Do any of the candidates comprehend Global Warming?

[Technosoul]

Do you feel any canadates are acturally well informed and knowledgable about global warming? If so which ones and why.

[inthemiddle]

Global Warming is not a myth. It's a fact. I'm going off topic here but....

The climate of the earth does in fact change. Warmer then colder. And it will continue to be this way until the end of time. look at history of the earth. global warming is real, so is global cooling.

Polution from cars is bad. We need to cut back energy use for National security reasons, and we should try to be clean and respect the earth. But Global warming is so over blown.

We may eventually cut back greenhouses gases in America, but it will only pick up in the other third world countries as they develop.

Rather than waste endless resources studying this issue (there was 20 million in tax payer moeny spent recently to study the carbom emmisions from cow shit< look it up)

We need to emphasize new technology and alternative energy sources by investing and offering grants to legitimate projects, and eventurally new, clean, and more efficient energy will naturally begin to replace the energy we use now.

Plants use carbon to make oxygen, if the earth warms, and weather patterns change, we will have to deal with it. It seems to happen anyway, carbon emmisions or not. The earth changes.

and again, even if we do cut back, third world countries will take over as poluters as they advance.

There are a group of trees that are in frozen territory for 11 out of every twelve months, the one month of warmth account for the production of 30% of the earths oxygen, then it freezes again, so if it were to get warmer, more oxygen would be produced.

I believe we need to just look towards the future and fovus on technology, and let technology advance, constantly perspiring to make things the best they can be. And I believe this will happen naturally without major pressure from governments etc...

[Technosoul]

Quote by: inthemiddle Global Warming is not a myth. It's a fact. I'm going off topic here but.... The climate of the earth does in fact change. Warmer then colder. And it will continue to be this way until the end of time. look at history of the earth. global warming is real, so is global cooling. Polution from cars is bad. We need to cut back energy use for National security reasons, and we should try to be clean and respect the earth. But Global warming is so over blown. We may eventually cut back greenhouses gases in America, but it will only pick up in the other third world countries as they develop. Rather than waste endless resources studying this issue (there was 20 million in tax payer moeny spent recently to study the carbom emmisions from cow shit< look it up) We need to emphasize new technology and alternative energy sources by investing and offering grants to legitimate projects, and eventurally new, clean, and more efficient energy will naturally begin to replace the energy we use now. Plants use carbon to make oxygen, if the earth warms, and weather patterns change, we will have to deal with it. It seems to happen anyway, carbon emmisions or not. The earth changes. and again, even if we do cut back, third world countries will take over as poluters as they advance. There are a group of trees that are in frozen territory for 11 out of every twelve months, the one month of warmth account for the production of 30% of the earths oxygen, then it freezes again, so if it were to get warmer, more oxygen would be produced. I believe we need to just look towards the future and fovus on technology, and let technology advance, constantly perspiring to make things the best they can be. And I believe this will happen naturally without major pressure from governments etc...

But which canadates understand what scienitists say about the added effects of particles in the air from gasolone emmisions which along with natural cycles of warming can make things much worse then the norms? Of course if you do not understand what science has determined concerning this then you would hardly know if canadates understand it. I doubt if mass scientiific opions based on factural data is a conspiriacy of some kind, such that they would present an "overblown" concern about what must be done.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: inthemiddle (there was 20 million in tax payer money spent recently to study the carbom emmisions from cow shit< look it up)

And if you knew anything at all, you'd know that the results of those studies, as silly as they may sound to the uninformed, are dead serious. While methane causes on 3-9% of greenhouse warming, to 9-25% by CO2, Methane is about 20 times more efficient as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and the domestic cattle industry produces vast quantities of methane gas.

Methane Emissions from Livestock

Quote by: inthemiddle The climate of the earth does in fact change. Warmer then colder. And it will continue to be this way until the end of time. look at history of the earth. global warming is real, so is global cooling.

Not on cue it doesn't. Do you honestly think the world's scientists who've been studying this for the last 30 years haven't accounted for natural variation?

Sorry, but the current warming was accurately predicted, based specifically and entirely on man-made greenhouse gases, and the only thing -- including sun spots, solar flares, and any number of natural fluctuations -- that accurately accounts for the current dramatic warming trend is the increase in human created greenhouse gases. Period.

Quote by: inthemiddle and again, even if we do cut back, third world countries will take over as poluters as they advance.

Not if we lead the way in creating new energy sources, which won't happen as long as Bush, Cheney and their a'wl bidness buddies are running the country. Or, for that matter, any it's-their-land-they-should-be-free-to-pollute-it-as-they-see-fit free market libertarians.

Quote by: inthemiddle There are a group of trees that are in frozen territory for 11 out of every twelve months, the one month of warmth account for the production of 30% of the earths oxygen, then it freezes again, so if it were to get warmer, more oxygen would be produced.

Alas, there's also millions of square miles of frozen tundra and perma-frost that, as it thaws due to the warming trend, release millions of tons of CO2 and - something not absorbed by your little group of trees - methane.

This is what's referred to as a 'feedback loop'. A unexpected phenomena created by the warming trend that then causes it to warm even faster.

.

[Technosoul]

Also in the last international sumit of that topic President Bush refused to agree to sign up for the programs aimed at greenhouse reduction, which most all other nations are willing to put into effect.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Until a candidate embraces the only true solution to Global Warming none of them do.

We need to pass a "Global Warming Carbon Tax" that invests all the money into "Carbon Credits" to offset the USA's carbon footprint. Think about it, if the USA did that, we'd be the greenest country in the world, and just like the high flying, rich apostoles of the "Global Warming Movement" we could carry on without hurting our standard of living.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Until a candidate embraces the only true solution to Global Warming none of them do. We need to pass a "Global Warming Carbon Tax" that invests all the money into "Carbon Credits" to offset the USA's carbon footprint. Think about it, if the USA did that, we'd be the greenest country in the world, and just like the high flying, rich apostoles of the "Global Warming Movement" we could carry on without hurting our standard of living.

This was done in California already but it did not lead to anyone making bio fuels obtainable nor did it prevent people from buying gas to get to work. It was effected to in the hopes of reducing smog.

What happened as a result is that delivery vehicles had to pay more for gas and the products being delivered went up in price to cover that extra overhead. The state then become dependant upon the regular plus the extra sin tax on gasoline as a income resource for the states budget, and so when the oil company raised the cost of gasoline per gal the state got more taxes per gal and did nothing to charge the oil companies with "price goreing the public". Vehicles that offered electirc hybred power were too expensive for the average citizen to afford.

Using sin taxes to control the population is bad politics. First invest in the production of biofuels and create outlets for the sales of that product and make it cheaper then fosil fuel gasoline or flat out make fosil fuel unlawful for use in automobles. Put the horse before the kart.

Anyway you cannot tax the whole world, only the people in a particular country can be taxed by their own methods of governing.

We could in fact solve many problems with biofuels such as the cost of health care, global warming (if it is not too late), and we could teach 3rd world countries how to grow and produce biofuels for export and that might end some of their poverty problems.

[Alive]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Until a candidate embraces the only true solution to Global Warming none of them do. We need to pass a "Global Warming Carbon Tax" that invests all the money into "Carbon Credits" to offset the USA's carbon footprint. Think about it, if the USA did that, we'd be the greenest country in the world, and just like the high flying, rich apostoles of the "Global Warming Movement" we could carry on without hurting our standard of living.

I assume you're being sarcastic based on your (inane) sig, but you got it basically right anyways. A carbon tax would not ruin our standard of living; and it could do great things to offset global warming. I think it is the most economically sensible solution. And like you said, the money should go to reducing the effects of what we do produce.

Do any of our candidates understand this? None of our candidates understand economics, let alone hard science. But at least the Democrats admit that it's a problem.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Alive I assume you're being sarcastic based on your (inane) sig, but you got it basically right anyways. A carbon tax would not ruin our standard of living; and it could do great things to offset global warming. I think it is the most economically sensible solution. And like you said, the money should go to reducing the effects of what we do produce. Do any of our candidates understand this? None of our candidates understand economics, let alone hard science. But at least the Democrats admit that it's a problem.

What about rasing the standards allowed for carbon emmisions? With a fine for violators and a possible "shut down notice" for those who refuse to co-operate? Would that work as well?

[lsbskins1]

I love this "Oh, just keep doing what we are doing, technology will catch up with the problem" attitude. It is so completely not realistic. In the 80's, would you have advocated telling the worlds population, "Just keep on having unprotected, multiple partner sex. Science will catch up with AIDS and it will be no problem." WHAT IF IT FREAKIN" DOES NOT CATCH UP? We still have no AIDS cure. We can't cure colds. What a stupid stance. Science does not always solve the problem. Behavior modification will help the problem, and may be the only way to ultimately solve it.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Isbskins1.

Two questions:

What country leads the world in "green tech" and has actually reduced the amount of C02 produced since 1990 (I'll give you a hint it has 50 states)

What if the theory of "Man made global warming" is wrong, and in our vain attempt to effect the climate actually exasperate the 12,000 year global climate cycle? Which by the way, we are at the end of the latest cycle, which has been going on for quite some time now.

I'm just curious if you have considered that possibility.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Isbskins1. Two questions: What country leads the world in "green tech" and has actually reduced the amount of C02 produced since 1990 (I'll give you a hint it has 50 states) What if the theory of "Man made global warming" is wrong, and in our vain attempt to effect the climate actually exasperate the 12,000 year global climate cycle? Which by the way, we are at the end of the latest cycle, which has been going on for quite some time now. I'm just curious if you have considered that possibility.

I always consider the possibility that my opinion may be wrong. I always try to find out what is known and not known. I also understand that we only know what we know and that although it is impossible to have absolute knowledge that in altering our behavior we will not choose a path with different problems, it is also as perfectly established as current human science can manage that we are causing a shift in climate that has not been seen in any observable data. 12,000 years is covered. We got data for 100's of thousands of years in ice cores. And the spike that occurs with the industrial age is seen in no other period. None.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Still buying the industrial age spike eh? the old "Hockey stick" graph?

Well, believe what you want, I'll go all revolutionary if the world goes socialist green to "Save the planet" and I won't be the only one.

The reality about this global warming push is that it's nothing more then a thinly veiled power grab backed by fear mongering and shoddy science. Those willingly echoing the demands of these politicians are either, as Stalin put it, "Uselful idiots" or fully aware of the political ramifications and support them.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Still buying the industrial age spike eh? the old "Hockey stick" graph? Well, believe what you want, I'll go all revolutionary if the world goes socialist green to "Save the planet" and I won't be the only one. The reality about this global warming push is that it's nothing more then a thinly veiled power grab backed by fear mongering and shoddy science. Those willingly echoing the demands of these politicians are either, as Stalin put it, "Uselful idiots" or fully aware of the political ramifications and support them.

I don't "buy the graph", I buy the measurable levels in the ice. On what basis do you reject the measurable levels in the ice?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Not by Fire but by Ice

An interesting site worth reading if you dare to look at competing data and theory. I believe that GW is a man made power grab, and not supported by the evidence and wrapped in hysteria. There data is out there to support the counters against this "Man induced glabal warming" you just have to actually look for it and decide for yourself. Greenlands glaciers for example, have been falsely reported as rapidly shrinking, when in fact, they aren't. They've been on the same pace for over 100 years.

Besides the earth was warmer a mere 1000 years ago, climate changes on it's own accord. Right now the "warming" has stopped by all appreciable measurements... despite the increases in C02. The models are wrong...


We can't tell you the weather next week, let alone the climate in 100 years.

[Alive]

Mr. Vicchio,

Do you really believe there's a huge conspiracy of scientists supporting global warming hysteria in order to bring power to politicians? What do they gain out of it?

Your revolution is unnecessary. Global warming is almost certainly not going to be prevented, and there will be disastrous consequences--not as bad as the worst predicted, and not as bad for the rich countries as for the poor countries, as always, but disastrous all the same.

[Alive]

Quote by: Technosoul What about rasing the standards allowed for carbon emmisions? With a fine for violators and a possible "shut down notice" for those who refuse to co-operate? Would that work as well?

Economic theory suggests that the most efficient means of reducing carbon emissions is a blanket tax. That minimizes market distortion by pricing carbon emissions at as close to their true cost as possible. So no, it wouldn't work as well.

[Mr.Vicchio]

It's not a conspiracy, it's about the money.

You're a research scientist, you need funding. You know that if you propose doing a study on how climatic change is natural, and that it's a benefit to man (let's just, for arguments sake say you really believe you have the ability to prove this) that you'll be rejected by the money men, while your good friend, just got his grant approved to show the debilitating effects of global warming on migrating butterfly larvae in central Peru.


Ya do a bit of research you know I'm right. Look at that idiot on the Weather Channel who believes that the AMA should revoke the liscence of any meteorologist that doesn't agree tot he theory of man made global warming.

That's just how it is. If I had to choose between unemployment or doing some study showing X was happening, I'd be doing the study.

Wouldn't you?

[lsbskins1]

Mr V-

After looking at some of the "debunking" going on at the site you posted, I would say it comes down to this: If I say "Your heart is part of your circulatory system." And someone comes along and says, "You are wrong, the heart can not be seperated from the the body proper and considered to be only part of a single system. If you remove the heart, the nervous system fails as well, so it must be considered part of a whole and not reduced to "circulatory" in nature," that does not change the truth of my statement, nor does it address the issue at hand, nor does it make my statement false. It is merely a method for halting progress on the issue at hand and distracting people who are busy worrying about the price of gas from seeing the real issue.

[Alive]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio It's not a conspiracy, it's about the money. You're a research scientist, you need funding. You know that if you propose doing a study on how climatic change is natural, and that it's a benefit to man (let's just, for arguments sake say you really believe you have the ability to prove this) that you'll be rejected by the money men, while your good friend, just got his grant approved to show the debilitating effects of global warming on migrating butterfly larvae in central Peru.

Except the "money men" are in large part themselves climatologists. That's the way science works--your success depends ultimately on peer review. It is true that you might need outside money for expensive stuff. But it's not like the anti-global warming crowd is underfunded! Indeed, if you were a relatively smart, skilled climatologist I'm sure you could make far more in apostasy than in the global warming camp, simply because of the law of supply and demand--low supply of non-warming climatologists suggests high prices from groups in whose interest it is that global warming fear dies down.

That's why it does indeed have to be a large conspiracy, across hundreds/thousands of scientists across all the big universities.

Have you ever worked in any scientific field? I'm just wondering, because it doesn't work how you seem to think it does.