GOP Hopefuls Split On Global Warming Plans

Candidates Agree It's Real, But Divided On What To Do About It

(AP)  While the major presidential candidates agree global warming is real, the Republicans are sharply divided over what to do about it - even as they chase votes in Florida, where the predicted risk of rising sea waters and more severe storms is anything but a passing concern.

Strategists in both parties say the political landscape for global warming has shifted dramatically in recent years with a broad coalition of environmentalists, business leaders, evangelical Christians and national security advocates - Democrats and Republicans alike - urging concrete actions to stem the effects.

The issue is likely to interest voters not only in Florida's primary next Tuesday but in the rush of primaries that follow. Nine of the more than 20 states with contests on Feb. 5 have passed or are considering programs to cap greenhouse gases, as is Maine, which holds its caucuses on Feb. 2.

"Climate change is real. It's happening. I believe human beings are contributing to it," former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said during a debate in Iowa when pressed on the issue.

But Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney adamantly oppose a mandatory cap on the greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, that are blamed for the earth's warming. Both have borrowed a page from President Bush's strategy by maintaining that the answer is to free the country from its dependence on foreign oil.

That's in marked contrast to Sen. John McCain, who is battling Giuliani and Romney for the lead in Florida. The Arizona senator has been among Congress' loudest voices for aggressive action, co-sponsoring legislation in 2003 that called for capping greenhouse gases - principally carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels - and frequently chiding the Bush administration for its failure to support mandatory measures to reduce such emissions.

It's a turnaround from when McCain ran for president eight years ago and was dogged in New Hampshire by a critic in a penguin suit protesting McCain's skepticism about climate change. McCain cited a series of Senate hearings he held on issue for convincing him the problem is real.

The so-called "cap-and-trade" approach - where companies would have pollution allowances they could sell if they fall below a cap, or buy credits if they found they could not meet the requirements - also has been endorsed by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has called protecting the earth from warming "a moral issue."

The leading Democratic candidates - Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards - have called for a mandatory 80 percent cut in greenhouse gases from 1990 levels by mid-century and have outlined global warming proposals more stringent than Democratic legislation before the Senate.

But Giuliani has no taste for mandates on carbon emissions, saying they make no sense.

"The best way to deal with it is through energy independence," he argues, calling for building more nuclear power plants, promoting conservation and alternative fuels and more research into capturing carbon dioxide from coal plants. He argues mandates to cap greenhouse gases don't make sense.

Some environmentalists say they're not surprised by Giuliani's position given his association with one of the most influential law/lobbying firms in Washington that represent energy interests. Giuliani joined Houston-based Bracewell-Giuliani as a partner three years ago.

"Bracewell-Giuliani has been the go-to place for companies that are opposed to clean air and global warming requirements," says Frank O'Donnell, executive director of Clean Air Watch, a Washington advocacy group that regularly has been on opposing sides of the Giuliani firm's clients.

Giuliani's campaign declined to comment Wednesday on his connection to the firm.

Romney has a similar recipe for dealing with global warming.

"We can dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions by putting ourselves realistically on a course of energy independence," he told New Hampshire voters, adding that he opposes any mandatory, across-the-board carbon limits unless other countries take steps as well.

"It's global warming, not America warming," has been his standard reply when asked for his views on regulating carbon dioxide.

The global warming issue, despite a string of recent revelations suggesting it to be ever more serious, didn't bubble to the top as an issue in either Iowa or New Hampshire, and McCain's call for action may have contributed to his loss to Romney in economically ravaged Michigan, where the auto industry carries great weight.

But that may not be the case in Florida, with its 1,200 miles of coastline, history of severe storms and unique sea coral. All would be affected by the type of warming scientists predict.

"This is a state that's uniquely vulnerable," said Gerald Karnas, director of the Florida Climate Change Project at Environmental Defense, an advocacy group. "Any candidate that wants to credibly campaign in Florida right now needs to move beyond the rhetoric and platitudes and get very specific about what they will do. ... People are hungry for solutions."

Ken Mehlman, former Republican National Committee chairman and manager of President Bush's 2004 re-election, says Republicans can't afford to ignore climate change. He said addressing the issue with specific solutions is key to returning independents to the GOP after the party lost them in the 2006 elections.

There has emerged "a whole new constituency ... a left-right coalition" including military leaders worried about national defense, religious leaders, environmentalists, sportsmen and "a who's who of American business" that may once have been climate skeptics but now are demanding action to reduce greenhouse emissions, Mehlman said at a recent panel discussion about politics and climate change.

Said Joe Lockhart, White House press secretary for former President Clinton: "We're very near politically to a tipping point where it's very bad politics to try to stop" action on climate change.

"We may have passed the tipping point," added Tucker Eskew, a former senior Bush White House aide.

[skyk-2009]

As usual the Right is slow to recognize a problem AND offer no meaningful solution. How many problems do we face and what we here from Republican''s is "We can''t". I''ve come to the conclusion that the word "Can''t" is the ONLY constant in their position on just about EVERYTHING.

[antoniof123]

Skyk,

You are correct and what is worst is the whole party has gone in that direction.

[mcvet]

As usual the Right is slow to recognize a problem AND offer no meaningful solution. How many problems do we face and what we here from Republican''''s is "We can''''t". I''''ve come to the conclusion that the word "Can''''t" is the ONLY constant in their position on just about EVERYTHING.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by skyk at 03:46 PM : Jan 24, 2008
+ report abuse

Hey Bro... You still around?

[mcvet]

To scientists, the sun is a natural phenomena of cataclismic activity...and goes through cycles of activity...fluctuating in energy output...therefore would cause variations in climate conditions here.

What caused the ice sheets to melt eons ago...?...long before man showed up with his tailpipes?...

Funny how nobody can really answer that...on the left that is.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by tiddsanbeer at 04:03 PM : Jan 24, 2008
+ report abuse

This ain''t about the "left" you MORON!! God sure made you fascist stupid didn''t he. The discussion is that the fascist party leaders ACCEPT the reality of Global Warming and what their policy is in dealing with it. YOU didn''t get the latest from the reich and are still hanging on to the "It doesn''t exist" line. That line, the propaganda ministry has decided, can''t be effectively used anymore. Did you miss one of your youth rallies??? Sieg Heil Bush

[gaye5]

The article says.... While the major presidential candidates agree global warming is real, the Republicans are sharply divided over what to do about it -

Well, how about waiting until the cycle does its cycle.
Yes we have to do something about pollution, but when you talk to old people they will tell you that their grandparents had just the same thing happen.. and how do we explain that the icecaps are melting on Mars and Pluto??? and that the Vikings used to be able to grow crops in Greenland but eventually had to leave because of the land freezing all year around.. We have to realize that there are just as many scientists who say that we are only going through just one of the many cycles, or that it isn''t heating up and that the universe is not stable at the one temperature, which to me is logical, as those who say that we are.

[micma-2009]

Republican candidate A wants to just stay the course and ignore it. Republican candidate B wants to ignore it and stay the course. Republican candidate C want to pray about it and stay the course.

It doesn''t matter which boob wins the Republican nomination. All any of them have to offer is a third Bush term.

No thanks!!

[gaye5]

tiddsanbeer, you have to realize that even Hitler said,
"What luck for leaders that the people don''t think".

People are like sheep, and far to many people cant think for themselves... nor do they seek out information for themselves, they seem to trust those who make the most out of their lies, then belittle those who have searched out information on both sides as I have done.. then they belittle the scientists who don''t believe as they do.
I don''t particularly like Mr Bush and I don''t trust him but I do know that our lives and universe are not consistent, as you pointed out the ice caps have melted before.. we go through cycles and at the moment the sun is throwing out one hell of a lot of stuff, causing even Pluto and Mars ice caps to melt..
For 20 years Queensland Australia (where I live) have not had their usual summer storms, but this year we seem to be back to normal in fact we have had cloudy days all summer, and the old folk tell us that it has all happened before.. our dry seasons are in the winter where we have all days with beautiful blue sky''s, no rain and no clouds..

[random_radar]

Environmental activists have bluntly stated that their goal is to dramatically reduce the human population of the world. The proposals for dealing with global warming will go a long way towards doing that.

Gentle reader, what part of the plan don''t you understand? They want you dead and gone. They call you a cancer on the planet. They want to eradicate you the same way you wish you could kill the cockroaches in your kitchen.

Global warming might be a global catastrophe. The proposals for fighting global warming will certainly impoverish you personally, and may ultimately lead to your miserable premature death. If you want to let people control your life who have clearly stated their ambition to annihilate you, go ahead fools.

But haven''t you noticed that the people beating the drum for fighting global warming are the upper classes? They have the money to make sure they survive, and they will enjoy a world emptied of ordinary folks like you that they have always despised and looked down upon.

I would rather take my chances living and dealing with what comes than let enviroterrorists rule the world and exterminate us "undesirables."

[hawksprings]

You know, reading some of these posts continue to give me faith in the human race that not everyone is as gullible as the Global Warming Sheep, and that not everyone is just going to bend over and take it from the likes of Algore and Bono.

I am encouraged.

[andor3]

If you are going to try that lame old long-discredited idea that global warming is just a part of a cycle that has happened before, please do not--it is just wasting time. It is not supported by science, not even a little bit.

The idea that human activity is causing climate change is accepted scientific fact. Don''t argue with me about it, do not post blather on message boards, because your posts are as irrelevant as a ***. If you do not like it get a degree and do some research [and if you are a scientist what you want to find is not what matters, it is what you actually find].

The only argument these days is what can and should be done about the problem, and how it will affect us.

[mediapreachr]

First of all there is no such thing as "global warming".
But there sure are bureaucrats out of work,who are looking for gullible folk.
Also,did you know how much an environmental lawyer makes an hour?700 bucks.Don''t believe me?Go check with google.

[the74blaster]

First of all there is no such thing as "global warming".

Posted by mediapreachr

Really, do you care to comment on the record melt of sea ice that was observed last summer in the Artic. Perhaps you want to comment on the the fact that 10 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last 11 years.

Faced with some facts, how can you make such a statement?

[mediapreachr]

According to Al Bore''s logic,if he gets his fat as* to London for a couple of weeks and he gets lucky to have only sunny days for 13 days,then he''ll be back saying that the londoners enjoy mediteranean weather all year long.Right?WRONG...just ask any brit.
If anyone wants to pick my pocket just make sure I get
something in return otherwise bad things happen,hehe...

[the74blaster]

According to Al Bore''''s logic,if he gets his fat as* to London for a couple of weeks and he gets lucky to have only sunny days for 13 days,then he''''ll be back saying that the londoners enjoy mediteranean weather all year long.Right?

Posted by mediapreachr,

You still did not address the the fact out of the last 11 years being the warmest in the last 100 or so and record ice melt. These come from NOAA and there is no political motive with this agency.

If you are worried about being taken, my question is do you support Bush and his cronies? I would hope not!

[david1737]

This is an article from the Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, May 3rd 2006 p.A4).

It reports the results of a study commissioned by the Bush Administration.

The report shows that:

"Significant discrepancy no longer exist between Earth and atmospheric warming."

"The report also notes that numerous studies show that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system because of concentrations of carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions in the atmosphere"

[david1737]

Global warming, yet another hyped deception in the "scientific" world.


Mars is going through "global warming" right now as well. As a matter of fact lots of planet are.

Are martians causing it?

Posted by singinrick



This is an article from the Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, May 3rd 2006 p.A4).

It reports the results of a study commissioned by the Bush Administration.

The report shows that:

"Significant discrepancy no longer exist between Earth and atmospheric warming."

"The report also notes that numerous studies show that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system because of concentrations of carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions in the atmosphere"

[octavianfdlr]

As usual the Right is slow to recognize a problem AND offer no meaningful solution. How many problems do we face and what we here from Republican''s is "We can''t". I''ve come to the conclusion that the word "Can''t" is the ONLY constant in their position on just about EVERYTHING.

Posted by skyk at 03:46 PM : Jan 24, 2008
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The "Global Warming" bunch, and their allies who claim to care about the environment have a more varied vocabulary:

"You SHALL" decrease carbon dioxide emissions. (Don''t ask us how, just DO IT!)
"You can''t" use nuclear power -- it will take too long to get around the malicious regulations we have put in place.
"You can''t" use wind power -- the windmill might kill a bird.
"You SHALL" use solar power to heat your house in the winter, when your hemisphere is freezing because of insufficient insolation.
"You can''t" afford food anymore -- too much is being used to make biofuels.

And finally...

"More people, more SCARS upon the land." -John Denver

[micma-2009]

The National Academy of Sciences reviewed EVERY published, peer-reviewed, climate change study done in the last 10 years. Without exception, they all agreed on three fundamental facts:


1. GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND IS HAPPENING NOW

2. GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN

3. THE CONSEQUENCES OF GLOBAL WARMING ARE CATASTROPHIC

The scientific debate ended long ago. The political debate rages on fueled by millions of dollars and a massive disinformation campaign by the fossil fuels industry.


The time for denial is over. The time for action to preserve a future for our children is now.

[mediapreachr]

''The time for denial is over. The time for action to preserve a future for our children is now.

Posted by micma at 09:01 PM : Jan 24, 2008''
So who''s stopping you?Dig in your own pocket...
You first please!

[micma-2009]

mediapreachr


Studies show that the consequence of inaction are astronomicly higher for inaction than action. The bottom line is that the whole world is beginning to move on this issue. In the end we can either be a net importer of sustainable energy technology or a net exporter. We could have spent the two trillion we''re going to spend in Iraq on developing sustainable energy technologies already in existence. If we elect another Republican, we''ll likely continue with these backward policies.

[micma-2009]

The National Academy of Sciences reviewed EVERY published, peer-reviewed, climate change study done in the last 10 years. Without exception, they all agreed on three fundamental facts:


1. GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND IS HAPPENING NOW

2. GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN

3. THE CONSEQUENCES OF GLOBAL WARMING ARE CATASTROPHIC

The scientific debate ended long ago. The political debate rages on fueled by millions of dollars and a massive disinformation campaign by the fossil fuels industry who practically owns the Republican party.


The time for denial is over. The time for action to preserve a future for our children is now.

[mediapreachr]

Do you know what a "fast breed" nuclear reactor is?
C''mon,everyday these boards are full of "scientists"(or maybe their just environmental lawyers-at 700 bucks per hr..).
We are living in the most advanced country on Earth (technically),and cannot build more nuclear reactors?
Just look at France,they have twice as many as us;did you hear the french complaining about the cost of energy??

[david1737]

Studies show that the consequence of inaction are astronomicly higher for inaction than action. The bottom line is that the whole world is beginning to move on this issue. In the end we can either be a net importer of sustainable energy technology or a net exporter. We could have spent the two trillion we''''re going to spend in Iraq on developing sustainable energy technologies already in existence. If we elect another Republican, we''''ll likely continue with these backward policies.



Posted by micma



That a very good point. Toyota Corp. already beat us to the punch with Hybrid technology. Fool me once etc...

[ubrew12]

mediapreachr said: "Just look at France,they have twice as many as us [nuclear reactors],did you hear the french complaining about the cost of energy??"
Exactly right. This country needs to DOUBLE its nuclear power (from 20% of total to 40%). However, alternative energy has been given short shrift in this country (as it has in France). We need to drastically increase research spending on alternatives. Nuclear has received about $1 trillion in research dollars in the U.S. (over the last 50 years). Alternatives?...about 1/10th that amount!!! So, of course, nuclear is better developed. But the promise of alternatives should NOT be overlooked. For example, in Britian, Nuclear has received the bulk of ''alternative'' research spending from the gov''t, and yet the British just DONT WANT IT! At the same time, wave energy has been the ''poor relation'' in research spending and, guess what? Wave energy is capable of generating ALL of Britains energy needs, and THAT''s using existing technology (i.e. already developed) that''s been proven to survive 100ft seas (and is now insured by Lloyds of London). Check out the Pelamis ''sea snake'' to see what I mean.

Time and time again... alternative energy gets the ''cold shoulder'' from gov''t research dollars. And Time and time again, it has proven to be cost effective and ''do-able''. Not to take anything away from nuclear (esp. Nuclear FUSION... which holds GREAT promise), but this ''knee-jerk'' reactionaryism against alternatives is frustrating!!

[hawksprings]

micma,

Your repetition of the Global warming propaganda lines doesn''t convince anyone because it''s not true.

Why did the planet have global warming periods in the past?

How did the planet ever survive it?

If it will make you feel better, go buy so more carbon credits from your savior, Father Algore.

[micma-2009]

hawksprings

Thanks for your two cents but I''ll defer to the actual scientists for scientific information. And since the global scientific consensus points overwhelmingly to global warming as a very real and threatening man-made phenomena, I''ll continue to view that as more factual than your rambling denial. If I should one day decide however, that I would rather bury my head in my @ss than face the truth, then I''ll consult you on how to do so. You do seem to be an expert on that. Thank you so much.


lol!

[micma-2009]

The National Academy of Sciences reviewed EVERY published, peer-reviewed, climate change study done in the last 10 years. Without exception, they all agreed on three fundamental facts:


1. GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND IS HAPPENING NOW

2. GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN

3. THE CONSEQUENCES OF GLOBAL WARMING ARE CATASTROPHIC

The scientific debate ended long ago. The political debate rages on fueled by millions of dollars and a massive disinformation campaign by the fossil fuels industry who practically owns the Republican party.


The time for denial is over. The time for action to preserve a future for our children is now.

[ubrew12]

hawksprings said: "Why did the planet have global warming periods in the past?"
It had global warming periods that killed 9/10ths of all the species on it, caused by CO2 release by volcanoes and/or planet positioning re the sun. Does that give you solice?

hawksprings: "How did the planet ever survive it?" 1/10th survived. Satisfied???? Feel better????

This latest episode is WHOLE-Y preventable, cuz its MAN MADE.... if we can get the deniers like you OUT OF THE WAY!!!

[co2max]

Fact is, 99.9 percent of all species that ever lived on this planet have perished. Many of these extinctions can be attributed to climate change due to one cause or another. The research of earth history that the big die-outs have taken place during periods of enhanced volcanic activity and a meteor impact (or several) of major proportions takes place. In combination, these events totally redraw the surface of this planet.
The current warming is extremely minor in comparison to what has happened in the past. Carbon dioxide, at levels we measure today, is miniscule in historic terms and is not the root issue here. Modern global warming is NOT man-made.

Global Warming?
--Naturally!

[skyk-2009]

The current warming is extremely minor in comparison to what has happened in the past. Carbon dioxide, at levels we measure today, is miniscule in historic terms and is not the root issue here. Modern global warming is NOT man-made.

Global Warming?
--Naturally!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by CO2Max at 05:22 AM : Jan 25, 2008
+ report abuse

I assume from your post that you are one of the very few left on Planet Earth who is in denial about this situation. That''s your right but that is NOT the issue here. We as a people are trying to decide which Presidentual Canidate has the best plan to deal with the problem. Unlike you most of us have long ago accepted the findings of the vast majority of the scientist on earth AND the reality of the change we see before our eyes.

[skyk-2009]

Your repetition of the Global warming propaganda lines doesn''''t convince anyone because it''''s not true.

Why did the planet have global warming periods in the past?

How did the planet ever survive it?

If it will make you feel better, go buy so more carbon credits from your savior, Father Algore.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by hawksprings at 12:02 AM : Jan 25, 2008
+ report abuse

Look you are obviously one of the very few people who still wish to deny the obvious and that''s fine. The debate is NO LONGER about does it exist as you have claimed on here over and over... the issue is who has the best method of dealing with the problem. If you wish to hold on to the belief that it isn''t a problem there maybe a few Con''s left who will agree with you, I guess, but it does not aid the debate being had here at all.

[fredcs25]

The news media and the current politians are going to look like a pack of fools when this global warming bubble burst in a few years.Thirty years ago the trend was global cooling which turned out to be false and global warming is nothing more than a progressive liberal hype of social engineering at work.

[co2max]

skyk-
Still relying on that ridiculous "denial" accusation to support your wonky claims about human-caused global warming, huh?
Well, understand, if you can, that this is not denial. I agree that climate change is taking place. The point is that humans don''t cause it anymore than we are to blame for the existence of gravity or changes in the seasons. If you can''t grasp this, you are just refusing to deal with reality.
What we need is a candidate who has the courage to state the truth about this situation, rather than pander to prospective voters, hopeing that by paying lip-service to global warming, they stand to get more votes than by speaking what they really believe (global warming is natural) and hoping that truth is enough to clench the victory. Unfortunately, the climate propaganda campaign has been so loud for so long, nobody running for the office has assurance that any plurality will go along with it.

[co2max]

micma-
As a propagandist, you are a novice, but equally annoying. You rely on consensus, which is patently a false way to pursue science. You also claim to rely on scientists, but the "scientists" who are most open about this issue are not scientists at all; they are political tools.

[skyk-2009]

What we need is a candidate who has the courage to state the truth about this situation, rather than pander to prospective voters, hopeing that by paying lip-service to global warming, they stand to get more votes than by speaking what they really believe (global warming is natural) and hoping that truth is enough to clench the victory. Unfortunately, the climate propaganda campaign has been so loud for so long, nobody running for the office has assurance that any plurality will go along with it.




Posted by CO2Max at 08:28 AM : Jan 25, 2008
+ report abuse

Well the situation is as it''s always been I guess. You have one side that see''s a problem and tries to find a way to solve it and the other which wish''s to deny the problem exist and do nothing. I''m sure your counter parts will most certainly look back on what we do and find fault with it NEVER looking at the conservative solution, which is to do NOTHING. No One can force you to accept the reality of what we face, but I suggest you just walk out the door in LA at 4 in the afternoon if you want proof of Man''s distruction of our enviroment. You don''t need a scientist or anyone else to tell you what is behind Global Warming... YOU can see it, feel it, breath it for yourself.

[skyk-2009]

The news media and the current politians are going to look like a pack of fools when this global warming bubble burst in a few years.Thirty years ago the trend was global cooling which turned out to be false and global warming is nothing more than a progressive liberal hype of social engineering at work.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by fcs25 at 07:15 AM : Jan 25, 2008
+ report abuse

Yep.. exactly the same thing you losers said about cigerattes if memory serves!! LOL The fact is that our air is dirty and carbon is causing our planet to warm... We are either going to clean up that air, so all of us can breath and live better or we are not. Those who put greed ahead of that aren''t much as far as I can see... either cigeratte makers or Oil Producers.

[co2max]

skyk-
Taking a deep breath and "enjoying" the smell of pollution has nothing at all to do with whatever drives climate change. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. CO2 is an inert, invisible, inert gas that is a miniscule component of the atmosphere. If you want a fresh breath of air, clean it up. That means clearing out the sooty, dirty deposits we add to it. Focussing on carbon dioxide is not the solution. It is a side-bar. Environmentalism, as it was meant to be, is being ruined by this global warming garbage. You''re worried about the leaky faucet in the kitchen while the bathtub is overflowing upstairs.

[godseyesore-2009]

They don''t have clues for reducing Global Warming because republican ideology only serves to make things worse. Duh.

[clestes-2009]

What bugs me about the reps positions on this is that they are either still too blase (rudy and mitt) or they want nuclear power and more drilling for the evermore elusive oil!

Nuclear power is NOT the answer. It comes with a whole set of problems unique to it. It sprews out stuff more dangerous than the CO2. There is no where to store it!!

As for the more drilling, it is a WASTE of resources. Oil is OVER. Scraping the ground for it is stupid. The money spent on that fruitless enterprise would be better spent on renewable energy sources.

This is a problem that should have been addressed 30 years ago. Thanks to the oil industry''s blackballing it year after year, it has finally reached a critical stage of no return.

What a sad commentary on our times. The desire for money has and is ruining the world''s environment and we leave for future generations a planet in crisis.

[red1530]

clestes, tell that to the Europeans. In France they get most of their power from nuclear sources. As to storing the waste the government is planing to use Yucca Mountain as the storage site.

[briannorwood]

But Giuliani has no taste for mandates on carbon emissions, saying "Everything changed after 9/11".

[andor3]

CO2Max said: "Well, understand, if you can, that this is not denial. I agree that climate change is taking place. The point is that humans don''t cause it..."

Too funny--not only is he denying the issues of climate change, he is denying the denial. That takes some serious gymnastics to leap over the mountain of evidence, twist to look away from the scientific consensus, and bend over backwards to please the narrow-minded business interests.

Climate change is real. Humans are causing it. That much is settled and the riff raff who cannot understand the science that backs that need to be ignored so we can look at a solution.

[rf35]

Who cares what is causing climate change or if it is even happening? The problem still exists that any carbon-based power source is finite. Nuclear energy is the best solution for the short-term as true renewables are perfected. Nuclear fuel is recyclable...the French figured that out. Are we not as smart as the French? Can we not do nuclear power as well as they can? Is this America, the land of innovation or America, the land of "stay the course even if it kills us?"

[clestes-2009]

Red1530

Storing nuclear waste in the ground is not the solution. I don''t know what France is using as a dump, but I''m willing to bet it storing it underground.

It does not matter how well one protects the dump site, leaks will happen over time. The problem is that the half life of the waste is, in some cases, 100,000+ years. These dumps are going to be a danger for as long as humans live on earth.

There simply has to be a better way of creating energy than burning fossil fuel or splitting atoms.

[clestes-2009]

rf35,

explain, in general terms, how the French are recycling the nuclear waste, please.

[clestes-2009]

andor3,

Yup! If the rep candidates are all on board with the climate change reality, even if they disagree on how to solve it, it tells you something.

The naysayers are not worth the effort of typing a response, unless one simply wants to argue. There is too evidence that it is happening and that it is human caused.

[erasmus6]

"Why did the planet have global warming periods in the past?" posted by hawksprings

Yes, it did happen in the past but nothing that even comes close to what is happening now. There is a very sharp incline.

If you had read or watched "An Inconvenient Truth", you would see that. But you won''t because you hate Al Gore.

[erasmus6]

hawksprings

They can also tell by the core samples they take from the glaciers.

Did you listen to the podcast on 60 Minutes yet?

Not going to, are you?

[mcvet]

Yes, it did happen in the past but nothing that even comes close to what is happening now. There is a very sharp incline.

If you had read or watched "An Inconvenient Truth", you would see that. But you won''''t because you hate Al Gore.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by erasmus6 at 04:24 PM : Jan 25, 2008
+ report abuse

It''s not hate, it''s FEAR.. pure FEAR! These poor souls are afraid of ANYTHING different or new. They have always been that way, although I don''t know why. To me it''s exciting... cleaning up our air for my Grandkids, developing a NEW source of energy.... It''s the same feeling I had when John F. Kennedy stood up and said we would land on the moom in that decade. We are American''s and YES we can, I thought. Funny thing people from where Hawksprings lives were saying the same "We can''t or we shouldn''t" then too. Sieg Heil Bush

[rheola-2009]

You also claim to rely on scientists, but the "scientists" who are most open about this issue are not scientists at all; they are political tools.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by CO2Max at 08:30 AM : Jan 25, 2008


So very true, admirably sums up those pseudo scientists being paid to continue the denial, and thereby placing the future of humanity in peril.