"To be clear," Huntsman tweeted. "I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...e-gop-base.php
What chance does he have?
"To be clear," Huntsman tweeted. "I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...e-gop-base.php
What chance does he have?
Array title="Count Steeler has a reputation beyond repute">
His chances are very good that someone will call him crazy.Originally Posted by Vis
He's "too" reasonable... he'll be rejected by the current state of the Repub. party...
That's the end of his campaign. Scientific discovery is the GOP's third rail.
He should have strapped on Cowboy boots and started spouting corny Texas lingo. He'd be leading in the polls by tomorrow.
He's, of course, my second choice for the GOP behind Mitch Daniels, who isn't even running.
He'll probably be out of the running in a week.
Fire Goodell
So Huntsman is trusting scientists who doctored scientific information to make it seem like global warming is occurring. It is a good thing he has no real shot at winning
93% of environmental scientists doctored this information?
I don't see this kind of scrutiny when scientists say that volcanic ash in the atmosphere will temporarily cool earth's temperatures.
Remember Climategate?93% of environmental scientists doctored this information?
I don't see this kind of scrutiny when scientists say that volcanic ash in the atmosphere will temporarily cool earth's temperatures.
The planet is warming....slightly. What's not to trust?
Now the cause? There's room for debate on that...but Huntsman is merely saying leave science to the scientists.
Fire Goodell
Yes, I assumed that's what you were referring to. There is fraud in any scientific field, but that doesn't mean that suddenly all the data in that field is fraud. I mean, if we found out today that some doctors lied about a connection between their patients lung cancer and asbestos, would you fill your house with asbestos?
No, I don't believe in some of the more dramatic effects of global warming (like some doomsday propagandists), but refusing to believe that releasing 30,000x the amount of carbon that the earth naturally produces in a year into the atmosphere will have negative consequences, is just as foolish IMO. And that's ignoring the apparent correlation between rising carbon emissions and rising global temperatures (both of which are facts: there's just insufficient proof to show that they are related).
It's basic physics. Would you go into your garage, turn your car on and inhale the smoke ? If you did you'd be dead pretty fast. Now add up all the cars and factories running every day on earth and multiply it by decades. Not good.
As far as global warming. The earth IS going through a scheduled warm up according to science, which is bad news for coastal areas by itself. But whats got everyone worried is the scheduled warm up "plus" the Carbon in the atmosphere which will give us an amplified warm up. We're talking about floods, untold acres of farm land destroyed due to hotter temperatures, symptoms for people with allergies will go off the charts and there will be super massive rain and snow storms. Politicians that downplay the effects of this are usually tied to the oil companies politically or financially.... I'm in the energy business by the way...
Array title="GBMelBlount has a reputation beyond repute">
Crazy, I don't know.
Would I want him making important decisions for this country?
Probably not.
"With love, with patience, and with Faith
....She'll make her way" ~ Natalie Merchant
We can't have our President listening to so-called "scientists".
Um...how about Bachmann? Would you be more comfortable with her? Her take on Global Warming (as man-made climate change) is that carbon dioxide is not harmful to humans.
Let's see:
http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chem...bondioxide.htm
WILL EXPOSURE TO CARBON DIOXIDE RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?
Exposure to CO2 can produce a variety of health effects. These may include headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins or needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness, increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, coma, asphyxia to convulsions and even frostbite if exposed to dry ice.
The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:
250 - 350 ppm – background (normal) outdoor air level
350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
>5,000 ppm – Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma and even death.
OR, Bachmann's version (which can be cited in 10,000 different places):
"But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows carbon dioxide is a harmful gas. There isn’t one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural. It is not harmful. It is part of Earth’s life cycle."
One is leaving science to scientists, the other is, well, batshit crazy....
Fire Goodell
Array title="GBMelBlount has a reputation beyond repute">
"When you look at carbon dioxide, it increases 1.5 ppm per year. We contribute 3% of that. Which means that the human contribution is 1 part per 20 million. Do you realize how small that is of a trace gas necessary for life on the planet? I mean it is almost incomprehensible that this has taken off the way it has...."
....and 69% polled by Rasmussen believe that scientists aren't being objective
http://news.yahoo.com/video/environm...-26209197.html
"With love, with patience, and with Faith
....She'll make her way" ~ Natalie Merchant
Array title="GBMelBlount has a reputation beyond repute">
So is this guy saying we evolved from apes?Hunstman
"I believe in evolution..."
"With love, with patience, and with Faith
....She'll make her way" ~ Natalie Merchant
I am. Does that make me crazy?
74% of people with post-graduate degrees believe in evolution..
Are they all crazy?
In fact there is a direct correlation between education and acceptance of evolutionary theory. Belief in I'D has increased over the last 25 years because of the combination of a concerted effort by the religious right to subvert the theory as well ad a general educational decline in the US.
Fire Goodell
Array title="GBMelBlount has a reputation beyond repute">
Where is the fossil evidence?
Why do apes exist and humans and EVERYTHING in between is extinct?
"With love, with patience, and with Faith
....She'll make her way" ~ Natalie Merchant
Oh boy.
I'm not going to enter into this discussion yet again.
The bottom line is it used to be that people could have beliefs that reconciled both positions. Reading "A River Runs Through It" I was struck by how the strict Presbyterian Preacher father taught his kids how God created the World AND how it evolved over millions of years. I was taught creationism and indoctrinated with it at church, and learned about evolution at school, and applied my own critical thinking to the matter and came up with my own position.
That is no longer acceptable to the religious right. It must be one or the other. I'm now a pariah in my own party because I refuse to believe Dinosaurs walked with humans and the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
I don't know how this happened. I don't like it.......
And now a candidate like Huntsman is being considered less acceptable to govern than a nutbag like Michelle Bachmann because he has the audacity to have a view contrary to the party line of the far religious right.
Fire Goodell
Array title="GBMelBlount has a reputation beyond repute">
You are EXPLAINING your position.
His tweet sounds like he is politically "positioning" himself and does not come to these conclusions through any thought or analysis.
"With love, with patience, and with Faith
....She'll make her way" ~ Natalie Merchant
The species of apes you see today weren't around millions of years ago. They evolved too from ancient primates. The theory of Darwinism is that humans share a common ancient ancestor with modern-day apes. Everything in between isn't extinct, they just changed and changed over millions of years until they took the form of species you see today.
Supposedly.
The part of evolution that we deal with 99.9% of the time is "the past up to now". Lets look at what evolution theory says "from now to the future". I don't know if any of you are familiar with the term (and theory) "Omega Point" ? But it says that, according to evolution, that man's mind, body and conscience, the universe, and God are heading to a "point" in which they will all become basically the same thing. It presumes a logical conclusion to evolution "with" the idea of a creator. It basically deals with "the other end" (the future) of evolution. I believe there's a movie or several documentaries on the subject as well.
But here's a few Google links: http://www.google.com/search?aq=0&oq...he+omega+point
Would be cool if the candidates were asked what their position on this would be...
Oh, I don't know about that (In re Huntsman). If you read anything about him, he's a fiscal conservative who is a social moderate. He has business experience, understand foreign policy, has been bipartisan, lowered taxes AND balanced the budget in Utah (actually created a surplus), and has also balanced his religious beliefs well. He's fluent in Mandarin Chinese. He's well-educated. He was an Eagle scout, for Chissakes! I think he's tossing out a lifeline to Republicans like myself.
Romney is too malleable, Bachmann and Perry WAY too religiously ruled (Perry's views, the more I learn, are almost as scary as Bachmann's) for us in the middle. Huntsman needed some pub, and he got it. Now he needs to make the most of this and get his platform out there.
Fire Goodell
This is actually a pretty good piece on Huntsman. Time is pretty left-leaning, but......
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...071150,00.html
Fire Goodell
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/20...-huge-problem/
If you are a prominent Republican Presidential candidate at the moment, Jon Huntsman made sure to target you on Sunday morning.
The former US ambassador to China appeared on ABC’s This Week and strongly criticized his rivals in the race for the GOP nomination, centering most of his attack on Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann.
Huntsman pointed out the various flip flopping of the ex-Massachusetts governor when guest host Jake Tapper mentioned Romney’s change on the idea of a flat tax. “If we were to talk about his inconsistencies and the changes in various issues, we’ll be here all afternoon,” he said.
When Tapper asked Huntsman his thoughts on Perry’s continued skepticism on climate change, the one time Utah governor again did not refuse to throw a few verbal jabs.
“The minute the Republican party becomes the anti-science party, we have a huge problem,” he said. “When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 out of 100 climate scientists from what the National Academy of Scientists said on what is causing climate change, and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science and in a losing position.”
Huntsman wasn’t finished on Perry, as he also commented on the Texas governor’s controversial statements about FED chairman Ben Bernanke earlier in the week. “I don’t know if that’s pre-secession Texas or post secession Texas,” he said.
And after giving his perspective on the leading male candidates for the GOP nomination, Huntsman than gave his thoughts on Rep. Bachmann’s promise that gas would be $2 if she became President. “We live in the real world, grounded in reality, and gas prices just aren’t going to rebound like that,” he said. “It’s completely unrealistic.”
Asked by Tapper whether he could trust Bachmann as President, Huntsman bluntly stated, “I wouldn’t necessarily trust any of my Republican opponents on a recent debate stage with me when every single one of them would have allowed this country to default.”
I'm curious to hear what the SU right wing feels about this interview. I don't think he can win the nomination like this but I think he will position himself as the leader of the sane right.
He's the most serious and legitimate candidate the GOP is offering up right now, IMO.
He is WAY behind...no one knows anything about him. The TEA Party should love his economics, because he's anti-tax AND he not only balanced Utah's budget but left a surplus. He grew the state budget by about 30% by being business friendly. He's another rare politician who actually has both experience as an executive in both the private and public sector. He played the keyboard in a band. He rides motorcycles. He's a fan of the Foo Fighters and Dream Theater. He has adopted kids. He was an Eagle Scout. He was Ambassador to China and speaks fluent Chinese. He shows the ability to compromise. He's anti gay-marriage but pro civil unions. He's a Mormon, but admits that he's more spiritual than religious and won't govern from a religious standpoint.
There is a lot to like here. He's actually a much more qualified and legitimate candidate than Obama was in 2008. But I readily admit I have no idea how the base will deal with him. Things are so different now. It used to be a feather in your cap to be able to say you've reached across the aisle and compromised, but now the right wing of the party is so immovable and partisan. The religious kookery bothers me a lot, too. Just 3 years ago many conservatives were freaked out because Huckabee and a couple other candidates raised their hand in a debate and said they didn't believe in evolution. The question was "can we nominate a candidate who doesn't believe in evolution?". Now, it's the complete opposite. The right wing of the party is looking at Huntsman as the kook because he believes (or at least pays attention to) science.
Fire Goodell
Hasn't Rush said he will derail Huntsman's campaign?
I think it will be interesting to see what big names he attracts once the public endorsements start flowing.
The older and wiser I get, the less and less I care for Rush Limbaugh. He's not a serious political wonk anymore, simply an entertainer more along the lines of stand-up comedian, but he has a following and they take him SO seriously.
I'm curious as to whom out of the motley crew that is the GOP field he does prefer.
Anyway, the best thing that can happen to Huntsman is to get Perry and Bachmann to respond to him. That will raise his profile considerably. He needs to let people know who he is and quickly.
He's also the one candidate who has considerable personal wealth at his disposal, although he'll never be able to match Obama's billion he'll have raised by next year. No one in the Republican field will be able to out-raise Obama, namely because Hopey never stopped campaigning for a single second.
Fire Goodell
Array title="smokin3000gt has a reputation beyond repute">
Going back to the global warming thing..
Can someone explain to me how the earth turned into a block of ice then thawed out again before SUVs and cow farts?
I'm not saying it's not getting warmer but we are on a rock flying 60,000 MPH around a fire ball (which temperatures vary). Is it not possible that temperature fluctuations happen regardless? Space isn't exactly a controlled environment.
PATRIOTS**
BUNGLES
Steelers - 18 Bengals - 16 #0in25 #anotherseasonBungled
-¤ HTG ¤-
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
