A few months back, Jon Huntsman caught some flak from conservatives for refusing to succumb to the pressure to reject science in order to pander to Republican primary voters. He was cheered as the lone voice of sanity in a vast ocean of denial by many, myself included.
Yesterday, it was reported that Huntsman had apparently thrown his lot in with Romney, Newt Gingrich, and the rest of the GOP field who have reversed themselves on the issue lately. Huntsman’s ostensible “flip flop” came during an address to the anti-regulatory, industry front group Heritage Foundation.
Many have been quick to attack Huntsman for this seeming pivot, and I confess that my reaction was quite negative as well, even though Huntsman’s chances seem as dismal as ever.
But according to Politico, Huntsman is denying any change in position, and has reaffirmed his support of the scientific consensus:
“Let me be very clear on this: there is no change,” he told reporters after his speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition. “I put my faith and trust in science. So you have 99 of 100 climate scientists who have come out and talked about climate change in certain terms, what is responsible for it. I tend to say this is a discussion that should not be in the political lane but should be in the scientific lane.”
“Is there a one percent that has a disagreement? There’s a one percent that has a disagreement,” he added. “Will those discussions continue, as they always do in the scientific community, to clear up those areas of ambiguity? I suspect so. But, as for me, I’m on the side of science on this one.”
I suppose that’s one benefit of infrequent blogging- I procrastinated my way out of jumping the gun. Anyway, as James Fallows said, it will be interesting to see what Huntsman says the next time climate comes up.
SUGGESTION:
How to tell somebody why you don’t believe in AGW.
Science, won the day for scepticism, the scientific method when
properly applied won the day. It is the solid foundation that sceptics
are able to base their argument upon.
Science can’t be politicised, truth of fact can’t be denied, a syntax
of logic will always destroy beliefs that are without truth.
The Science says:
Pressure is the required variable only if one compares Atmosheric
Thermal Enhancement across planets. For any individual planet, it is
the atmospheric mass that effectively controls thermal enhancement.
There is no confusion with the pressure-controlled lapse rate with the
atmosphere of a given planet.
Why Now? It’s the science;
• The climate of Earths’ atmosphere results from a formation of a
climate machine by combining solar isolation and force of pressure.
Coupled with spatio-temporal chaotic systems of irradiation and
radiation of surface and atmosphere, dynamic heat distributions of
oceans, a multiple pole thermodynamic atmosphere, with a gravitational
velocity and planetary harmonics, spinning on an uneven axis around a
Sun, with fluctuation of solar isolation, immersed in a space that has
galactic electromagnetic winds.
• The physical construct of a planet, with or without an atmosphere,
retains ancient energy by the force of pressure on its mass. Otherwise
planets could not exist.
• Planets attract cold by the density of its mass and distribute heat
by the dynamics of mass. Space attracts heat by the sparsest of its
mass.
• Heat rises, cool sinks. Atmosphere cannot back radiate heat to a
warmer surface than the atmosphere which, cools with height.
Thermodynamic gas laws describe the mechanisms of weather in the
troposphere.
Ref: General Remarks on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and
the Planetary Spaces; by Baron Fourier.
The pressure of the atmosphere and bodies of water, has the general
effect to render the distribution of heat more uniform. In the ocean
and in the lakes, the coldest particles, or rather those whose density
is the greatest, are continually tending downwards, and the motion of
heat depending on this cause is much more rapid than that which takes
place in solid masses in consequence of their connecting power. The
mathematical examination of this effect would require exact and
numerous observations. These would enable us to understand how this
internal motion prevents the internal heat of the globe from becoming
sensible in deep waters.
Where NASA got the science wrong:
Arrhenious in 1897 screwed up about the conservation of energy in
gaseous mass , he flipped out about the relationship of carbon to life
in a stupid greenhouse.
Dopey Hansen in the early 80’s flipped out about Arrhenious’ mistake
and caused all his stupid mates to believe in an invalid scientific
principle.
They spent billions in chasing argumentum ad populum. When, if they
had followed a correct method of science, by applying scepticism, they
would have found the answer that has been there, right under their
noses.
Climate is a multidisciplinary field of science, and cannot be treated
as a pseudoscience, necessary of propitiation. Science will correct
this fatal mistake.
The force of pressure encloses our atmosphere not a greenhouse.
So, when somebody asks why you don’t believe in AGW you can say;
“It’s the science, stupid.”
Ike Eisenhower gave a warning, philosophers expressed it, we fell for
it. This time it came in the cloak of science
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin’.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’.
Regards,