You keep saying 'human CO2' as though its a different variety than 'natural' CO2. CO2 is CO2, it doesn't matter if its belched out of a volcano, out of the tail pipe of a car or the tail pipe of a cow.

When we burn carbon traps like trees, oil, and coal, we release the carbon into the air in the form of CO2. While the proportion people release is smaller than that which is naturally released, it is enough to exceed what can naturally be absorbed in combination with what is naturally released. Thus we see an increase in overall atmospheric CO2.

What do you think happens to the excess CO2? Do you think because its 'human CO2' it some how doesn't contribute to overall atmospheric CO2?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Aaaaand this is why Huntsman will not win the GOP nomination. He's an idiot who accepts the false premise that "99%" of all scientists agree that human CO2 is the cause of all climate change, and that tax & cap schemes have any prayer of doing anything about it. The real 'anti-science' camp here is not the GOP. They GOP loves science. They just hate BAD science, which is what all the AGW Flavor-Aid drinkers have on thier side.
There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what an actual scientist is talking about. "Climate change" is a generic term that only means the climate is changing. I'd say 100% of "all scientists" agree with this simple statement. The debate is NOT about whether or not Earth's climate has cycles.
But when the Warmies talk about "Climate change" they are not talking about the generic term. They pack so many other things into those two words that it becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion with them. But you can boil their intent down.
"100% of all scientists agree that 100% of all climate change is caused by human CO2. Also, 100% of all scientists agree that the way to address climate change is by massive taxation and other big government solutions. Earth will experience catastrophic world-wide destruction which would wipe out all humanity unless we ACT NOW!"
But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position. There is no solid evidence of it. There are only theories and projections - many of which have been proven to be based on bad data and falsehoods. To say "all science" agrees with the AGW theory is total bollocks.
So it is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of "bad" science, while accepting the ACTUAL "100%" agreement in regards to overall climate changes. Climate changes. DUR. The argument is over whether (A) human CO2 has anything to do with it and (B) even IF (!!IF!!) human CO2 has anything to do with it, whether or not these massive cap & tax schemes would have any impact of value.
The GOP is not "anti-science". That is just a typical left-wing neolib pile of bologna. If anything, the GOP is more "pro-science" than any liberal is because they are less blinkered by bias and accept a variety of arguments as opposed to this lockstep groupthink neolibs try to use to shut down real analysis in the climate debate.

Aaaaand this is why Huntsman will not win the GOP nomination. He's an idiot who accepts the false premise that "99%" of all scientists agree that human CO2 is the cause of all climate change, and that tax & cap schemes have any prayer of doing anything about it. The real 'anti-science' camp here is not the GOP. They GOP loves science. They just hate BAD science, which is what all the AGW Flavor-Aid drinkers have on thier side.

There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what an actual scientist is talking about. "Climate change" is a generic term that only means the climate is changing. I'd say 100% of "all scientists" agree with this simple statement. The debate is NOT about whether or not Earth's climate has cycles.

But when the Warmies talk about "Climate change" they are not talking about the generic term. They pack so many other things into those two words that it becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion with them. But you can boil their intent down.

"100% of all scientists agree that 100% of all climate change is caused by human CO2. Also, 100% of all scientists agree that the way to address climate change is by massive taxation and other big government solutions. Earth will experience catastrophic world-wide destruction which would wipe out all humanity unless we ACT NOW!"

But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position. There is no solid evidence of it. There are only theories and projections - many of which have been proven to be based on bad data and falsehoods. To say "all science" agrees with the AGW theory is total bollocks.

So it is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of "bad" science, while accepting the ACTUAL "100%" agreement in regards to overall climate changes. Climate changes. DUR. The argument is over whether (A) human CO2 has anything to do with it and (B) even IF (!!IF!!) human CO2 has anything to do with it, whether or not these massive cap & tax schemes would have any impact of value.

The GOP is not "anti-science". That is just a typical left-wing neolib pile of bologna. If anything, the GOP is more "pro-science" than any liberal is because they are less blinkered by bias and accept a variety of arguments as opposed to this lockstep groupthink neolibs try to use to shut down real analysis in the climate debate.

FTFY

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Huntsman at least agrees with scientist, even if his reasons are not appealing, he knows that denial of facts like evolution and climate change make Republicans look like funghi that exist in multiple modes of being at the same time. (no offence to funghi)

Huntsman at least agrees with scientist, even if his reasons are not appealing, he knows that denial of facts like evolution and climate change make Republicans look like funghi that exist in multiple modes of being at the same time.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

They've all swallowed the 'free' market kool aid. Free Markets don't care about unemployment, inequity or suffering. Free markets primarily benefit the wealthy - the same class of people that fund these elections. What a sad display. Ron Paul is clearly the lesser of evils here, and kudos to Huntsman for sticking up for science.


☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜) "It's this fucking guy."

They've all swallowed the 'free' market kool aid. Free Markets don't care about unemployment, inequity or suffering. Free markets primarily benefit the wealthy - the same class of people that fund these elections. What a sad display. Ron Paul is clearly the lesser of evils here, and kudos to Huntsman for sticking up for science.

Huntsman certainly seems like the best of the republican field. Not just from his recent statements on science and the debt ceiling, but from my experience living in Utah where he did a lot to moderate an extremely conservative state legislature.

I wonder if liberals should take the effort to vote for him in the primary to help ensure the next republican president is less terrifying than Bush. Or if they should just allow the tea party to nominate someone like Bachmann or Perry in the hopes that they'll be too extreme for the general election.


Here's a few examples of Huntsman standing up to his own the socially conservative LDS church as Governor:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/02/10/Gov_Huntsman_of_Utah_backs_civil_unions/UPI-69571234319303/

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/07/02/Private-club-law-comes-to-end-in-Utah/UPI-89581246557139/

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_13336062

Much respect to Huntsman.

Well, I have to give it to Ron Paul. He could well be the most sane of the Republican nominees this year (with the exception of Huntsman). Although, saying 'the most sane Republican nominee' is like saying 'the warmest iceberg'. He's still batshit insane, he just has occasional bouts of lucidity.

>> ^Peroxide:

I like to use jarate and then the huntsman, its super effective.


Professionals have standards.

I like to use jarate and then the huntsman, its super effective.

>> ^bamdrew:

Huntsman is not an idiot. Perry and Bachman are un-electable, ... hopefully one of them will win the nomination.


I agree on all points, but given the public response to the Republican party over the last 30 years, it seems obvious that Huntsman is un-nominatable.

>> ^Kofi:

Seems to just say "believe science because we will get votes". I'm sure that is not what he believes but he did not say anything in support of science qua science.


That's one of the things he said. But in the process he said that evolution and human caused global warming are real, and attempting to deny them "puts us on the wrong side of science and therefor in a losing position. "

And that's the critical distinction. You will never hear any republican politician say "I don't believe in science". Rather they will say that evolution or global warming is bad science or unproven or disproven. As Rick Parry did.

Huntsman is not an idiot. Perry and Bachman are un-electable, ... hopefully one of them will win the nomination.

My brother does too and he manages to be reasonable about the world. Masters degree in aerospace engineering. He makes it work for himself.

Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they are unreasonable. It can mean that -- Michelle Bachmann. Please spare us -- but it isn't automatic. There are lots of religious scientists.

>> ^hpqp:

This is nice and all, but doesn't this guy believe in magic underpants?