Huntsman Warns That GOP Can't Win the White House by Denying Climate Science (BARF)

New York Times ^ | September 8, 2011 | EVAN LEHMANN

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

"When you make comments that fly in the face of 98 out of 100 climate scientists, to call into question the science of evolution, all I am saying is that in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science," Huntsman said. "By making comments that basically don't reflect the reality of the situation, we turn people off."

Politico's John Harris, a debate moderator, pressed Texas Gov. Rick Perry to name the scientists that he refers to on the campaign trail as credibly refuting the international consensus that humans are contributing to global warming.

[Mike Darancette]

When you make comments that fly in the face of 98 out of 100 climate scientists..

The Physicists have taken over and they don't buy it anywhere 98%. Climate scientists can only bring coffee to the discussion table now.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

The Physicists have taken over and they don't buy it anywhere 98%. Climate scientists can only bring coffee to the discussion table now.

50 years ago Eisenhower warned that to a researcher, a government grant can be a virtual substitute for curiosity. Do you think when "climate scientists" receive a grant from the IPCC, the research is going to say the IPCC is wrong? Something about "biting the hand that feeds you."

[Pagey]

bttt

[Doulos1]

Dittos, both are bad. Must have a conservative or we will never pull out of this nose dive.

[RockinRight]

I noticed something. When Huntsman talks, you can close your eyes, and imagine he’s Romney. They have very similar voices, the same inflection, and more or less say a lot of the same things.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Romney is sneakier.

[ari-freedom]

“Although I agree with Perry on this issue, I think he was nor prepared and his answer was weak. Why not talk about MIT scientist Richard Lindzen’s argument that, rather than enlightened and objective, “climate science” has taken us back centuries to a time when natural disasters were taken as omens, proof of our “sins” and the anger of Nature. “

because they will still say he’s just one of a few scientists versus thousands of other scientists so he must be wrong. You have to first debunk the idea that consensus among scientists equals truth.

Also, nobody really cares about Huntsman and there’s no point preparing all kinds of facts and figures just to deal with this guy.

[ari-freedom]

“I noticed something. When Huntsman talks, you can close your eyes, and imagine he’s Romney. They have very similar voices, the same inflection, and more or less say a lot of the same things.”

Huntsman got it right on health care so Romney is even worse!

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

because they will still say he’s just one of a few scientists versus thousands of other scientists so he must be wrong. You have to first debunk the idea that consensus among scientists equals truth.

So dodging the question was better than answering it? Perry just was not ready for the question. In a way, his weak answer helps the Alinsky crowd by giving them an easy target.

Also, nobody really cares about Huntsman and there’s no point preparing all kinds of facts and figures just to deal with this guy.

Hunstman is not a serious candidate. They could get a thousand characters to agree with the global warming dogma. Perry matters because he is the GOP frontrunner and the most well known global warming skeptic.

[Graybeard58]

By the way, the Global Warming Scam is now 23 years old!

Yep, started soon after the global cooling scam died out completely.

[Graybeard58]

Is Huntsman the only "GOP" character Obama appointed?

Also Ray Lahood, my former "republican" congressman as Secretary Of Transportation.

[Graybeard58]

I agree, and although Romney tries to have it both ways, he has a lot in common with Huntsman.

They both wear the same kind of underwear and it's magic.

[Future Useless Eater]

This proves Huntsman is worse than an idiot.

Climate ‘scientists’ should only be making coffee for physicists.

Physicists have concluded that it is the SUN that occasionally causes excess global warming, not mankind.

[Vigilanteman]

If global warming was a real threat, we'd be building this:

Qattara Depression

If Greenland melted down completely, 88% of the excess water produced could be contained by flooding the uninhabited Qatarra Depression in northwest Egypt, producing hundreds of miles of valuable lakefront property, generating electrical power as water flowed from the Medditerranean to the depression and potentially turning much of the surrounding Sahara Desert into arable land.

It took Greenland 18,000 years to accumulate as much ice as it has now. How long do you think it will take it to melt?

[palmer]

He's damned no matter what he says because the press has decided that the only enlightened view is catastrophic global warming. The correct answer is that there is global warming, some natural, some man made. Increasing CO2 causes a little warming, but natural forces tend to work against further warming, for example more evaporation and rainfall causes heat transfer out into space.

Many people will try to simplify for the American public and say nature dominates climate. That's ok. Often however, critics of "global warming" will say that increasing CO2 does not cause warming, or CO2 is decreasing, or man isn't causing the CO2 increase or other things like that. That's mostly wrong and not worth mentioning what little bits of that might be correct.

Most importantly the answer to any kind of natural disaster is preparation which comes from economic strength. To purposely weaken the economy (or strangle it) to "prevent" something that isn't going to happen is the epitome of stupidity.

[stevie_d_64]

Because he probably loaded up on a good pot of beans before the debate...

Borrachos or Charro beans bring out the best in global warming believing politicians...

[palmer]

If Greenland melted down completely, 88% of the excess water produced could be contained by flooding the uninhabited Qatarra Depression in northwest Egypt

The depression is 19,605 km2 by (say) 100 m deep or 1960 cubic km. Greenland has 2,800,000 cubic km of ice which would produce less water, although Greenland's ice is compressed so wouldn't decrease that much. Anyway, you are short by 3 orders of magnitude in that statement. But you're right, even if it did warm, it would take 1000's of year to lose that ice.

[Puddleglum]

Thanks for being so candid, Huntsman - now I have one less candidate to consider.

[Vigilanteman]

You are doing a raw calculation which doesn't take into account the effects of evaporation in a warm arid climate. The geology.com website list the 10 largest below sea level areas in the world where this effect is dramatic, the Jordan River/Dead Sea Valley being the best known example.

Furthermore, Greenland's ice caps are not all fully compressed. They are a combination of porous and compressed layers depending on the climate cycles over the last 18,000 years. The weight of the glacial layer accumulated over those years would put much of the subcontinent of Greenland under water depending, of course, on the rate of any melt.

The other lunacy of the global warming crowd is failing to account for storage of moisture in vegetation. As recently as Hannibal's time (a mere 2300 years ago), most of coastal north Africa was a lush tropical rain forest and most of the northern Sahara was savanna and semiarid tillable land (much as the coastal regions are today). His famous elephants were native to what is modern-day Algeria (then Numadia) whereas today, you would have to go south of the Sahara to even find wild elephants. In general, the world was much warmer then than it is today and we still had ancient civilizations, including small islands which were above water during or shortly before that time which are under water today. We also have islands which were born or disappeared since-- the volcanic ring islets around Iceland being well known examples of the former and Krakatoa being perhaps the best known example of the later.

The links on my post discuss the theory and calculations further. While I believe the calculation which I have posted is realistic, I do not discount the possibility it could be way off. My sources are genuine climate scientists who, unlike the global warming crowd, do not claim infallibility.

But We both agree on the main point: even if we entered into a long warming cycle, it would still take 1000'2 of years to lose that ice.