Clean energy sources would help the environment and the economy and foreign policy.

Is anybody familiar with Obama's stance on Nuclear? I really hope he's not ruling it out.

"Democrat Barack Obama is more cautious. While he says nuclear power should be part of U.S. energy plans, Obama said Tuesday the nation must find "safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste." He said the focus should be finding new energy sources."
USA Today

There's more, but you get the point. And, surprise, I hope he does rule it out.

I can't wait until people start realizing that environmental issues don't fall into a conservative vs. liberal battleground. It's something that affects all of us. And as Stephley so wisely put it -- Americans can push to link our environmental policies to boost the economy and aide in foreign affairs. I think there are a lot of conservatives who care about these issues, and I hope more of them speak up in the future to make this stop appearing to be a bipartisan problem.

Deidre, I don't think the environment is necessarily a partisan thing. Certainly there are people of all political persuasions who care about the environment. But the way we solve those problems is definitely a partisan issue.

I knew Bush completely ignored the environment, but to see all those listed, it really makes me ill. What a jerk.

If anyone is curious, an article in the Washington post highlighted a number of regulations the White House is working to enact. Many of them ease current standards that protect our air and water quality.

here is the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR200810...

1. Blew hot air on global warming: Global warming blows enough hot air on itself. There are too many scientists and meteorologists who don't agree with Al Gore to compromise our economy and livelyhood on what has become a political issue rather than a scientific issue.
2. Failed to regulate greenhouse gases at home: Still not enough scientific proof human made emissions make any difference whatsoever.
3. Failed to develop clean energy sources: If clean energy is viable, it will find a foothold in our marketplace without government support. Ethanol is environmental snake oil, and that is subsidized by the government. Do we really want more of this?
4. Abandoned endangered species: Endangered species should be protected, but not as a politically motivated roadblock to drilling. There is middle ground here that neither side toward which neither side wants to work.
5. Carved up the American West for oil and gas excavation: When gas hit $4.00 a gallon, more than 70% of Americans agreed that the we should utilize our domestic energy sources. Democrats complaining about foreign oil dependence who then turn around and refuse to let us use our own resources to fix the dependence are giant hypocrites.
6. Not seeing the forest or the trees: Real environmentalists know that the optimal tree per acre ratio in American hardwood forests is 40 trees per acre, not the 120 tree per acre that they currently contain. Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and other environmental special interests care more about blocking logging companies from making money than what is best for the forests.
7. Choked clean-air standards: The air is cleaner than it has ever been. The pendulum swung too far under Bill Clinton, and GW just brought it back.

"Blew hot air on global warming: Global warming blows enough hot air on itself. There are too many scientists and meteorologists who don't agree with Al Gore to compromise our economy and livelyhood on what has become a political issue rather than a scientific issue."

I don't know where you get your information from, but if you look in peer reviewed scientific journals, 99.9% of the articles agree with the "Al Gore" perspective that climate change is a HUGE problem and humans have had an extremely negative impact. Normally the difference in opinion is in how dramatic the impact will be. Conservative estimates (meaning best case scenario) from prediction models show a sea level rise of between 2 and 6 ft in the next 100 years. That may not seem like a lot, but it will have a big effect on people living at sea level, and an extreme loss of land, only further contributing to overpopulation problems. Also, from past experience, these models have almost always been underestimations. I'm an Environmental Engineer and have done much research on this topic and it is so frustrating to see people that take their information from think tanks as fact.

This is really sad. GB should be ashamed of himself.

The only green Bush cares about are the greenbacks he saved for the logging industry
oil companies
coal industry
auto makers

so sad

I think the only time I've seen President Bush green is when he was on that aircraft carrier.

First off I'd like to just remove anything that points to (global warming) from my consideration here. Having done that George W. Bush still by action or inaction had the worst environmental policies.

This is pathetic
I'll be so glad to see him go!

I think the late Michael Crichton said it best when he said, "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

Something so apparent about this administration was their distrust of science. Thank goodness that the insular thinking will be done away with.
Effective measures can now be put in place to reverse some of their ignorant policies. Stem cell research will hopefully be back on the table.

I was going to post in this thread but its one of those subjects that will send me into a raving, spitting fury faster than anything.

The facts are there, on paper, and in reality - and people that continue to willfully deny them are just what big oil ordered.

Talk about "being had", and I'll point to THEM.

Shadow, yes indeed. I was listening to the scientist in charge of the global warming initiative with the UN. He said ALL scientists think it is man made. There is no dissent.

beavis667, does that go for any consensus or only the ones that threaten a big industry? Because the consensus on global warming is not one of the scientists anymore but of everybody who isn't ignorant enough to read up on the facts about it.

Once big oil realizes that the only way they can profit from this in the future is investing into new technology for alternative energy sources now, I'm sure more people will suddenly find that what the scientist have all agreed on makes a lot of sense...

brandynicole -

Beavis, your first post said that there was not a consensus between enough scientists to make climate change fact. Your second post says that when there is consensus, scientists are clearly trying to "get" you. Which is it?

It is true, once you earn a higher degree in science, you are entered into a secret society where you learn how to steal money from the public. Next year's goal is world domination.

Cally, we are being told that there is "broad scientific consensus" that globlal warming is a reality and that it is man made. We are being told there is consensus...to end the debate. Al Gore said it himself that the folks out there who don't believe global warming is real and man made are so few, they are the same folks who "don't believe the moon landing happened." We are dismissed.

My points are twofold. One, that there isn't the consensus that the environmental lobby claims there is. That move is only to squelch debate. Secondly, if consensus were there, it would be a farce. Science that deals in a->b causation is predictable worth action. Outside of that, it's just educated guesses.

From Witchy Ways "Because the consensus on global warming is not one of the scientists anymore but of everybody who isn't ignorant enough to read up on the facts about it."

So do you ignore all the data that refutes human made climate change, or am I ignorant for reading it, and not personally discrediting it?

"Will someone please save me the effort and attack Beavis for me..."

Better yet BrandyNicole, why don't you google some pro-global warming data. Then I'll reply with some data refuting it. We'll go back and forth and never get anywhere. That will be awesome.

This is a political issue, like I said. If it truely were a "scientific issue" there wouldn't be any debate, unless we were going to throw out the science.

It boils down to this. Do you want to compromise your way of life and sacrifice some wealth on a political issue? Most of you folks apparently do. I do not. More than 70% of Americans agree with me that domestic drilling is more important than the chance that global warming is man made. As this is a political issue, that 70% is a big number and Congressional democrats had to backpedal on the issue this summer.

I propose everyone who rejects evolution and global warming be given special medical treatment when they see their doctors. Treatment that has not had the consensus of the scientific community, is not based on any research or lab trials.

And when you say science that is a-->b causation, what specifically are you talking about? Science, even at its best is not a logic proof. Even physicists who work with abstract mathematical theory must guess and test and make evaluative judgments of the validity of certain calculations. They must go into the lab to test their predictions, then adjust to and explain the errors they find.

You have a very strange idea of what science is. No scientist claims that science is an absolute doctrine that is immutable and unyielding. Even Newton's laws of gravity were modified with the discovery of relativity.

So when you go to your doctor's for cancer treatment, or you evaluate the evidence for global warming you must realize that the findings and consensus are based on the best knowledge that the best research from the best scientists could come up with. And just like you would accept the very best cancer treatment, even if it weren't infallible, you should accept the very best evidence for global warming. Because if you don't treat the cancer, or the environmental problem because you aren't positive that there is a problem, or the treatment is correct, what do you gain?

The scientists certainly gain nothing. They aren't paid every time a government votes to curb carbon emissions. And they certainly don't gain notoriety got being wrong. (Remember cold fusion). At the end of the day, what scientists get is the recognition that they discovered something, and were useful, and right about it.

And peer-reviewed articles mean that if they are wrong about global warming, some scientist will make a huge name for herself by refuting it. And if you look at the evidence there is right now, that has not happened.

I am waiting anxiously to hear about changes in policies regarding global warming. I do hope Obama will be the ballbreaker on this subject. I don't want him to let us down.

"This is a political issue, like I said. If it truely were a "scientific issue" there wouldn't be any debate, unless we were going to throw out the science."

Debating something does not make it political instead of scientific.

snowbunny!

...and anyone who's studied science in depth knows that this:

"Science that deals in a->b causation is predictable worth action."

is a bit muddled. This isn't how science (well, real science) works.

'It boils down to this. Do you want to compromise your way of life and sacrifice some wealth on a political issue? Most of you folks apparently do. I do not. More than 70% of Americans agree with me that domestic drilling is more important than the chance that global warming is man made. As this is a political issue, that 70% is a big number and Congressional democrats had to backpedal on the issue this summer.'

Translation: Me. Me. Me. Me. Me, its all about me. Screw my children and the future. Drill more now and make things cheaper in the short term for ME.

mydiadem! ha ha ha, you read my mind. I was thinking that just a minute ago. It is basicially ME versus Everyone else

I am just going to wade in here and say that scientists DO gain something... it's called the 'Publish or Perish' phonomenon. When I got my Master's my profs encouraged us to look into environmental policy because there was money (i.e., funding) in it. I got my degree in Applied Anthropology.

I would completely disagree that science is the only thing driving the green debate. Policy decision are based on many issues - not all of them scientific. I would also add that at my University - people getting their Master's in Enivronmental Policy took more courses like Sociology and Anthropology than science course (which is how I know about the program). Other programs might be different, but the people I knew who got degrees in Environmental Policy were more focused on changing attitudes about the environment than actually generating research.

Also - what are everyone's thoughts on the recent NASA findings about sun flares?

Snowbunny, I don't have a confused notion of what science is. Don't group me with the creationists...I don't think you were trying to do that.

I totally agree that science isn't absolute all of the time. There was much debate on what caused the Tunguska, Siberia incident in 1908. "Scientific consensus" changed 3 or more times over the cause until recently, irrefutable proof was found of a meteoric event under a lakebed.

There are tighter scientific theories that invite as much debate than global warming. For a period of time in the 1980's a growing movement of scientists believed that dinosaurs could be mammals.

What makes global warming a political issue isn't that there is debate over it, it's that the science isn't there to end debate. Evidence ended the debates that I mentioned above. What makes matters worse/more cloudy, the environmentalists + science community claimed the earth was cooling because of man made measures in the 70's. In that regard, both sides reputations are somewhat tarnished on the matter as having another agenda.

kranky i did sociology in uni, i am very touched that scientists are actually taking classes in social sciences, wow..that is so positive. Really it is. When I was doing it, there weren't any science students at all. I think that's beautiful that it has happened that way.

I'd agree that it's not 100% science driving the green debate, but it's kinda sad that people have this "Oh, no, we're totally fine, we should just keep on the same track and keep doing what we're doing, not everything has been proven scientifically, yadda yadda yadda" attitude.

Scientists do have things to gain, and yes there is definitely a push towards certain types of research over others, as I've seen with my own experience with certain PIs struggling over others I've worked for, but I don't know how significant that gain is, personally. And maybe the people who got degrees in environmental policy did want to change attitudes as well as do research because they go pretty hand-in-hand...if an attitude doesn't change about a particular topic, then your average Joe the Plumber isn't going to care about research.

...and as for the sun flares, I heard about a new cycle starting a few months ago, but haven't been keeping up, apparently.

...and overall I just don't think it's all that difficult to make a few changes here and there that will somehow help the environment. You don't have to start wearing Birkenstocks and eating granola to at least think "Huh, maybe I shouldn't totally dismiss global warming as a possibility".

As Kranky noted, there's alot more to the globlal warming movement than science. There's big money in it! There is fame, publish or perish as was said.

Now as a republican, I'm all about people enterprising and making money. That's the American way. I have a problem with people being ripped off, however. Al Gore, and folks who run carbon credit organizations are making good money off of uncertainty and fear. Ethanol is environmental snake-oil as I said, and the government is popping it up with our tax dollars. That's not even being ripped off based on our own dumb choice and free will. That's money taken from us and forcing the ripoff. That's worse!

I agree with em.

"Translation: Me. Me. Me. Me. Me, its all about me. Screw my children and the future. Drill more now and make things cheaper in the short term for ME."

I have to respectfully disagree with this assessment of beavis' position, and honestly - in the spirit of 52 to 48 with love - this comment is not helpful to having a reasonable discussion about the issue at hand.

If I could be so bold as to restate beavis' position: there IS debate on whether man is the highest contributor to climate change (they aren't even calling it global warming anymore.. see? Ideas are not fixed about this). There is a danger to passing policy without looking at all issues thoroughly. Bevais gave a good example in ethanol. People thought it would end the energy crisis and threw a bunch of resources at it. And we got global food shortages and an inefficient energy source.

I personally (and I *think* beavis), don't get kicks out of running my water and blasting my AC for the heck of it. But I do believe that we should not make hasty, unjustified decisions.

em - NASA came out with information that tied global temperatures with sun flares. Other planets have been showing similar phenomena as Earth... which indicates that there is more to this situation than just man and his evil doings.

Also, I don't have a problem with small changes and in general I support a lot of them. (Recycling, and who would want the qality of air that China enjoys?)

I do take issue with large decisions that might negatively impact big sectors of our economy. These decisions need to be made thoughtfully and with consensus from a number of different sources.