Huntsman’s 24-hour flirtation with skepticism

What a difference a day makes.

Asked by conservative bloggers yesterday about the human role in climate change, GOP presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman said,

“I don’t know. I’m not a scientist, nor am I a physicist. But I would defer to science in that discussion.”

But that flash of skepticism was extinguished today when speaking with reporters.

As reported by Politico:

… “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”…

“It was an additional comment about, well, is there still an open question? I say: I know where I am … but there are others who clearly look at the one percent and see that there is more yet to be discussed and put forward,” Huntsman said…

“When you have 99 out of 100 climate scientists, there’s enough there for us to say we have an established body of science. Now it would be a very good thing to coordinate that science with the other major emitters on the globe, recognizing that it is an international problem,” he said. “I don’t want to disadvantage this country during a time when we are weak economically and want to get back on our feet.”

Twenty-four little hours…

2 thoughts on “Huntsman’s 24-hour flirtation with skepticism”

  1. Scientists’ all agreed that genetically inferior breeding was mankind’s greatest problem. Just because they all agree doesn’t make it true.

  2. People read way, way too much into the “skeptic” statement. It wasn’t. It seemed more to wish that the IPCC (99 / 100?) would be less scientific and more persuasive. After all, science’s main function is to determine political policy on matters of physical conjecture. (/s)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.