I hate science. I loathe it. And I fight it everyday of my life. I want a president who despises science and divides by zero. Yes, he must divide by zero, because he must hate mathematics, too. I have always hated mathematics. Just ask my third grade teacher, Mrs. Smith. What a nightmare that woman was. She smelled like she’d been locked in a chimney for half a decade.
Of course, I would vote for her before I would vote for Jon Huntsman.
“A politician who isn’t anti-science? Call him crazy, but Jon Huntsman trusts scientists.”
– A Jon Huntsman for President Facebook ad.
Well, call ME crazy, but I’m not really that interested in Huntsman’s “pro-science” position, because even he doesn’t understand what he means. When expanding on this idea, and on the concept that Republicans are anti-science, Governor Trust Fund had this to say:
When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said… about what is causing climate change and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position.
What does this mean? Seriously?
For instance, if I ask how natural selection can account for the existence of seemingly irreducibly complex systems like the eye or the inner workings of a cell, does that make me anti-science? Does that mean I’m willing to shake evolution’s hand but not “embrace” it? Does this mean that evolutionary theory will not entertain any questions and only accept big hugs? How is refusing to ask questions a “pro-science” position?
What position, incidentally, has any Republican taken that “runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said?” In order to do that, 98 out of 100 climate scientists would have had to say the same thing. A statement like that presumes that 98 have said the sky is blue, while silly Republicans agree with the two people think it’s bright orange. When talking climate science, there are too many balls in the air to take a truly contrary position.
1) How much of current climate change is humanity’s fault? All of it? Most of it? Some of it? Do 98 scientists have an agreed-upon percentage?
2) What is the globe’s optimum temperature, and is current climate change getting us closer or farther from that perfect spot on the worldwide thermostat? I have yet to hear one of the 98 wise men opine on this subject.
3) Would any of the current political proposals – Cap and Trade, a carbon tax, green technology incentives – reduce global temperatures? At all? (The unanimous response, even from Our Pal Jonny’s 98 geniuses, is no.)
There are so many variables in climate theory that to boil it down to a single yes-or-no question is to either completely misunderstand the science or to ignore it in order to be politically fashionable, which, I suspect, is Jonny Huntsman’s entire raison d’etre.
I will vote for a sock of old cheese before I vote for Jon Huntsman for president.