Question:
What do you think will happen politically with global warming in 2009?
Dana1981
2007-11-20 13:31:33 UTC
The USA is the biggest roadblock to international action against global warming at the moment.

In 2009 we will have a president who acknowledges that humans are the primary cause of the current warming and that we need to do something about it. Every Democratic nominee has said so, as have Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee. The only other nominee with a remote shot at winning is Thompson, who's basically a fence-sitter on the issue (as he is with most issues).

Once we elect a president who acknowledges this reality, do you think the USA will finally lead the way in forming an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases? Or do you think we'll continue to pay the issue lipservice while failing to take any kind of meaningful action?
Twelve answers:
2007-11-20 14:33:18 UTC
The Kyoto protocol is on shaky ground,the US will eventually find the political will to eventually lead the rest of the World on reducing green house gasses,Kyoto or no Kyoto.
kusheng
2007-11-20 15:43:42 UTC
The recent Supreme Court decision stated that the EPA currently has the authority in the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2. Some in the U.S. Industry are pushing for a deal in Congress before the 2008 Presidential elections. They feel that they can maybe get a better deal now under Bush than under a more liberal administration after 2008. Time is running out, however. If they can't get something proposed by mid-2008, there's no way a bill will get passed before the elections.
strpenta
2007-11-20 15:38:15 UTC
I would hope that something gets done but who knows?

Louey Lefty: I haven't seen Al Gores film so I'm not going to make any statements about it. But, I have seen and/or heard other accts as to those who have traveled north and say, w/o a doubt, that there is GW. The Pres. even admitted it, even if he is so nuts as to not do much about it.

The 1934 temp recording was based solely on southern American area whereas the 1998 temp recording was based on ALL countries/land masses globally.

There have been civilizations in the past that out supplied their demand once they reached the million mark (population-wise). I'm near Dallas and it alone, has a population over 2 million so I really can not comprehend that anyone would think there's not a problem.

Oh, BTW, the scare about Global Cooling?-It was a media scare based on a cold snap. No tests were done, unlike now, where globally, scientists have conducted scientific tests and taken measurements of not only temperature but water levels and atmospheric levels, too.
2007-11-20 17:09:17 UTC
It's really the way to lose national sovereignty, and a great way to promote Agenda 21. Global warming might be real, but these are not real solutions, even a person worried about it can see that.



Follow the motives, follow the money, they aren't usually pushing these types of treaties for altruism, but they are duping people who are altruistic to the point of not thinking things through.
Rick S
2007-11-20 13:50:25 UTC
The biggest problem with global warming as an election issue is providing a solution that doesn't come down people giving up their standard of living. People want to help so long as it doesn't hurt them too much. Cut into their ability to do what they want, eat what they want, drive what they want and how much they want and you will alienate them pretty quickly.
AckDuScheisse!!
2007-11-20 13:43:06 UTC
Hillary will make a huge deal about global warming, like she is some savior... but she won't get anything done... I don't think it's the governments job to force us to be more environmental... I think it's up to the people... why do we need a government to tell us what to do, when we know what we want to do??



God, we are SOOO lazy, and we look at our government like they are our teachers... god help me if I go through life listening to the advice of politicians.
2007-11-20 13:39:53 UTC
Get real. We are not the cause of global warming.



You do realise that just thirty years ago the scientists were all worrying about a new ice age.



The temperature changes. We have no control over it.
butterfly
2007-11-20 13:48:50 UTC
i am not saying there is no problem 30 years ago it was the ice age i am still waiting gas shortage was about the same time and we are still dealing with it and don't you know according to our many sinites depending on witch one you want to listen to this week cows make the most greenhouse gases so kill the cows
G-gal
2007-11-20 13:35:22 UTC
I guess it depends on if we decide that it's more fashionable to talk about how it's our fault that another ice age is coming or if we decide to wait a couple more years for that trend.
TBEau
2007-11-20 13:37:15 UTC
All the candidates acknowledge the environmental concerns everyone has and they all have plans regarding it.



Ron Paul is probably the one candidate that wouldn't do much about the environment. But that's just from looking at his voting record.
2007-11-20 14:01:21 UTC
More and more regulations at the international level, as in the case of the Kyoto Protocol, puts power into the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats thereby reducing sovereignty and individual rights.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature. The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists...

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Henry Louis Mencken (1880- 1956 )

Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

· The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

· The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

· The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

· The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

· The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

· The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

· The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

· The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

· The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting; the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

· The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

· The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.





More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.

Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures. climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why Al Gore and the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so. It also provides evidence that the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance,

We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough--irrespective of the fact that in the course of the twentieth century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 percent--for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.



Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced..



NewsAccording to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.



Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)



SO the ANSWER to YOUR QUESTION IS THEY WANT a CARBON TAX to tax evil OIL Corporations,Presidential canidate DEM Senator DODD. that means trickle down to you $8.00 a gallon Gas Higher food prices TRUCKS deliver food run on FUEL,higher electric they will build NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS its a low carbon foot print .
J 1
2007-11-20 13:37:00 UTC
it will die...since it really has another agenda all together...


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...