The case of John Huntsman proves that if a person supports science, he can no longer pass the barrier of internal elections of the Republican Party. Prof. Paul Krugman arose from the thought that at the head of the most important nation in the world will be a person who opposes science as an ideology
Some of them, like the leading candidate, Texas Governor Rick Perry (The one from the day of the prayer to bring rain), even boast of their opposition to evolution.
It turns out that there is one tzaddik in Sodom, his name is John Huntsman, who was the governor of Utah on behalf of the Republican Party and was appointed by President Obama to the position of US ambassador to China, a position from which he recently returned to run for the presidency. However, it turns out that his career as a presidential candidate is extremely short. The reason, in contrast to Perry, and to another prominent candidate - Congresswoman Michelle Beckman, who managed to legislate the quota system to limit carbon emissions, Huntsman explicitly said that man-made global warming is a fact, and that he agrees with the opinion of 98% of scientists, and he also said that evolution is a fact, and that it is a shame that the Republican Party is portrayed as an openly anti-scientific party.
We have already had presidents who were a disaster for science, in particular President Bush, Jr., who immediately upon his arrival signed an order prohibiting government funding for research in the field of stem cells, thus condemning the USA to fall behind England, Singapore and Israel. But it turns out that this is not a fault, but a symptom of the Republican Party The Fox people of course crucified Huntsman as you can see in the video attached to the article on the MEDIA MATTERS website: "How dare he support warming, because So he also needs to support the quota system and increasing spending on energy production."
Not only I was angered by this statement, but also Paul Krugman, a Nobel laureate in economics who recently became known for his unusual views regarding the solution to the global economic crisis. In a New York Times article on August 28, 2011, Krugman writes, among other things: "In a few years, the largest nation in the world may find itself ruled by a party that takes an aggressive anti-scientific line, and in fact a line against knowledge. In times of critical challenges - environmental, economic and other - this is a very frightening aspect."
Krugman also criticizes Mitt Romney, who is considered one of the leading candidates, the former governor of the enlightened state of Massachusetts, who previously expressed his opinion that supports the scientific facts regarding global warming and in a confrontation he sounds uncertain. "We know the reason for Romney's sudden lack of conviction. According to a public opinion poll, only 21% of Republican voters in Iowa (the state where the internal elections are being held for the first time, so its importance despite its small AB) believe in global warming (and only 35% believe (evolved) Within the Republican Party, willful ignorance has become a litmus test for candidates, one that Romney wants to pass at all costs.
29 תגובות
And again to remind you how much Barack Hussein Obama is a fan of a certain, much less tolerant of Christianity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY
What the article did not mention is that the Democratic candidates make all of these look like architects at CERN. It is better for the USA to have Aryeh Deri as their president than Barack Hussein Obama and his "democratic" ilk.
This is quite expected, anyone who has visited the USA knows how stupid the people there are (no need to be politically correct) I am still quite shocked that they got where they got! Luckily there is still a small percentage of brilliant people (mostly foreigners) who manage to move the faltering empire .
It's only a matter of time before they fall...
Abby you are right, of course, that the anti-science attitude among Republicans is appalling and amazing, but you are wrong about the Huntsman. He was not disqualified for his pro-science approach. His percentages went to zero even before he said a word about science.
The reason why he has no chance is for the same reason that a conservative like Palanti has no chance: he is simply not seen as a leader. There is nothing particularly wrong with him, he is a normal and polite person, just that there is nothing special about him that people would want to follow. He is seen as just another politician, and not a very likable one either. He does not know how to excite an audience, he is not charismatic, he is not particularly smart politically, he is not attractive, and most importantly: no one imagines that he can defeat Obama. In short, he is just another one. This is the main reason why he has no chance.
The secondary reasons are: he is seen as too moderate (meaning not different enough from Obama), the liberal media likes him (which sends warning signals to Republicans), and he worked in the Obama administration.
That alone was enough to disqualify many others who said something about science and global warming.
I believe that if he was an excellent candidate in every other way, and the only "problem" he had was that he supported science, the Republicans would swallow the frog and support him. But since he is so not that, in every respect, his support for science might lower his rating from 1.5% to 1%….
And one more thing regarding evolution - it seems that on the American right, if they already reject an unequivocal set of scientific evidence on one subject (evolution) there is no problem in doing so in another area as well (warming), the main thing is to serve the political interest.
Pay attention to what you describe here is called a conspiracy theory, and usually in 99.9999999% of cases these are lies masquerading as facts. I have no reason to suspect that this time it will be different.
As for evolution - there are battles in courts all over the United States when the creationists or in their washed-up name followers of the theory of intelligent design try and fail to inject their garbage into science classes.
As for the donations, you are right, but the fact that the donors oppose the war on warming because it hurts their pockets, it still does not make man-made warming wrong, they are simply short-sighted people who do not care what kind of planet they leave for their children, the current money blinds them.
How nice...you took something specific that was discredited and somehow applied it to the belief in evolution when it really doesn't interest anyone outside of Texas.
This candidate could very well be disqualified for his claim on global warming
And about the "alleged fact that 98% of scientists support it" when the truth is that they really don't...just a few months ago the video was published all over the web in which we interviewed the most senior scientists who signed the UN global warming report who told how their name was used without asking them In general, and how did everyone who was on the UN committees from those senior officials and opposed not only being flown from her name but still using his name as if he agreed with this money collection machine.
The question here of their debate is not evolution at all or yes evolution is only about the matter of energy because at the end of the day it's all about interests and those who harm the donors who are the industrial bodies will not receive the donations and funding and leverage...
It's amazing how people want to see something and don't let the facts get in the way...
If it's any consolation to the global warming deniers, the earth will indeed heal itself, when there are no humans here.
And really stop cherry picking, it's suitable for children, not for people who claim to speak in the name of some science.
And besides Ron, a block is a block.
Yonatan: "And religion is an anchor for morality and a "right" life.
Certainly, what a question, no doubt.
Just like the command to kill the enemies of the religion or just those who do not belong to it; Like the built-in control over women because religion is a male business; Like the control of the teachers of the Halacha in all the expressions of life in all the cycles of time; Like violence against someone who belongs to something else; As sanctifying that social order built on poverty and backwardness; Like a structured concealment of sex crimes - and no less important: a legitimate and encouraging basis for the practice of hate (partial list).
Indeed, an anchor for morality and a correct life.
That maybe
You can see on the graph that it ends with the rise of the heat and temp.
So you are wrong. No sorry, now I saw that you were just confused, so you are probably misleading and not on purpose.
Well then either you are wrong or you are misleading.
"Hen, was there ever a time when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was as high as it is today?"
The concentration today is nothing compared to the past.
http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
Yasser Arafat also received the Nobel Peace Prize.
"Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself."
— Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
"I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion."
– Nobel Prize Winner for Physics 1973, Ivar Giaever.
It's not for nothing that Al Gore and the IPCC organization - the center for climate research for the United Nations - won the Nobel Peace Prize. Both warming and evolution are in the scientific consensus. No wonder those who oppose it in the US oppose both. Those who reject one set of scientific facts because they do not fit their ideology will not be hindered from ignoring other sets either.
My true father I have no idea.. I admit my knowledge is very limited on the subject. I just felt that the matter was being inflated too much.. and again from logical thinking I didn't really believe that there was an influence from the human side. I need to dig a little deeper.
Jonathan Faith gives inspiration and creativity?
This sentence gave me chills, religion only suppresses thinking and seals it.
I'm not going to explain further, because you'll admit I'm tired.
What's more, I think quite a few people need faith, the knowledge that something is watching and examining you prevents many people from committing bad deeds, and I know people who would become really violent without faith, beyond that not everyone finds meaning, what something to live for, faith provides that Quite a few people.
Chen, was there ever a time when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was as high as it is today?
I'm a bit skeptical about this thing that global warming is the fault of man.
Global warming may exist, but I tend to believe that it is a natural process that happens every few thousand years on Earth (there are records for periods of ice ages and the like, and warmings in the past in which man clearly has no part). After all, a third of the globe is land and only one percent is inhabited.. This planet is big enough.
I would be happy to hear opinions on the subject
And is the situation better in Israel? Even if so, then not for much longer
Jonathan, our existence is meaningless beyond the meaning we attribute to it. This is no reason to invent or cling to ancient religions. The feeling that religion gives of meaning and of being part of something bigger can also be withdrawn in other ways, it is enough to listen to Carl Sagan (for me) to understand this. The truth is more important than how it will make us feel.
"Religion is an anchor for morality and a "correct" life... Look what happens to societies that lose the traditional God and find another God (from money to sex)." – I do not agree with this argument. I have never believed in one religion or another and I consider myself a very moral and conscientious person. Morality and conscience are often acquired from the environment and have nothing to do with religion. In fact, we see more that there is a close connection between secularism, morality and a high value of life, as well as the acceptance of difference and a high value of equality.
How easy it is to solve the matter with "religious Americans" or because it is a superficial and unintelligent people.
It is necessary to say with courage that science, which was elevated to the position of a religion in the previous centuries and promised to provide all the answers... understood by itself that it is very limited and apparently will be so for a very long time...
What the narrow minded refuse to understand is that human beings need religion and need comfort within the irrational existence we all go through. Our existence is not rational according to its definition (who needs to find out what the definition of rationality is).
The stupid confrontation between religion and science (and maybe there will be those who throw in art as well) is unnecessary.
Science is limited and gives mainly insights that have a technical meaning, art provides people with inspiration and a source of creative ideas, and religion is an anchor for morality and a "correct" life... Look what happens to societies that lose the traditional God and find another God (from money to sex).
There is a place for everyone in a dose full of intelligence, considering the human soul and the nature of modern society.
very worrying…
I really hope that most of these anti-science statements were made to curry favor with the stupid American public and not because those people actually believe what they are saying.
Humanity will still suffer its blow. Today we live in an age of abundance that is nearing its end. We will still suffer a lot from our wasteful and foolish way. What is sad is that even after the economic and environmental disasters that will come, even then the majority of the public will turn to prayers/rabbis/Jesus/God/spaghetti monsters.
The great nation that controls a large part of everything that happens in our world consists of millions of ignorant people who live according to advertisements in the media and it is said that:
"Advertising is the science of stopping human intelligence
for enough time to allow financial profit"
Because through democracy the Americans are governed exactly as they deserve,
The behavior of the average American stems from the fact that: The USA is the only country in history
passed directly (and miraculously),
from savagery (barbarism) to degeneration (degeneration),
without cultural stay (in civilization)
And the result is that: "You can always trust an American
to do the right thing
After trying all the wrong options"
The problem is that the sufferers will be all of us!
Thanks. fixed.
There is no such thing as "believing in evolution" because it has nothing to do with faith.
Either you are aware that life was created through a process called evolution or you are not aware of this work.
It's like I'll say I don't believe in the law of conservation of energy, I don't believe in Newton's law. It does not show faith or lack of faith, it shows ignorance.
In God we believe, in science we know.
@AdamAdom
The denial of global warming is not only about economic politics, it is also religious.
The idea that humans have an impact on the environment contradicts the evangelical view of humans as a flock of sheep under the devoted care of Christ. To suggest that we can spoil creation is to say that man is more powerful than God.
In the last sentence, you changed Republicans to Democrats... an understandable mistake. P:
The United States has created an image for itself as one that preserves human freedom and liberty, but in reality it is a country that has made money God. The problem is that in this situation a great many people are left with almost no means of existence, and into this space enter all those religious preachers, who promise happiness only through faith, and in the process also preach their beliefs in connection with creation. The Republicans there are scared to death of giving money to welfare services (for example: health insurance) and therefore it is convenient for them to leave the ignorance intact.
You shouldn't be so surprised. The American nation is a very religious nation (to the best of my recollection, about 85% believe in God, a higher rate than most Western countries, including Israel) and as such the correlation with disbelief in evolution is of course very high. Whoever wants to be president of the United States must Be practical and take this into account, even if Romney believes with all his heart that global warming is a fait accompli, it is better for him not to focus on an issue that is such a big part of The Americans oppose it because it is against the "American way of life", since it will force them to consume less diesel and eliminate polluting factories, etc.
Moreover, the American Congress only recently showed how far it is willing to go with irrationality, when the fight between the Republicans and the Democrats almost resulted in the USA not having a budget to repay its foreign debts...