A nice piece in the Columbia Journalism Review's science writing blog — The Observatory — looks at the reluctance of the Republican field to utter the word "climate" in their most recent debate.
If none of the presidential candidates mentioned climate, it is likely because they have already made it abundantly clear that they are unconcerned with the issue.
True, though it's a strange issue. On the one hand, GOP operatives and voters profess disinterest; on the other hand, so-called conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh have made climate denialism a litmus test. Limbaugh recently said on air that Mitt Romney could say "bye bye" to the nomination, for saying that yes, climate change is happening, and our emissions are the cause.
But the campaign comes with a spotlight. Though former ambassador Jon Huntsman may be on the road to oblivion, still his widely-reported remark on climate is easily the most interesting thing said by a politician on the subject this year, Republican or Democrat.
He said:
All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them. I respect science and the professionals behind the science so I tend to think it’s better left to the science community – though we can debate what that means for the energy and transportation sectors.
In fact, Huntsman actually understated the consensus. 97% of climate researcherfs fully believe in climate change, according to leading researcher Anthony Leiserowitz at Yale.
This is the usefulness of political debate: It exposes us to the views of others.
Potential usefulness, perhaps I should say. You have to listen to hear.
Kit Stolz 