Huntsman vs. Perry on Global Warming: Recipe for Epic Huntsman/Gore Disaster
There’s an old adage that liberals spotlight what they fear the most by striking back as hard as they can at that particular fear. Case in point in the last several days is what GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry said about scientists who are skeptical of human activity causing global warming. Simply put, he sides with the growing numbers of such skeptics.
Truth is, liberals don’t fear Perry so much as they do his mere mention of skeptic scientists. You see, the primal fear is that the general public will actually want to hear what such skeptics have to say, which would only lead to widespread doubt about the necessity to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. If you are Al Gore, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or any other people – as in nearly all of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media – who have put stock into the idea that human activity causes global warming, such opposition could be very bad unless there is an ironclad case for the IPCC’s underlying science conclusions.
Notice how Gore never debates skeptics? Notice how the IPCC chairman compares skeptics to ‘flat earth believers’? Notice how mainstream media reports like Eugene Robinson’s 8/23 Washington Post article mentions an ‘overwhelming consensus‘, and ‘multiple investigations have found no evidence of fraud or manipulation of data‘, yet these MSM people never say who quantified the consensus, and don’t refute the mind-blowing level of detail about fraud, data manipulation and other shenanigans that sites like Steve McIntyre’s, Donna Laframboise’s, Anthony Watts’ and Marc Morano’s are exposing?
Nothing to see at those critic sites, move along. “Oh, if you must look”, says the MSM, “rest assured those critics are fossil fuel industry shills, or are driven by religious or political zealotry”.
According to another GOP presidential candidate, Jon Huntsman, such overall ‘zealotry’ renders Perry unelectable. At an 8/22 Wall Street Journal article, Paul Gigot quoted Huntsman’s statements that ‘scientists should be trusted’ and that the GOP heads for trouble if it embraces ‘anti-science’. I wish Gigot or some other journalist would ask Huntsman why he does not appear to put any trust in skeptics, considering how they cite thousands of peer-reviewed science journal-published papers in assessments that contradict the IPCC.
Since the MSM and enviro-activists leave out huge and important details about the skeptics, Huntsman should instead consider the distinct possibility that he has been hoodwinked to believe there are no legitimate critics of the IPCC.
To illustrate my point, I must refer to another person in Gigot’s article, Huntsman’s chief strategist, John Weaver, who worked as chief strategist for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)Heritage ActionScorecardSen. John McCainSenate Republican Average49%‘s 2000 presidential campaign. That was the time period when McCain began believing in man-caused global warming, and as I pointed out in my December 2010 American Thinker article, McCain was apparently steered into this by a guy working for the enviro-activist group Ozone Action. It doesn’t exactly help matters that the current executive director of Greenpeace was an Ozone Action worker who claimed in a 2009 interview to have also convinced McCain to ‘champion global warming’.
For those who didn’t catch it, my previous RedState article detailed how practically all of the corruption accusations against skeptic scientists spiral right back to Ozone Action, and also showed how Al Gore’s efforts to point to a different origin instead only begs for serious questions of how deeply he is involved in this whole mess.
The irony is Huntsman will be the one who is unelectable if it’s revealed that his Horizon-PAC statements from earlier this year on “well-grounded leaders” is wiped out by evidence that his own global warming position is not only groundless, but is also only defended by the same ‘partisan politics’ accusations he says he wants to eliminate.
If Huntsman wants to salvage his position, he will have to offer solidly convincing explanations on how he got snookered into believing the IPCC is infallible. If he sticks to his guns, he may go down in history as a major ‘tipping point’ that sent the so-called global warming crisis into a final slide towards total collapse.