarchitect on May 17, 2011 at 2:03 PM

What is funny about that is less and less Americans think it is caused by Human, they think like most Conservatives that it is just a cycle caused by the Solar System.

WoosterOh on May 17, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Have the judges started ringing the gong yet?

teke184 on May 17, 2011 at 1:51 PM

ROFL..That is hillarious!..:)

Dire Straits on May 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Good Lord, why do we even have a Republican Party?

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Great question, for which there is no answer.

joepub on May 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

He’s toast!

lonestar1 on May 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

And everyone on CNN and MSNBC says we are racists

faraway on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

I only hate Huntsman because he is white.

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

That 90% number has been pretty much debunked. It’s based on a very small sample in a grad student’s study.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax

juliesa on May 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Another one bites the dust. And another one gone and another one gone…another one bites the dust……

red131 on May 17, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Next question: Did Huntsman check to see how many scientists among that 90% believed that climate change is man-made and is not a natural occurance?

pilamaye on May 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Or how many were climate scientists?

If 90% of Chiropractors (Doctors),identified a carcinogen, would you believe them?
If 90% of Attorneys (Doctors of Jurisprudence), identified a carcinogen, would you believe them?
If 90% of Doctors of Theology, English, Languages, Women’s Study, basket weaving, identified a carcinogen, would you believe them?
Well that is what 90% of these “scientists” are, just scientists of other types of science.
Just ask Richard Lindzen, a real climate scientists…

right2bright on May 17, 2011 at 2:05 PM

What an idiot. Glad to see that this is the beginning of the end for him.

Blake on May 17, 2011 at 2:06 PM

A joke of a candidacy…over before it even started.

Dan Pet on May 17, 2011 at 2:06 PM

The Elites just keep puttin it on display…..

Paging the Warrior of Wasilla!!!
Paging the Warrior of Wasilla!!!
Paging the Warrior of Wasilla!!!
Paging the Warrior of Wasilla!!!

PappyD61 on May 17, 2011 at 2:06 PM

The RINOs must believe that a RINO is going to get the Republican nomination. Unlikely.

GaltBlvnAtty on May 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Boy-oh-boy! We’re running out of parting gifts…

Fallon on May 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Huntsman says he opposes cap-and-trade proposals because “this isn’t the moment,”

So he does not oppose crap and trap.

And another one, and another one, and a another one bites the dust.

davidk on May 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

All together now: “Bomp, Bomp, Bomp, Another one bites the dust!”

mizzoujgrad on May 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Dumbass.

nickj116 on May 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

They’re dropping like flies, ain’t they?

Kafir on May 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

He must never bother to actually read the news!

We are having an outbreak of Suicide by RINOism

faraway on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

You said it: Romney, Huck, Newt, Huntsman! All gone within a week.

INC on May 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

BTW,

614 days until the END of the OBAMA MISADMINISTRATION!!!

PappyD61 on May 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

What an idiot.

nickj116 on May 17, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Another one bites the dust. And another one gone and another one gone…another one bites the dust……

red131 on May 17, 2011 at 2:05 PM

That song was just going through my head!

INC on May 17, 2011 at 2:08 PM

You said it: Romney, Huck, Newt, Huntsman! All gone within a week.

INC on May 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Yeah, um. Romney just raised $10+ million. So…

nickj116 on May 17, 2011 at 2:08 PM

And another thing, his point to “prove” his assertion ironically leads in the opposite direction. How many times has some food or activity been announced as causing cancer only to find out a few years later that the “scientific study” sensationalized for a headline had a flaw and said the food or activity may not cause cancer after all?

mwbri on May 17, 2011 at 2:08 PM

red131 on May 17, 2011 at 2:05 PM

oops

davidk on May 17, 2011 at 2:09 PM

I’m starting to think that being a politician requires that brains have to be left at home.

sadatoni on May 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Thanks for playing, Mr Huntsman.

Next!

Vashta.Nerada on May 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Say goodnight Huntsman whoever you are/were. Whatever.

Oink on May 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM

and another one bites the dust.

man my list is getting rather small.

Mitt
Newt
Ron Paul
Daniels
huntsman
johnston

unseen on May 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM

100% believe that all dogs are warm-blooded.

When “science” is below 100% it ceases to be purely science.

mankai on May 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Actually, that’s a pretty good answer. He’s NOT a scientist. He’s NOT a weather expert. We all have to depend on experts in their own fields to know things. We try not to get too fat and not to eat tons of lard, because experts tell us it will kill us. We don’t do all sorts of things because experts tell us it’s wrong. And unless we spend a lifetime researching the topics, how can we know?

What do some of you expect the guy to say? “No, I certainly do not. I’ve done at least 2 hours of research on the internet, and I’ve concluded it is false. Bologna, I say! Screw the experts.”

Unless he does that, he’s a stupid RINO?

TheBlueSite on May 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Listen, there is only one candidate I totally trust not to be a RINO and that’s Sarah Palin. I am sorry but no one else that’s running as a front tier candidate is believable.

milemarker2020 on May 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM

He also believed it was a good idea to work for Øbama as an ambassador, therefore proving that he’ll believe anything.

Kafir on May 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM

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

Oh dear Lord. What an idiotic statement.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Or how many were climate scientists?

right2bright on May 17, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Which doesn’t even begin to address how few climate scientists there really are, or the fact that most of their “science” is based on computer modeling, which is literally worthless for solving problems with many interactive variables, known and unknown, of guessed values.

HitNRun on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

I bet if Sarah Palin said the same thing, this thread would be quite different.

TheBlueSite on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

First Newt, now this guy…at least they did it early, before they started wasting money on campaigns that weren’t going anywhere, anyway…

Dopenstrange on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Well, scratch another off the list.

No way in hell would I vote for anyone complicit with the AGW hoax. I’d sacrifice my vote on a third party first. Same as to cap-n-trade.

petefrt on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Yeah, um. Romney just raised $10+ million. So…

nickj116 on May 17, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Ron Paul raised more than $6 million in 24 hours in 2007. He was still done for. I’m not impressed by connections to wealthy or terribly committed donors. I’m impressed by an ability to win actual votes.

Romney, like Gingrich and Huntsman, has juicy quotes galore that will be used against him effectively. He can have all the money he wants. If his opponents remind voters 24/7 that he supports ObamaCare 1.0, he’s done.

amerpundit on May 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

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.

I work at an environmental consulting company with lots of meteorologists, and 90% of them do NOT believe that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

If you’re not a scientist in a given discipline, Mr. Huntsman, why not ask one?

Water is wet, and it absorbs infrared rays, but it also forms clouds and reflects sunlight. Joni Mitchell had it right–you’ve got to look at clouds from both sides now.

Steve Z on May 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

I wish that these politicians had the sense to disagree with the premise in a way that communicates common sense.

The answer to such a ridiculous question should be:

Do I believe the climate is in a continuous state of change?

Yes.

If you are suggesting that governments can control global temperatures, then no, I do not believe that. Next question.

Why is this so difficult? That is a “wind at your back” response.

Saltysam on May 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

First Newt, now this guy…at least they did it early…

Dopenstrange on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Yup, the sooner, the better.

petefrt on May 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Has Huntsman never heard of East Anglican University and climate gate?
Has he never seen the movie The Great Global Warming Swindle?
Has he never looked at the climate change treaties and looked at their consequences?

Has he never seen the gulf between Al Gore’s rhetoric and his behavior?

I hear that 90% of Aztec Witch Doctors say that if you do not sacrifice your most beautiful daughters to the volcano gods, the mountain will blow its top!

When the volcano blows anyway, only then do we learn that the girls were not pretty enough.

The science behind any study or conclusion must make sense to me or I have trouble believing it.

The Rock on May 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Is there a conservative out there?

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Well, scratch another off the list.

No way in hell would I vote for anyone complicit with the AGW hoax. I’d sacrifice my vote on a third party first. Same as to cap-n-trade.

petefrt on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Second that.

Saltysam on May 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM

RINOs vs Mama Grizzly Cuda.. in 10 9 8 7 6….

44Magnum on May 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO feeling less-than confident with the current crop of candidates we have lining up to run for President!

We either have fart blasts from the past who paint themselves as being unifiers who then turn against their own party members and then try to deny they did to begin with, or we have certified tinfoil-hatted loons who are clearly three French Fries shy of a Happy Meal!

Where are the clear choice runners?!!!!

pilamaye on May 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Put a fork in him, turn him over, he’s done. The candidates are dropping like flies this week.

In a way, I’m glad that we can thin the herd early and find out who will eventually be acceptable to the GOP base.

Romney, Huntsman, Newt are all toast as far as I’m concerned.

simkeith on May 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I don’t see the problem of being a conservative and having a concern for our ecosystems. I’m a pretty far right guy, and I also have some common sense. Billions of people burnign carbon should have SOME impact on our environment, right?

I’m not saying you have to buy into Al Gore, or the polar bear on the ice cap. But if anyone remembers what a mess the environment was in the 80′s, and how much cleaner we act now, isn’t that a good thing?

I don’t buy alarmism for political sake, but I do understand that we have an impact on the Earth.

Vincenzo on May 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I bet if Sarah Palin said the same thing, this thread would be quite different.

TheBlueSite on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

I would be saying she’s an idiot and I no longer support her.

You are projecting your personality worship of individuals and imagining that is also how we think.

We don’t.

sharrukin on May 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I think that theory about Pawlenty being the last man standing, because everyone else stinks, is coming true.

El_Terrible on May 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I don’t think he has much of a chance against Obama in the primaries anyway.

forest on May 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5