Perry has taken the role of the champion of AGW skeptics, so it should not have been a surprise that MSNBC and their buddies would try to make him look like an ignorant yahoo.
Think about what happened to Palin because of an interview question about a nebulous term called "The Bush Doctrine." I don't think she had ever mentioned that term before Gibson asked her about it. Perry has been talking a lot about global warming. In the GOP primaries, most voters may be more worried about the EPA, but videos of Perry not being able to defend his position will be there in the general election if he gets that far. He needs better preparation.
Romney tried to have it both ways. I don't remember him saying the GOP is "anti-science" last night, but he has that line in his bag if he needs it later. Instead, he attacked Obama's Green Jobs.
I will let Huntsman speak for himself, barf.
Seriously, why is this guy even fouling the air around Republicans?
My suggestion is for Huntsman to switch parties and run against Obama in a Democratic Primary contest. He certainly seems more like a centrist Democrat to me. He won’t win the GOP nomination anyway.
Huntsman is a sham. I was listening to the debate and his answers were phony. He’s never had a single conservative thought in his alleged mind.
I think as far as the issues for the 2012 election, climate change isn’t high on the list.
Generally, the minute you ask a ‘believer’ what climate is the ‘right’ climate for New Jersey...they have to sit there and think about how to respond. There are over a dozen climate situations over the past 100 million years for New Jersey, and it’s hard to pinpoint the one that matters. And once they do respond....then you ask why it kept changing....long before man came along...and they lack any answer to respond.
And the IDIOT thinks no one notices...
How stupid does one have to get to try such a childish attempt?
What caused the ice to form?
What caused the ice to melt?
When those 98 scientists can explain this to me, I will listen. When their computer models conform with recorded history, I will believe.
But I don't need another religion.
FU Hunt-’Rat
Huntsman... just because some idiot that had themselves chained to a tree last week calls themselves a “scientist” doesn’t make it so.
These “environmental scientists” are nothing of the sort, they are extreme environmental nutjobs with a political agenda who would do whatever it took to advance their agenda, including manipulating the data and or models to show what they want them to show.
I believe the data and models of these people about as much as they believe the data and models of scientists hired by Exxon Mobil.
Huntsman is a joke. He is a trojan horse.
Oops, I am wrong, he is a horses ass for the left.
Nobody who beliefs that Joseph Smith found a magic rock and that Garden of Eden is in Missouri should be telling anybody on planet earth what to think about science.
F Huntsman on this. Perry was so correct and I encourage him to point out we are supposed to hobble our economy while China pumps out more CO2 than we ever did and plans on increasing it, so the whole thing is a ridiculous effort in futility.
Now THIS is a candidate wasting our time.
When I listened to Huntsman yip and yap about global warming last night, I told the wife that Huntsman needs to run against Obama. (In the Democrat Primary.)
Might as well say "When you make comments that fly in the face of 98 out of 100 witch doctors..."
Michael Crichton got it spectacularly right:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
How in the heck did the good citizens of Utah get bamboozled into electing this warmist RINO?
Its obvious he doesn’t keep up with the CERN news that the sun, together with cosmic rays, are responsible for any global warming.
I don’t know, will this be the issue that enable Huntsman to finally break the decimal point barrier and consistent poll at least a full percentage point?