[US Election 2016] Republican Primary Megathread

[Patridam]

If you assume he means the full 'modern theory of catastrophic anthropogenic warming global climate change' that is often abbreviated/synecdoched as 'global warming', then he's in agreement with you or I in calling it a hoax; however I am uncertain if the OP knows all of those aforementioned words.

And all three of you are wrong.

Those charts are zoomed and scaled along the course of history and are extremely poor evidence to even prove climate change itself - which is something Turtle and I do not contest - but then do absolutely nothing whatsoever to prove to the assertion of antropgenia that we do deny.

[Steamtopia]

Anthropogenic climate change is not a hoax, the evidence is in the post above yours.

Okay, let's assume it isn't. Why is the solution to AGCC a more powerful and bigger government? The government has failed to stop it thus far. What makes you think they'll stop it now?

What makes you think government intervention hasn't slowed the impact of climate change? Why do you think renewable energy has taken off since 2008 in the US despite a crash in oil prices?

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Methane exits the atmosphere after ten years. CO2 is the primary emission, and CO2 does not increase naturally at the current rates being seen.

What about when you factor in vulcanism and other catastrophic events? -and I'm not arguing CO2 increases here, I'm arguing-

You know what? We're this close to turning a GOP primary thread into yet another flame war on AGCC. Let's not.

[Steamtopia]

And all three of you are wrong.

Those charts are zoomed and scaled along the course of history and are extremely poor evidence to even prove climate change itself - which is something Turtle and I do not contest - but then do absolutely nothing whatsoever to prove to the assertion of antropgenia that we do deny.

What do you think is leading to the warming of the globe, exactly?

[Steamtopia]

Methane exits the atmosphere after ten years. CO2 is the primary emission, and CO2 does not increase naturally at the current rates being seen.

What about when you factor in vulcanism and other catastrophic events? -and I'm not arguing CO2 increases here, I'm arguing-

You know what? We're this close to turning a GOP primary thread into yet another flame war on AGCC. Let's not.

We've had catastrophic events in the past 200 years? I must've missed them, along with everyone else. Care to point them out?

[Geilinor]

And all three of you are wrong.

Those charts are zoomed and scaled along the course of history and are extremely poor evidence to even prove climate change itself - which is something Turtle and I do not contest - but then do absolutely nothing whatsoever to prove to the assertion of antropgenia that we do deny.

Then explain to me why atmospheric CO2 is increasing, if not through human activity.

[Patridam]

Methane exits the atmosphere after ten years. CO2 is the primary emission, and CO2 does not increase naturally at the current rates being seen.

Where is the proof that CO2 is the sole/primary cause being climate change? And don't give me some computer models that not only assume positive response but totally ignore Henry's law (i.e. all of them, the ones that have been used to justify massive government spending).

[TURTLESHROOM II]

What makes you think government intervention hasn't slowed the impact of climate change? Why do you think renewable energy has taken off since 2008 in the US despite a crash in oil prices?

Innovation and time, for one. Breakthroughs in renewable technology have come faster and faster as there has been a greater demand for alternatives absent government meddling. Government subsidies do not help renewable energy (just look at Solyndra and any of the other projects that went bankrupt). Subsidies weaken innovation because they make the status quo profitable. No one buys expensive solar panels so the market has an incentive to make them cheaper, unless the government steps in. I have no issue with renewable energy or any alternative fuels. What bothers me is when we waste money favoring certain businesses and models over others instead of letting the market reward the best and most innovative products. The government has no business meddling with the private sector, especially in sectors with high technology and advanced systems beyond their time. In my opinion, government is the enemy of most (but not all) innovation.

[Steamtopia]

Methane exits the atmosphere after ten years. CO2 is the primary emission, and CO2 does not increase naturally at the current rates being seen.

Where is the proof that CO2 is the sole/primary cause being climate change? And don't give me some computer models that not only assume positive response but totally ignores Henry's law.

What does Henry's law have to do with anything? Henry's law isn't part of climate science.

[Salandriagado]

And all three of you are wrong.

Those charts are zoomed and scaled along the course of history and are extremely poor evidence to even prove climate change itself - which is something Turtle and I do not contest - but then do absolutely nothing whatsoever to prove to the assertion of antropgenia that we do deny.

Well, yes. They're zoomed in on the relevant portion, the portion where anthropogenic factors are dominating. You know, the one we're living in. What was happening millinnia (or longer) before we started polluting to any significant degree has no relevance to what is happening now, when we're getting significant warming in the middle of a solar cooling cycle. They show (or rather, the data behind them shows - see, amongst many examples, here, here, and here) that non-anthropogenic models utterly fail to model the observed data.

[Steamtopia]

What makes you think government intervention hasn't slowed the impact of climate change? Why do you think renewable energy has taken off since 2008 in the US despite a crash in oil prices?

Innovation and time, for one. Breakthroughs in renewable technology have come faster and faster as there has been a greater demand for alternatives absent government meddling. Government subsidies do not help renewable energy (just look at Solyndra and any of the other projects that went bankrupt). Subsidies weaken innovation because they make the status quo profitable. No one buys expensive solar panels so the market has an incentive to make them cheaper, unless the government steps in. I have no issue with renewable energy or any alternative fuels. What bothers me is when we waste money favoring certain businesses and models over others instead of letting the market reward the best and most innovative products. The government has no business meddling with the private sector, especially in sectors with high technology and advanced systems beyond their time. In my opinion, government is the enemy of most (but not all) innovation.

You look at Solyndra, but completely ignore the projects that not only didn't go bankrupt, but are now huge global successes.

Like, say, Tesla Motors.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Methane exits the atmosphere after ten years. CO2 is the primary emission, and CO2 does not increase naturally at the current rates being seen.

Where is the proof that CO2 is the sole/primary cause being climate change? And don't give me some computer models that not only assume positive response but totally ignores Henry's law.

Methane is significtly more powerful than C02 as a greenhouse gas and water vapor plays a major role in climate change. You can't remove water vapor and methane, even if it fades away, does much more damage while it lasts than CO2.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yeah, because requiring people to actually and strictly follow the tenents of the Republican Party is both wrong and hyper-partisan.

Yes. Requiring that IS both wrong and hyper-partisan, and that's the GOP we've seen in the last few years, acid-tests and a party line to toe.

But you don't have to take my word for it - Olympia Snowe was quite vocal about why she was opting-out.

On my side, moderates are the reason Obama isn't impeached

No, 'reality' is the reason Obama hasn't been impeached. Turns out, it doesn't just mean 'sack this guy who I don't like'.

[Patridam]

Where is the proof that CO2 is the sole/primary cause being climate change? And don't give me some computer models that not only assume positive response but totally ignores Henry's law.

What does Henry's law have to do with anything? Henry's law isn't part of climate science.

All of the climate change prediction models ignore the fact that, as per henry's law, CO2 will remain in equal concentration between the oceans and the atmosphere above them.

[Salandriagado]

What makes you think government intervention hasn't slowed the impact of climate change? Why do you think renewable energy has taken off since 2008 in the US despite a crash in oil prices?

Innovation and time, for one. Breakthroughs in renewable technology have come faster and faster as there has been a greater demand for alternatives absent government meddling. Government subsidies do not help renewable energy (just look at Solyndra and any of the other projects that went bankrupt). Subsidies weaken innovation because they make the status quo profitable. No one buys expensive solar panels so the market has an incentive to make them cheaper, unless the government steps in. I have no issue with renewable energy or any alternative fuels. What bothers me is when we waste money favoring certain businesses and models over others instead of letting the market reward the best and most innovative products. The government has no business meddling with the private sector, especially in sectors with high technology and advanced systems beyond their time. In my opinion, government is the enemy of most (but not all) innovation.

The free market has failed. It is already too late to prevent many of the effects.

[Steamtopia]

Where is the proof that CO2 is the sole/primary cause being climate change? And don't give me some computer models that not only assume positive response but totally ignores Henry's law.

Methane is significtly more powerful than C02 as a greenhouse gas and water vapor plays a major role in climate change. You can't remove water vapor and methane, even if it fades away, does much more damage while it lasts than CO2.

Where do you think water vapor comes from?

[Steamtopia]

What does Henry's law have to do with anything? Henry's law isn't part of climate science.

All of the climate change prediction models ignore the fact that, as per henry's law, CO2 will remain in equal concentration between the oceans and the atmosphere above them.

At constant temperature. The globe is very obviously not at constant temperature.

[Salandriagado]

What does Henry's law have to do with anything? Henry's law isn't part of climate science.

All of the climate change prediction models ignore the fact that, as per henry's law, CO2 will remain in equal concentration between the oceans and the atmosphere above them.

Apart from that you (wrongly) assume the atmosphere/ocean system to be at a constant temperature and homogeneous, oceanic CO2 is climing significantly.

[Salandriagado]

Where is the proof that CO2 is the sole/primary cause being climate change? And don't give me some computer models that not only assume positive response but totally ignores Henry's law.

Methane is significtly more powerful than C02 as a greenhouse gas and water vapor plays a major role in climate change. You can't remove water vapor and methane, even if it fades away, does much more damage while it lasts than CO2.

Water vapour concentrations remain roughly constant. Guess what the largest source of methane concentration increase is?

[Chavante]

Rand Paul

[Grave_n_idle]

What does Henry's law have to do with anything? Henry's law isn't part of climate science.

All of the climate change prediction models ignore the fact that, as per henry's law, CO2 will remain in equal concentration between the oceans and the atmosphere above them.

Climate change models don't ignore the Carbon-sink effect of the oceans.

Also, Henry's law doesn't exactly say that CO2 will "remain in equal concentration between the oceans and the atmosphere above them".

[Patridam]

Rand Paul

Yes.

/threadjack over

[Maineiacs]

I don't know who I want as the nominee, but I have a short list of people that I don't want: Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Fiorina. Any of them would ruin my plans for the 2016 campaign. As soon as the GOP nominee is picked, I plan to spend the rest of the campaign loudly demanding to see their birth certificate. When a certificate is produced, I then plan to loudly demand to see the long form. If that is also produced, I plan to spend the remainder of the campaign declaring that it's obviously a forgery, and what are they hiding? I can't do that if the nominee is a minority or a woman.

[Ashmoria]

I saw John Kasich on abc this morning, it looks like he's going to make a bid for the nomination though he isn't eligible for NH right now.

why isn't he eligible for NH?

[Patridam]

I saw John Kasich on abc this morning, it looks like he's going to make a bid for the nomination though he isn't eligible for NH right now.

why isn't he eligible for NH?

I don't know, I only caught the tail end of him on "This Week", but he was talking about he'd have to get a lot done in a short time, and something about how he wasn't yet eligible for one of the primaries (I thought it was NH, not sure though) even though Trump was. He's all but officially announced at this point.

I see him as a pretty solid choice financially, but kind of meh on most social and foreign policy issues.