2012 GOP Candidate Jon Huntsman: I Believe in Global Warming Because 90% of Scientists Do…
On the bright side, Huntsman has absolutely zero shot of securing the Republican nomination.
(The Hill) — GOP White House hopeful Jon Huntsman is sticking by his view that climate change is under way, even while reversing his past embrace of cap-and-trade.
Time magazine has posted excerpts from interviews with the former Utah governor — who recently left his job as President Obama’s ambassador to China — conducted for a recent profile.
Asked about his views on climate change, Huntsman replied:
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.
Huntsman embraced cap-and-trade when he was governor of Utah, signing on in 2007 to a program among Western states and Canadian provinces called theWestern Climate Initiative aimed at cutting regional greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by 2020.
Posted by ZIP on Tuesday, May 17, 2011, at 4:49 pm | 
Tweet
Climate change is always underway, but not because of human created Co2. Which scientists does this guy associate with, academic wonders with degrees in geology that are experts on climate change now after getting a whopping grant?
Ice ages have been coming and going all on their own looong before al gore had private jets and yachts to heat up the earth.
How can people be so stupid to believe this crap??????
Would love to know where is the 90% of scientist because during the middle ages, almost 100% of the so called doctors believed in the procedure of “Bloodletting” or back in the time when Hemlock was thought as a great medicine. But nothing like the banning of DDT that have cause the death of millions due to Malaria.
Huntsman agreed to go to China as an ambassador for the Obama Administration.
That, right there, would finish him for me unless he had utterly stellar credentials in every other way—which this article shows is not the case.
Oh, and by the way—if you want to see a feeding frenzy that makes the shark tank at chum time look calm and placid, wait until the same-sex marriage crowd starts in on Huntsman (and Romney). Both of them are Mormon, and the Mormons have been enshrined as the devil incarnate by the SSM lobby since the Prop 8 vote in 2008. Regardless of what either of them says or does or believes on this issue, they’re going to get ripped on.
Ninety percent of scientists also believe in evolution too, what’s your point?
I’m sick and tired of these Republicans who try to constantly “reach across the aisle” (where have we heard that phrase before?) and make deals with liberal Democrats. They can be expected to stab the taxpayers in the back when their support is most needed. He’s nothing but a Democrat in disguise. No wonder the media would like him to run against their messiah.
“Another one bites the dust…”
I think you’re being generous. He has a -100% chance of being nominated…..
The GOP needs a serious enema.
I’m guessing he has reviewed 100% of scientist’s opinions in order to come to that conclusion?
Yes?
Yeah. I sorta figured…
…Lemming.
The only thing I know about this ‘Republican’ candidate is that he believes in the global warming hoax. That’s all I need to know to cross him off my list.
On the basis of “I believe in [global warming] because 90% of [scientists] do,” shouldn’t Huntsman have converted to a majority religion? I mean, if large numbers of “believers” are the measure of truth, doesn’t that make sense?
“If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them.”
Until they would come out a year later and go “oops it wasn’t that…its this!” like they do oh…90 percent of the time!!! We already know they’ve been pushing that shit to A.Secure Tenure and Grans and B.Make sure all those investments of theirs in 30 year old “green” technology are forced on us so they can see a real bump in their life style. No Science is ever settled if it where then the Earth would still be the center of the universe and I’d be going to get a leech treatment to get my “humors” back in order for my indigestion.
I’m not a doctor, but when blood is pouring out of a wound, I say ” that’s go’in ta need a bandage.”
1.6 billion muslims believe mohammed is the prophet of god. Does that make it so?
100% of the local news media say it’s gonna rain in Arizona on a specific day; not a drop! 100% of the local news media say it’s NOT gonna rain in Arizona on a specific day; pours! Yep, they got this weather thing down pat.
Damn it Spock, I’m a doctor not a weatherman.
I believe that anthropogenic political climate change exists.
It’s called socialism. It’s unnatural and should be resisted at every turn.
I’m a homo-sapien naturalist. I believe that we should preserve the natural habitat of American citizens, and keep their taxes as low as possible.
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
.
Not only have the DEMocRATS infested the Republican Party with RINO’s……..
DEMocRATS run DEMocRATS as Tea Party independent candidates to split the vote……..
There’s a storm coming……….
and it ain’t going to be pretty.
@Buzzsaw, he is a part of a major religion, the church of Climatology.
When he took that China job, the entire state of
Utah threw a big ass party!
This boy is just another silver spoon idiot!
If there was no climate change, there would be no reason the have weathermen on staff at news organizations.
It is called “WEATHER” for a reason. It is different every freaking day.
John who????
I guess he missed the latest lie about the sea levels? I can’t remember if WZ carried this or not.
http://biggovernment.com/jdunetz/2011/05/13/nasa-gets-caught-faking-climate-change-data-again/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29&utm_content=Twitter
Huntsman never was on my list. Regardless of that, I have to say I appreciate his honesty in his opinion on this issue. I really am sick and tired of having to go dig in one’s background to determine if they are a two-faced, double speaking liar. He has saved me some time. I am not a single issue voter. I have learned a lot about this issue over the past 8 or so years and it ranks up in my top 5 of importance because of the grand scale of lies and the harm it has caused not just here, but worldwide.
Nancy says:
May 17, 2011 at 5:05 pm
“reach across the aisle”
It’s actually called a “reach around”, and fellow taxpayers, they ain’t giving us the reach around. They are pleasuring each other.
Tom Coburn just said the debt ceiling deal appears to be dead. Lets hope so. Don’t raise it. Lets try living within our means.
All they talk about is the deficit. How about we talk about reducing the debt!
TOAST….. Put a fork in him. Its over.
Hey now, wait a freaking minute…I believe in climate change too. How could anyone think that if we deforest the planet, industrialize every Nation, and build huge cities that are heat banks, consume massive volumes of freshwater and then discharge it into the sea that we would not have an effect on our environment? That does not mean that I believe for one second that the Government or mankind can do jack shit about it…Listen, just think of it as the earth making the moves of dusting off the fleas, I believe in Darwinism evolution and Natural selection…I also believe in a God. How about this old one, don’t shit in your own mess kit…There is not one single chemical equation that does not strive to reach equilibrium, when one reactant is in surplus there is a shift to find stability, man is just a strand in the web not the spider.
LOSER! Move along…
I read that the brilliant people who advised and worked on McCain’s putrid campaign, are now advising Huntsman. I’ve no use for Obama but for a guy to work for him and then run against him smacks me as being a big bowl of wrong.
It never ceases to amaze me that so-called Republican so-called candidates are so willing to says things that categorically rule them out of contention for the nomination and/or winning the presidency:
Trump: Just about everything he has ever said
Newt: Paul Ryan is radical. and we have a duty to provide healthcare to all.
Romney: I support socialized medicine in the form of Romneycare
Huntsman: Isupport the destruction of western civilization in the name of global warming
Everywhere you look in the West today, in the UK, in Oz, and the States, the so-called “opposition” parties are merely echoes of the “Progressives” – they ALL “believe” in same Leftist fantasies, like man-made global warming, etc. There is NO real choice.
It’s time for a genuine third force in politics – an independent conservative party outside of the cosy club.
@Monsterzero —
I am not sure what you are trying to say, but at the very least it seems self contradictory:
“I believe in Climate Change” which means
“I believe that mankind is upsetting the natural balance in the world and creating a runaway warming cycle and we must change our habits or die”
But you also say:
“That does not mean that I believe for one second that the Government or mankind can do jack shit about it” which contradicts AGW dogma.
and
“There is not one single chemical equation that does not strive to reach equilibrium” which means that temperatures will not rise in a runaway warming effect.
So which is it? Are you a believer or not?
Huntsman is a RINO plan and simple these progressive republicans are part of the problem.
Kaffeesatz- Yes, I do believe in climate change wouldn’t you think the oil reserves in the middle east would support that theory, yes I do believe that man has reached a population density to the point that his activities shift the equilibrium of nature, everything has a purpose in nature, everything. As we are a part of nature, we are like everything else in this world, only we think that we have mastered our world through technology, so far that we have become arrogant and oblivious to the obvious. Understanding Nature and the way it works does not coincide with believing that a bunch of government idiots and libtard scientists can Cap n trade their way out of the inevitable consequences of over population, however everyone should live responsibly to what they know is right. Climates will change as they always have, and food production belts will shift, and some people will die and some people will survive…like I said, we are but a strand, we are not the spider. Look at the changes that have occurred in North America alone in the last few hundred years simply with the introduction of the earthworm from Europe or the Asian elm beetle, a complete change of the fauna, yet people would not equate man to that of an earthworm.
Stellar credentials! Been living under a rock for a few years and missed Climategate. Perhaps he owns some stock in Gore’s enterprises, also. Perhaps he’s just brain dead. If 90% of scientists said it was the prudent thing to run over a cliff, would you follow their advice or pay attention to the 10% that had correctly evaluated the situation that it might cause bodily harm? Seriously, folks.
Time magazine? Newsweek? How shallow can it get?
This guy is a liar and fraud. He will be exposed for what he is. Go to hell Huntsman, you aren’t getting anywhere near the White House. Your friend Soetoro, remember the one you wrote nice letters to, praising him, has turned it into an outhouse. You worked for Soetoro, your poison.
Another moron for prez.
@Monster Zero,
Absolutely. But what you are talking about is completely different than what these assholes are talking about. What you are talking about is common sense, not a global scam that when the money is followed you’d want to gouge their eyes out.
Consensus does not make for scientific truth.
Cross him off of a list that gets longer every day.
The obama opposition gets thinner every day due to the total absence of leaders and a coherent opposition strategy. This thug will probably win re election by default if someone does not emerge soon.
A few that he forgot:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Halodoc-Thank you for providing clarification to what I thought was quite a transparent post! I in no way back Cap n Trade, politicians politicize anything that they believe will provide them a platform to gain support for their economic gain in fleecing the American sheeple.
he knows this cause he personally know obama- what a pathetic bastard
Guess his brain cells haven’t warmed up enough to activate yet.
Stick a fork in that dumbass– he’s done!!!!
A lie is still a lie if everyone believes it and..
The truth is still the truth if no one believes it.
The weather seemed to change after the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines. I don’t believe half the crap I see on the TV. People would say anything or do anything to get your money. Enviromentalists have been very instrumental in getting money off people. Scientist are often dependent on politicians for money,etc.
“Because 90% of Scientists Do…”
———–
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER base your own opinion on the opinions of others.
Look at the evidence yourself, or join the herd.
All opinions are Subjective. All science is Objective. Slapping a label of “Science” on Global Warming doesn’t make it science.
If you must form an opinion, then go straight to the objective source. Go to the evidence itself, or risk being misled by the “majority of” any given group. Polls are created to influence public opinion, not to document it.
.
Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation – Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur_Kuran#Availability_Cascades_and_Risk_Regulation
“Availability cascade” is a concept that Timur Kuran developed jointly with CASS SUNSTEIN, initially through a 1999 article entitled “Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation.” An availability cascade is a process of collective belief formation whereby an expressed perception triggers reactions that make that perception seem increasingly plausible through its rising availability in public discourse. The driving mechanism ordinarily involves a combination of informational and reputational motives. Individuals endorse the perception partly because THEY BASE THEIR OWN BELIEFS ON THE APPARENT BELIEFS OF OTHERS.
.
Did he actually say 90 percent of the scientists? What scientists would that be? Are we really supposed to be that gullible? Moronus Politicus.
Who?
@gastorgrab says:
“NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER base your own opinion on the opinions of others. Look at the evidence yourself, or join the herd. All opinions are Subjective. All science is Objective. Slapping a label of “Science” on Global Warming doesn’t make it science.”
If you want to argue that it isn’t a far smarter policy to acknowledge what these academics agree on and then just have different opinions on policies, then you need to understand that history is as subjective as science in just the same way.
Rather than the 90%, the bit you need to focus on is the 10% of fringe opinion and what defending that against all good sense gets you, which is invariably a loss.
You’re on the internet. Google “Jews gas chambers” and you can find another issue where a tiny portion of academics hold a differing opinion to what the overwhelming body of evidence and consensus of their peers is. Probably get some strategy tips from guys with some serious haircuts and tatts too if you’re interested in seeing this thing through.
Surely I can have make up my own mind about whether the world’s entire body of historians came together to agree to perpetrate an elaborate hoax there too, just because I found a dissenting opinion on the internet. Right?
“…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…”
His analogy is wrong and confuses the weak. Notice he groups all scientists in the first sentence while he specifies a sub-group in the second sentence.
Would we listen to 90% of the medical community if most of the oncologists disagreed?
At Aarhus University and the National Space Institute have just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.
The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. Should be multiple orders of magnitutde greater effect than CO2. When the sun is more active, the solar wind that results blows these cosmicly generated particles away form the earth, resulting in fewer clouds and alot warmer temperatures. When the sun is quiescent, the earth takes a lot more hits; a lot more clouds are formed; a lot more solar heat is reflected back into space; the earth gets a lot cooler.
Same effect as happened during the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850 that froze the vikings out of Greenland, and the medieval warm period that preceded it. Same thing that happened in 1883, the Year Without a Summer, when Krackatoa blew up.
CO2 has been increasing in the atmosphere for the last 18,000 years. Our contribution to that amounts to between 0.2 and 0.3%.
“I’m not a meteorologist.” Jon Huntsman
How clueless does one have to be not to know a climatologist not a meteorologist studies climate?
You’re not a viable Republican either.