Huntsman The Candidate Of Climate Change And Evolution.

Is he looking for the "rational vote"? If he tired of lagging behind in coverage? Is it sad that provocative and unsubstantiated blather is so commonplace that saying something common sense now gets more coverage? Is there any question that Michelle Bachmann's husband is gay? Whatever the answers to these questions (and with this GOP field I have a whole bag of others) Jon Huntsman did indeed make a gutsy move in his campaign by A) attacking one of the perceived front-runners on ABC's This Week, and by B) saying that he believes in global warming and evolution. Appealing to that more reserved contingent within the Republican Party that doesn't see science as an affront to God (but as a useful tool in, say, understanding the world around them) was a risky move in such a radically conservative political climate. Of course, saying anything positive about the government they're campaigning to run would also be risky, so who knows?

In response to Rick Perry's statements about not believing in climate change and evolution, allowing fundamentalist religious ideology to pass for sound political policy, Jon Huntsman immediately tweeted his disagreement and effectively separated himself from every other Republican candidate running for President. He declared his allegiance to logic (and may pay for it). Huntsman went on ABC's This Week today to clarify and explain his bombshell tweet over the weekend.

His position is that the intense anti-science trend among many of his fellow Republicans is damaging to the party and damaging to America's future. He said that, "The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party – the anti-science party, we have a huge problem.  We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012." I think this resonates loudly with many Republicans that feel disenfranchised from their own party by the unsubstantiated nonsense that has been spread first by pundits and talking heads, and later by a vocal segment of the public. It's only natural that most of the politicians running for office, and especially people with the ego to run for the Oval Office, will regurgitate whatever they think their constituency wants to hear. Huntsman, in pushing back, has shown that at least one person is willing to break from the pack and push back on some of these more absurd talking points. Going on to specifically address climate change, Huntsman made his viewpoint known in no uncertain terms. "...when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said," Huntsman told ABC, "I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position."

Huntsman made a very compelling argument for humanity's impact on climate change, and subsequently singled himself out as someone that might actually know what he's talking about as well. He compared the consensus among climatologists (that 98 out of 100 number) to a hypothetical consensus among oncologists finding a treatment for cancer, saying, "we would all salute and say finally we have a consensus among the scientific community."

What I found astounding is that the same people that choose to deny evolution, global warming, plate tectonics (yeah, they're out there too), and other principally founded theories in scientific thought are often the same people rallying against public education. They're often the same people that say we need more science in schools, we need to produce more scientists, we're lagging behind China or India. This is the essential issue that I've always had with ideological issues: the lack of consistency in conviction. On one hand, science is essential to educating kids and staying competitive in a global economy. One the other hand, science is a ruse perpetrated by liberals for God knows what reason. I want my elected representatives, be they Republican or Democrat, to have a solid foundation in logic, reason, and most of all, reality.