The GOP Blinded Me With… Science? And More

In a bizarre twist, I am in fact posting TWICE in one day!

*cue sounds of shock, which strangely sound like sounds of indifference*

I ran across this lovely little NPR collection of sayings by the current apparent front-runners of the GOP presidential nomination. These statements, in this case, specifically pertain to each candidate’s view of science as it pertains to climate change and evolution.

Let me run down my favorites.

Michele Bachmann on climate change: “Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas; it is a harmless gas … And yet we’re being told that we have to reduce this natural substance and reduce the American standard of living to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the Earth.”

I wonder if she’d find carbon dioxide harmful if she were stuck in a room filled with it. Naturally occurring does not mean we should make more, nor does it mean “totally safe, bro!”

When asked if he regretted appearing next to then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in a campaign to end global warming called “We Can Solve It,” Newt Gingrich said: “Oh, sure … I was trying to make a point that we shouldn’t be afraid to debate the left, even on the environment. That was obviously misconstrued, and that’s one of the things I probably won’t do again.”

Can someone say backpedaling?

Rick Perry says: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling in to their projects. I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

I can’t say I’ve heard of many scientists at all questioning man-made global warming. Further, exactly how much money do you think these scientists get?

Rick Santorum (who is still in the race for reasons I can’t comprehend) says: “I believe the Earth gets warmer, and I also believe the Earth gets cooler. And I think history points out that it does that, and that the idea that man, through the production of CO2 — which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas — is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all the other factors, El Niño, La Niña, sunspots, moisture in the air. … To me, this is an opportunity for the left to create — it’s really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the Earth is gonna cool and warm.”

Exactly what is the goal of the scheme, Ricky? To get the government to waste money? Is that what the GOP thinks the goal of the Democratic party is?

Now, onto evolution!

Michele Bachmann thinks: “I support intelligent design. What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don’t think it’s a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides.”

…except that intelligent design isn’t science, Michele. Not even close.

Rick Perry says: “I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution.”

…and why is that, exactly? Personally, I think the Aztec creation story should be taught if any intelligent design ideas are to be taught.

And good old Santorum says: “I believe in Genesis 1:1 — God created the heavens and the earth. … If Gov. Huntsman wants to believe that he is the descendant of a monkey, then he has the right to believe that — but I disagree with him on this and the many other liberal beliefs he shares with Democrats. For Jon Huntsman to categorize anyone as ‘anti-science’ or ‘extreme’ because they believe in God is ridiculous.”

Now, here’s the fun part. Mitt Romney, one of the legitimate front-runners, is actually on record saying things that are not exactly anti-science. They sound almost non-committal, but that’s a bit better than the flat denial of the science. As for what Santorum was referencing…

Jon Huntsman has this to say about the GOP and science: “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”

And this: “The minute that the Republican Party becomes the … anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people that would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012.”

I’ve mentioned before that I didn’t know much about Huntsman, so I couldn’t make much judgment on him… but I like the cut of this guy’s jib.

And he’s not the only one that’s been saying things I like. Recently, Jon Stewart had one of the GOP presidential candidates on his show. If you didn’t see the episode, you’ve likely never heard of the guy. He only started running recently, and he hasn’t been invited to any of the debates.

Former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer is running for President. He said, on “The Daily Show,” “our electoral system is sick. You can’t tackle the jobs problem, the tax problem, the budget problem till you tackle the root- MONEY and POLITICS. [Politicians] spend their time getting big checks from big special interests. These special interests… corporates… write the tax code, it doesn’t work for America, jobs are being stolen from Americans, being given away in unfair trade and no one does anything. You know why? American companies have never made more money but they really don’t give a damn about rest of America.”

All I can say is bravo, Buddy. It’d be great to have politicians get elected that are willing to actually tackle this problem. It’s unfortunate that most politicians never will tackle this problem because this is where their big money comes from. Corruption kinda sucks, don’t you think?

If you want to see the entire interview, you can see it here. He seems like a genuine guy, and I hope he gets more media coverage… but the cable news seems to have already decided who the primary will be between, as the recent debate may have clued you in on. I’ll probably talk on at least one of the points of that tomorrow.