Kasich - the GOP candidate who appears to be the least crazy - does not believe climate science

Ohio Gov. John Kasich suggested that man-made climate change may not be real and that action to fight it could kill jobs during an interview on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday.

"We don't want to destroy people's jobs based on some theory that's not proven," Kasich said when asked by host Chuck Todd if he believes that climate change is man made and that man should do something about it.

Kasich added that "man absolutely affects the environment" but said that he thinks that "as to the overall impact of that, I think that's a legitimate debate."

Despite a headline-grabbing performance in Thursday's Republican prime-time presidential debate, Kasich still faces an uphill battle to prove that he is a viable 2016 contender after nearly missing the polling cutoff to appear on the debate's main stage.

Media attention could yield the publicity that the Ohio governor badly needs to bolster his standing in national polls, but the spotlight will also pressure the candidate to clarify his positions on a wide array of contentious issues, including climate change.

The Kasich 2016 campaign sought to clarify the candidate's remarks following his appearance on Meet the Press, saying: "The governor has long believed climate change is real and we need to so something about it. The debate over exact percentages of why it is happening is less important than what can be done about it. We know it is real, we know man has an impact, and we know we need to do something."

Unlike many Republican presidential contenders, Kasich has expressed concern over climate change in the past.

"I am a believer—my goodness, I am a Republican—I happen to believe there is a problem with climate change. I don't want to overreact to it, I can't measure it all, but I respect the creation that the Lord has given us, and I want to make sure we protect it," Kasich said in 2012.

Comments like that have appeared to set Kasich apart from leading GOP 2016 contenders such as Ted Cruz, who has said that there has been no global warming in recent years.

The Ohio governor has also been quick to tout efforts to cut emissions in his state and he praises clean energy.

"In my state of Ohio, we preciously take care of Lake Erie, we've reduced emissions by 30 percent over the last 10 years, we believe in alternative energy," Kasich said on Sunday.

Some environmentalists have watched Kasich with interest, wondering if he might take a more moderate stand on the issue than some of his fellow Republicans. But Sunday's remarks suggest that Kasich may side with members of his party who say that any kind of overarching action to fight climate change would ultimately hurt the economy and kill jobs.

Bob wrote:NEWSFLASH:  The President who bds thinks is not crazy,  says blow jobs are not "sex".  lol

p.s.  I'll go ahead and post Sal's reply to this so we can get that out of the way...

Sal:  "Must you always point out that both sides do it?"  lol

Salinsky wrote:
Preemptively admitting your argument is bullshit is not an effective debate technique, Bob.

Bob wrote:Don't laugh,  pacedog.  Because he may have been using the Bible for his arithmetic.  And as you know,  when it comes to the Bible,  6000 years really means millions of years.
So it could be that "millions of degrees" means something else. lol

boards of FL wrote:



The comment made by Gore was ignorant.  Flat out.

I couldn't care any less about a politician getting a blowjob so long as they carry out their duties and don't ignore science in their environmental policy.

2seaoat wrote:Kasich has brought the industrial base of Ohio back.  They compete on the global market.  If the Chinese and Indians do not take the costly measures to address climate change, we put American manufacturing at risk.  I think man made climate change is scientific certainty.  However, how we reduce our carbon output must be done in an intelligent manner.  If Kasich is saying the science is uncertain he is wrong.  If he is saying that unilateral harm to American manufacturing without international compliance is harmful, he is right.  As you can see, Ohio still relies heavily on coal, so a transition is going to be expensive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/06/02/the-states-that-will-be-hit-hardest-by-the-epas-coal-regulations-in-one-map/

I think we need to stop with the science being unsettled, and focus on the differing policies to reduce our carbon output.   This is not a deal killer for me on Kasich because I get what his concerns are, but wish he would stop the uncertainty of the science.....the science is settled.

Bob wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Kasich has brought the industrial base of Ohio back.  They compete on the global market.  If the Chinese and Indians do not take the costly measures to address climate change, we put American manufacturing at risk.  I think man made climate change is scientific certainty.  However, how we reduce our carbon output must be done in an intelligent manner.  If Kasich is saying the science is uncertain he is wrong.  If he is saying that unilateral harm to American manufacturing without international compliance is harmful, he is right.  As you can see, Ohio still relies heavily on coal, so a transition is going to be expensive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/06/02/the-states-that-will-be-hit-hardest-by-the-epas-coal-regulations-in-one-map/

I think we need to stop with the science being unsettled, and focus on the differing policies to reduce our carbon output.   This is not a deal killer for me on Kasich because I get what his concerns are, but wish he would stop the uncertainty of the science.....the science is settled.

From bds own post.  The part he apparently didn't read...

"The Kasich 2016 campaign sought to clarify the candidate's remarks following his appearance on Meet the Press, saying: "The governor has long believed climate change is real and we need to so something about it. The debate over exact percentages of why it is happening is less important than what can be done about it. We know it is real, we know man has an impact, and we know we need to do something."

Bob wrote:

From bds own post.  The part he apparently didn't read...

"The Kasich 2016 campaign sought to clarify the candidate's remarks following his appearance on Meet the Press, saying: "The governor has long believed climate change is real and we need to so something about it. The debate over exact percentages of why it is happening is less important than what can be done about it. We know it is real, we know man has an impact, and we know we need to do something."

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Kasich has brought the industrial base of Ohio back.  They compete on the global market.  If the Chinese and Indians do not take the costly measures to address climate change, we put American manufacturing at risk.  I think man made climate change is scientific certainty.  However, how we reduce our carbon output must be done in an intelligent manner.  If Kasich is saying the science is uncertain he is wrong.  If he is saying that unilateral harm to American manufacturing without international compliance is harmful, he is right.  As you can see, Ohio still relies heavily on coal, so a transition is going to be expensive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/06/02/the-states-that-will-be-hit-hardest-by-the-epas-coal-regulations-in-one-map/

I think we need to stop with the science being unsettled, and focus on the differing policies to reduce our carbon output.   This is not a deal killer for me on Kasich because I get what his concerns are, but wish he would stop the uncertainty of the science.....the science is settled.

From bds own post.  The part he apparently didn't read...

"The Kasich 2016 campaign sought to clarify the candidate's remarks following his appearance on Meet the Press, saying: "The governor has long believed climate change is real and we need to so something about it. The debate over exact percentages of why it is happening is less important than what can be done about it. We know it is real, we know man has an impact, and we know we need to do something."

He's basically ignoring climate science when he interviews on TV and then has his campaign release retractions later.

We would be better off with a leader who could simply speak openly about the science rather than one who first appeases the ignorant and later issues retractions for everyone else.

SheWrites wrote:The religious right want their religious zealot for God in the WH.

Boards wants his religious zealot - the scientist in the WH.

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:The religious right want their religious zealot for God in the WH.

Boards wants his religious zealot - the scientist in the WH.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this other than to say that scientists are not religious zealots.  In fact, they are precisely the opposite.

2seaoat wrote:Science being compared to religion is a false equivalency.  One requires faith and the other requires verifiable facts.   Anti intellectualism as a political platform which has been repeated throughout history.  I vote science.  I have seen the results of climate change.  They are not good.   The solutions however are up for debate because although there may be measurable reductions in carbon, there are varying impacts on our economy.  Science is not a religion.

SheWrites wrote:

Boards, yes, for many it is religious.  They eat, sleep, breathe, and boast of science superiority.  

I definitely believe the facts of science.

But you will not vote for someone who does not believe in the facts as you do.

Well that sounds just like a religious zealot who will not vote for someone who does not believe in God and all the hoopla that goes along with the social issues.

The "religious" that follow both to the extreme are keeping the pot stirred in this election.

Blinded...

Salinsky wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

Boards, yes, for many it is religious.  They eat, sleep, breathe, and boast of science superiority.  

I definitely believe the facts of science.

But you will not vote for someone who does not believe in the facts as you do.

Well that sounds just like a religious zealot who will not vote for someone who does not believe in God and all the hoopla that goes along with the social issues.

The "religious" that follow both to the extreme are keeping the pot stirred in this election.

Blinded...

You don't have a real firm grasp on what constitutes science, do you?

SheWrites wrote:Boards is as religious about science as Markle and (name de jour poster) Obamasucks.  Both sit on unwavering edges with no amount of ability to meet in the middle ON THINGS THIS COUNTRY NEEDS because of their belief.

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:Boards is as religious about science as Markle and (name de jour poster) Obamasucks.  Both sit on unwavering edges with no amount of ability to meet in the middle ON THINGS THIS COUNTRY NEEDS because of their belief.

This is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read on the internet.

My views change with new information.  If new information were to come to light tomorrow that were to show me that I have been wrong about something, I would change my views on that thing.  

This is the exact opposite of religion, and religious people.  Religious views do not change.  There is no amount of new information that can be provided to a religious person such that they will change their mind.