Bloomberg: GOP candidates must believe in global warming

Our litmus test is the opposite.

The New York Daily News reports:

Belief in science should be a no-brainer, especially for anyone running for President, Mayor Bloomberg groused Thursday.

The mayor used an international economic forum at Columbia University to pop off against any candidates who doubt the science behind hot-button political topics such as evolution and global warming.

“We have presidential candidates who don’t believe in science,” Bloomberg said, without singling out dubious Republican candidates directly.

“I mean, just think about it, can you imagine a company of any size in the world where the CEO said ‘oh I don’t believe in science’ and that person surviving to the end of that day? Are you kidding me? It’s mind-boggling!”

Bloomberg grew coy when asked which candidate he was talking about.

“I don’t know,” he said. “You can check the presidential candidates’ speeches… I don’t have time to go do it but all their speeches, everything they said.”

Last June, Steve Milloy wrote in “Do GOP hopefuls trust Al Gore?

To rein in the EPA, the next president needs to model Ronald Reagan’s attitude toward our former mortal enemy, the Soviet Union. No, the EPA can’t wipe us out with missiles, but it sure can choke our economy to death – like Mr. Obama’s EPA is doing now with its train wreck of new and pending regulations.

Is global warming science a litmus test? In 2012 America, yes.

Read the Daily News article.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mayor-bloomberg-white-house-candidates-evolution-global-warming-article-1.971946#ixzz1cjyeQNEJ

2 thoughts on “Bloomberg: GOP candidates must believe in global warming”

  1. Shows Mr. Bloomberg’s ignorance. “Believe” in evolution? Is there a catechism I must learn; hymns; homilies; and recititations of faith (I believe in the Father, Son and Holy Darwin)? I believe I’d rather evaluate the Theory of Evolution on how well it explains observations and its ability to predict outcomes. Based on those criteria, the theory seems to be fairly good, especially in molecular biology. I’ve been around science long enough to know that I shouldn’t “believe” in a theory, I should continually evaluate them based on new information.

    Believe in climate change? The evidence is pretty clear that the climate has changed, is changing and will change. Anthropogenic effects? Yes, probably. The extent of those effects is in question, but I see no real evidence supporting the claims of the Church of Climate Science.

    How does anyone take Bloomberg seriously?

Comments are closed.