The 3rd District bubble
Gov. Jon Huntsman, head of one of the most conservative states in the nation, is leading Western governors in an aggressive—dare I say, holistic—approach to global warming. Huntsman, elected this week as chairman of the Western Governors Association, told the governors:The science is increasingly compelling on our changing climate. It would be easy to talk about water and wildlife and everything else in isolation — but you can't.Republican Gov. Butch Otter of Idaho says there's "no question" that global warming is occurring.
Meanwhile, Jason Chaffetz, the Utah GOP's candidate for the Third District congressional seat — thus likely to win — is running on a platform that slams global warming as environmentalist hogwash. Chaffetz recently humiliated Huntsman at the state Republican Convention, saying:All you need to do iake a look at our weather patterns the last couple years and we are having a climate change. The question is how much influence we have on that . . .
Jon Huntsman, as much as I like you, you're wrong on global warming. It's a farce.
Above: Last year Huntsman enraged conservative Utah lawmakers when he joined California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a commercial calling for aggressive action to cut greenhouse gases.
Update: Huntsman called for the WGA to put together a comprehensive energy and climate change plan—equal in magnitude to JFK's moon program— to present to the next U.S. president.
7 Comments:
I'm glad, very happy, that Chaffetz beat Cannon. Anyone - ANYONE - is better than that bucket of intestinal slime. But it saddens me that Chaffetz had to bend so far to the right to gain voters in Utah's most weird district. I can't vote for him, thank god, but I can sound off.
Chaffetz needs to go to confession and tell the priest how much he upscrewed in trying to humiliate Huntsman.
Huntsman should be humiliated in regarding to global warming. It's junk science.
I'd like to know what research Huntsman has read to come to his conclusion. The IPCC reports that the scientists wrote (versus the part written by the politicians) deflates Al Gore's hysteria. There is not the consensus that the media portrays regarding man-made global warming.
No consensus?
Really?
Visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.
Jason does not deny that there is climate change, although the press would love to make it sound that way. He believes - and I agree - that there are weather cycles and changes in temperature averages. He also promotes being environmentally responsible and working to develop better options, but denounces the Al-Goresque version of 'global warming' as bunk. THere are over 9000 scientist's signatures proclaiming that the Al Gore version has no merit. IT is NOT 'fact' and it is NOT universally accepted. You'll notice that even in Warchol's blog, they quote the Idaho guv as saying that while there is climate change, "The question is how much influence we have on that . . .". That's exactly Chaffetz' position.
Dear 'Anonymous' wikipedia is not peer reviewed science. The IPCC is a group of some scientist and mainly political policy writers. Many scientist have sued to remove their names from the list.
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258993,00.html)
But at least some of the IPCC report is peer reviewed, none of Al Gore's movie is peer reviewed and Mr. Gore refuses to remove some item that have been proven false. (Mount Kilimajaro http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14287 )
It's about control, not the environment.
The "consensus" is that man is one of the causes of climate change, but the verdict is out as to the extent.
Let's assume we ARE the primary cause...then the environmentalists are right on and we should focus on alternative energy immediately.
Let's assume we are NOT the primary cause...what is the harm of pushing alternative energy anyway? Clearly pollution from cars is a huge health issue. In Salt Lake valley they estimate breathing the smog is akin to smoking 4 cigarettes per day. Sounds like a problem whether global warming is "real" or not. Either way we ought to be going to solar, nuclear, wind, etc.
The only issue then is whether we should - while developing new, clean energy - drill in ANWR and focus on coal-to-oil. In other words, should we use our fossil fuels while we march toward alternate fuels. I say yes, but we should use cleaner methods and more tech (i.e. electric cars) that keep the burning of fossil fuels away from cities. And why not plant plenty of trees and improve MPG standards to be on the safe (and cheap!) side? I don't know where to draw the line, but both parties are being foolish to think we need to draw it at the most extreme endpoints. There is too much at stake economically to set caps on fossil fuel use and continuing dependence on foreign oil. But there is also too much risk completely ignoring the future of renewables, whether you view that risk as environmental or economical.
Climate change and chemicals, hum.... any connection?
Hopefully, Huntsman will fund his proposed "comprehensive energy and climate change plan" with low tax rate dividends he receives from his Huntsman Family Trust and not use high tax rate Utah State funds from Utah's over bloated budget.
Oh, never mind just thinking out loud again.
Post a Comment
<< Home