Global Warming Debate

[camaraderie]

Just read an ARDENT global warmer and environmentalists article pushing wind power as the ultimate solution. While savin that for another day...I did think it was interesting wht his research showed about bio fuels and ethanol we're all being pushed on and which the gov't is throwing our money at in an effort to make it competitive:

In the best scenario, corn ethanol cannot reduce U.S. carbon by more than 0.2% and cellulosic ethanol cannot reduce U.S. carbon by more than 4% due to their carbon emissions and landuse constraints.
http://cires.colorado.edu/events/lectures/jacobson/

Another government solution to our problems debunked. (And of course there must BE a problem before you can have a solution!)

[PBzeer]

I'm sure that it's only coincidental that the one's who benefit the most from ethanol are the big farming corporations.

[sck5]

If the Iowa caucuses didnt come first we wouldnt have ethanol subsidies

[chucklesR]

Jesus h. Christ!!!!!!
SCK5 and I agree on something. it must be true

[xort]

yes, interesting observation

[sailaway21]

I believe that the Chicago Tribune is widely regarded as having a conservative editorial page while the Post tends to be liberal. Regardless of either of their slants, the fact remains that those canidates left standing are hardly global warming sceptics and that can hardly bode well for the on-going debate.

[hphoen]

Dr. Jeff Masters is one of the creators of The Weather Underground, one of the better weather sites around. In his latest blog entry (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...&tstamp=200802)
he points out that of the 2,679 questions asked of the presidential candidates by the news media in 2007, only three were about global warming--the same number of questions that were asked about UFOs! He didn't mention how many questions were asked about ethanol fuel supplements.

The four major candidates have been invited to participate in http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php, scheduled for April 18, 2008, at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphis. The event has an incredibly long list of reputable sponsors, and according to Dr. Masters, is designed "to discover the candidates' views on many science-related topics, such as climate change, clean energy, health care, science education and technology in schools, scientific integrity, GM agriculture, transportation infrastructure, the genome, data privacy, intellectual property, pandemic diseases, the health of the oceans, water resources, stem cells, conservation and species loss, population, and the space program."

These are very important policy issues, and it's unlikely we'll hear much about the candidates views on them unless they're forced to focus on them in a debate setting. The big question is, will their "handlers" allow them to participate? With all the "junk science", and politically driven "scientific" hype, and the "dumbing down" of the educational system, I think we deserve to know where the candidates stand on these issues.

[PBzeer]

Do you mean have them partcipate and actually give cogent responses? That would mean they would have to take an ACTUAL POSITION on something.

[chucklesR]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Do you mean have them partcipate and actually give cogent responses? That would mean they would have to take an ACTUAL POSITION on something.

Whew, for a while there I thought you were going to say take an INFORMED position - that would have been devastating.

[PBzeer]

Informed? The only thing they are EVER informed on is the latest polling data. I don't know who's least informed, the canidates or the voters.