Conservatives expressed outrage not long ago when President Obama accused them of opposing "facts and science and argument." Keep that in mind when you read stories like this, about Republicans seeking their party's presidential nomination find it necessary to question climate science:
It's going to be hard winning the Republican presidential nomination if you’re not a climate skeptic.
Recent comments from top White House and congressional contenders suggest an awkward mix of outright hostility or, at best, ambivalence toward the widespread scientific consensus that humans are responsible for the warming planet.
Even Mitch Daniels, frequently held up as the thinking man's Republican candidate, is making his bid for the Glenn Beck audience:
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who previously focused on economics, has moved the other way. In April, he suggested a “substantial time out” on climate change.
“There’s been nothing but dubious news about the science about this for about a year,” Daniels said on C-Span. “Meanwhile we’re still left with a situation that if zealots had their way and the most extreme methods were taken by their own computer models we don’t move the world thermometer at all. ”
So, yes, this sounds a lot like a party that's hostile to facts and science.