GOP Candidates Willing To Even Concede Climate Reality Vanishing From Polls

[hatrack]

EDIT

Bartir­omo’s ques­tion was a flash­back to Paul’s vote on one of the cli­mate-re­lated amend­ments that the Sen­ate re­jec­ted while de­bat­ing the Key­stone pipeline on Janu­ary 21. But she didn’t ask about the very next vote that day, which was on lib­er­al Demo­crat Bri­an Schatz’s amend­ment, one that bet­ter summed up what sci­ent­ists be­lieve by stat­ing that it’s “ex­tremely likely” that high­er glob­al tem­per­at­ures stem from hu­man activ­it­ies and that people con­trib­ute “sig­ni­fic­antly” to cli­mate change.

That one drew just four GOP votes as Paul and most of the oth­er 15 Re­pub­lic­ans backed away. One of those four was South Car­o­lina’s Lind­sey Gra­ham, who, like Paul, is run­ning for pres­id­ent. But view­ers were giv­en no clue as to his can­did­acy Tues­day night. Gra­ham’s mi­cro­scop­ic polling num­bers were too dis­mal to make even the earli­er “kids table” de­bate that aired at 7 p.m. Also ex­cluded was New York Gov­ernor George Pa­taki, who flatly says hu­mans are heat­ing up the Earth.

“One of the things that troubles me about the Re­pub­lic­an Party is too of­ten we ques­tion sci­ence that every­one ac­cepts,” he said at a late Oc­to­ber de­bate. Pa­taki has even tried to use his cli­mate stance as a way to get trac­tion in the GOP con­test, say­ing over Twit­ter a month earli­er that cli­mate change is real and he would “shout it from the rooftops.” It linked to a fun­drais­ing page.

EDIT

It is, to be sure, aw­fully hard to ima­gine that cli­mate change has any­thing to do with the polling num­bers that re­shuffled the de­bate lineups. But the dis­ap­pear­ance of Gra­ham and Pa­taki from the stage, and the de­mo­tion of an­oth­er cli­mate-change ac­know­ledger, New Jer­sey Gov. Chris Christie, to the lower-tier de­bate Tues­day un­der­scores how small a role cli­mate change will have in the Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial primary—even as oth­ers in the party demon­strate an in­creas­ing will­ing­ness to dis­cuss the is­sue.

EDIT

http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/92406/climate-change-faint-lights-fade-gop-white-house-race

[ellenrr]

1. interesting. I give credit to Pataki, for this -

(not that I like him)
anyway, he is spitting into the SuperHurricane.

I have a hard time understanding why some intelligent people I know insist on discussing the "Republican debates" as if the thoughts of these people can be discussed and analyzed.

To me the only question - is HOW is it that two clowns are top-runners?

I think the premise of the article makes sense. Bec. anyone who would support either of the 2 top clowns is someone who wants to "feel good" and beat their chest, and america yay, and they sure don't want to trouble their little brains with something like climate chaos.