Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
The new Washington
Post Weather website
Jump to CWG's
Latest Full Forecast
Outside now? Radar, temps
and more: Weather Wall
Follow us on Twitter (@capitalweather) and become a fan on Facebook
Posted at 1:00 PM ET, 10/ 3/2008

Biden, Palin Clash on Climate Change

By Dan Stillman

In case you missed it, or want to watch it all over again, the video below shows the portion of last night's vice presidential debate focused on climate change.

Which candidate do you think won the climate change issue? What parts of Biden's and Palin's statements do you agree or disagree with? Let us know using the comments link below.

And check back early next week as CWG's Andrew Freedman looks at the climate change positions of both the presidential and vice presidential candidates in his weekly column.

See our full forecast into early next week, and our Weather Wall for the ultimate overview of current conditions in D.C., Maryland and Virginia.

By Dan Stillman  | October 3, 2008; 1:00 PM ET
Categories:  Climate Change  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Glorious Day for a Glory
Next: PM Update: Autumnal Weather Perfected

Comments

I was undecided before the debate, and I am still undecided. The debate was without fire works, Watching Palin and Biden Practice is much more interesting.
http://www.watchdebate.com

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Hypothetical Debate:

Moderator: Gov Palin can you please tell us about your plan on wall street bailout.

Palin: (shuffling her flash cards vigorously) I would love to but being a Maverick and BTW so is John MCcain, I want to talk about energy policy instead;

Moderator: But I wanted to discuss about the Wall street bailout!!

Palin: Geez.. I would love to but I will get to it when I find that flash card… You know that the soccer moms and my husband Todd had to drive miles on the highway to nowhere to get to the soccer fields and We had to use so much gas that I thought that it would be nice to build a pipeline to nowhere. So when I was the Mayor..Oops ..I mean as the executive of my state I sold this idea to Exxon and others and got the lobbyists to get in touch with Washington. If this pipeline had been approved I would have really been well versed with Foreign policy... Heck this pipeline would have gone through a foreign country…Yaa Know… Canada…

Posted by: Jack | October 3, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Governor Palin's apparent equivocation over the causes of climate change is at odds with Senator McCain's well-established position - why else does the campaign team devote a whole page of its website to climate change, describing policies for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/da151a1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm. It's also at odds with the conclusions of every reputable scientific body in the world. Frankly, Governor Palin looks more aligned with the Bush administration's discredited approach to climate change, which has helped to diminish the reputation of the United States among the rest of the world.

Posted by: Bob Ward | October 3, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Palin's performance was the result of coaching and scripting; not to be confused with experience or knowledge of the issues. She didn't answer the questions. I was an undecided, until last night. I found Palin's presence disturbing. The smirks while Biden was speaking, I found disrespectful. Is this how she will react to dignitaries in serious discussions? I found her "folksy charm" insincere and when she said she may not answer the questions the way the moderator or Biden wished - that instead she was going to speak to the people.... did she simply fail to understand that the people wanted her to answer the questions? Therefore, I would have to agree that Biden was the clear winner in the debate last night.

Posted by: Cyndi | October 3, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Biden won the debate, while being more than kind to Palin. Palin is a personality rather than a real candidate, in my opinion. Her effectiveness depends solely on whether or not one likes her type of personality. McCain is betting that we will like her, and are so shallow that we will vote on the person we like rather than the best candidate. Joe Biden is smarter and more knowledgeable than anyone else in this presidential campaign.

Posted by: Cathy | October 3, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I am curious why nobody is questioning Obama's lack of abiility to match McCain's statistics and experience but folks are questioning a VP on the same points? I have heard many pundits state that Barack Obama has become stronger during the campaign??? Yet, Sarah Palin is not allowed to grow and develop during her's? Come on people.

Posted by: Jen | October 3, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

She doesn't attribute all of man's activities to climate change, but she's yet to answer, here in the debate, or back in the Couric interview, if she attributes climate change to man's activities.

She's said it backwards three times, I don't think it's a slip of the tongue, but just proof that her internal dialogue on the subject is really just party line sound bites, not real opinions. They told her what to believe, and so she thinks she does, but she doesn't even know what it is.

Posted by: Paris Sinclair | October 3, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

At least Biden is concerned about the causes of global warming. How can you find solutions if you don't understand how/why you got to that point in the first place? When will we stop only treating the symptoms and not the problem itself?

Posted by: Sarah | October 3, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

From the debate, Palin’s stance on global warming issues, in a nutshell:

Is it real? You betcha! But I’m not one to attribute it to man. Also there is something to say about man’s activities. Also for cyclical. And I don’t want to argue about the causes. Drill, baby, drill! -wink-

Posted by: Rudy | October 3, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse


Palin view is a legitimate one. She needs to articulate her view in this way:

That multiple causes (not just greenhouse gases)affect climate change is a position held by a number of scientists.

one Example (find more):

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Causes_of_climate_change

How much of the current climatic change is attributable to greenhouse gases is debatable. But we should only engage in debate to the extent that it determines our course of action.

Based on the climatic changes (these changes are a, b, c,etc.) that we are currently witnessing we should: a, b, c (whatever her plan of action is)

Posted by: newton31 | October 3, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I was a centrist Republican until 7 years ago when it was clear that the Bush Admin was not fiscally responsible, and lied about our reasons to invade Iraq etc. I am just a centrist now. Obama and Mccain are both electable. Sarah Palin shouldn't even be involved in public service. She clearly did not have a handle on any of the issues that matter to Americans. I was surprised at how well she did, but avoided answering most of the questions all together. Biden did a good job of keaping his emotions under control, he is a diplomat and an experienced politician and it showed. I could go either way if you take Palin out of the Picture.

Posted by: John | October 3, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

re: "come on people" (jen)

not sure if you had the chance to read 80% of the political headlines this morning, but the overwhelming media position has been that she has improved her image significantly

Posted by: brehove | October 3, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

So, let me get this right. Palin is seriously more experienced than Senator Obama. Fact. Thus, if you can't vote for Palin because she's coached, I'm assuming you can't vote for Obama either. Third party?

Posted by: Gary | October 3, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Jen, one month before election day is a bit late to grow and develop your ability to be Veep.

Posted by: Joel | October 3, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

A few sentences by Palin sums up her experience: "Oh, yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate."

This is a person who would be a heartbeat away from the presidency and she admits she has no idea how Washington operates!
May God protect our nation.

Posted by: History Buff | October 3, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Pandering and standard political rhetoric, disquised as a vision, while either speaking in generalities, or totally ignoring the question. This is the typical Republican political machine, at its finest.

They really don't have a clear message or vision, and their strategis have not even been spelled out. Oh, the McCain-Palin tax cut and spend like a drunken sailor response to how much they despise government comes through real clear, but how they actually expect to reduce the national debt is missing in action.

They haven't a clue about fiscal discipline, so rather than articulate a plan, they goal is to run the meanest, nastiest campaign possible, hoping voters will be attracted to their lies about wanting to put more money in the pockets of the middle class, and the poor.

Stop the drama, vote Obama. Read the "Blueprint for Change" why Obama-Biden will win 341-197, or better. A Dem landslide is coming! Hip-Hip!

Posted by: Andrew L - Des Moines | October 3, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

newton31

"She needs to articulate her view in this way:That multiple causes (not just greenhouse gases)affect climate change is a position held by a number of scientists. "

I don't think after yesterday she'll need articulate ANY views. There's just no point.

Posted by: Sam | October 3, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin did not choke the way I thought she would, which was impressive. She did prove that for being a "rookie" she sure is a pro at skirting the issues. She kept falling back on the plugs. After a while I felt like I was watching something similar to Vanna White trying to sell a product in a commercial.

Posted by: Jill | October 3, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is all slogan without substance.

Posted by: Mike | October 3, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I completely agree with Cyndi. It was truly astounding. I just couldn't believe that she shifted around answering many of the questions and assumed that people would prefer to be spoken to as kindergardeners. Even her eye winks and facial expressions were simply ridiculous. It's like she was purposely to doing it to display that she had things under control and it wasn't no thang. Wait a minute... Maybe that was Tina Fey up there...

Posted by: Bubblegum police | October 3, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I had to reconsider lambasting some of the pro-Biden comments left here when I realized that those comments were probably left by writers for the Washington Post.

Posted by: DeleteThisPost | October 3, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

re: newton31

it appears that most objected to her response's ambiguity, not to its legitimacy. the vagueness was underscored by her excluding the cause as important. Biden's response capitalize on this weakness, obviously, by pointing out that understanding the cause is precisely what's at stake.

most understand global warming is more complex than a single cause--but as you suggested, focusing on certain causes is more politically useful than others (we can't change weather cycles like we can reduce C02 emissions)

Posted by: brehove | October 3, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Did she actually say she's "not one to attribute every activity of man to changes in the climate"? I'm not either, but I would attribute the changes in climate (effect) primarily to the activities of man (cause).

Palin also claims that it doesn't matter if climate change is cause by us or not... but doesn't that kind of influence what you do about it? We know how to combat it if it's due to greenhouse gas emissions. I'm not sure how we deal with it if it's just the "cyclical temperature changes of our planet," as she truly seems to believe. Though I guess I shouldn't be surprised when overwhelming scientific evidence is ignored by someone who still believes the earth is 6000 years old...

Posted by: Nick | October 3, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin went to great lengths to try to blame those dang furriners -- as if global warming only occurs if you burn FOREIGN oil. Silly and misleading.

Posted by: Wyosavvy | October 3, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how many people who commented here actually listened to the debate?

Sen Biden and Gov. Pallin agreed that Global Warming was a serious issue. (I don't know that George Bush has gone that far yet).

Where they disagreed was on how much of the current global warming is due to man.

Govenor Palin stated that it was not all due to human impact but she didn't come across like she really understood what she was saying.

Senator Biden indicated that the current global warming was ALL human caused and that you can't solve the problem if you don't understand it.


Govenor Palin was vauge and Senator Biden was not correct. We oversimplify problems too often and then wonder why our solutions don't achieve the desired outcome.

Posted by: David Liesch | October 3, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Biggest issue I have is that folks seem to link more US-based drilling with more oil usage. That is simply incorrect. The key to US-based drilling is independence from whatever oil we DO use. The combined goal should be less oil usage AND less oil dependency. Also drilling opens up more natural gas, a clearer source of fossil fuel.

In 10 years we want to be less dependent upon oil AND most of the oil we use should be from US-based operations.

As for global warming, if Biden implies it is 100% man-induced, well that is not a 100% accepted theory. And even if it is man-induced, there are plenty of theories other than simply fossil fuels. Though Palin may have danced a bit, she is probably more correct - there is no difinitive accepted answer.

Posted by: Mark | October 3, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Obviously we have the election process backwards, the vote should be at the end of the politicians term, if he/she does well he/she gets rewarded, if the vote is nay he/she gets the Marie Antoinette reward.

Posted by: Will Rodgers | October 3, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is being used by men, scripted, coached, and practically brainwashed, being told what to say. This exploitation should be well behind us in the 21st century.
The way Ms Palin is being treated is degrading to all women who have fought a long, hard struggle to have their own voices and thoughtful ideas heard.
You did not hear Sarah Palin last night. Anyone with a speck of sensitivity and intuition could tell something was wrong.

Posted by: The Assitant Village Idiot | October 3, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Not to be elitist, but a mere laborer has more command of current events than this woman. She should stay in her place (the home) and take care of her children who so obviously need her; her mere presence as a candidate for Vice President has set back women's rights a hundred years. Empty slogans and teleprompter perfection do not make a world leader. Obama/Biden '08 CHANGE you can believe in!

Posted by: the Buzzer | October 3, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone with a speck of sensitivity and intuition could tell something was wrong."

Yeah, you. Sarah Palin is not the person women want representing them. She is weak and dumb. Most women are not weak and dumb.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

very disappointed that she didn't produce any Youtube / SNL moments

Posted by: Rob | October 3, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"her children who so obviously need her; her mere presence as a candidate for Vice President has set back women's rights a hundred years. Empty slogans and teleprompter perfection do not make a world leader. Obama/Biden '08 CHANGE you can believe in!"

LOL. You can replace Palin with Obama and women with African-American! And then you end it with and empty slogan! Thanks for a good Friday laugh!!!

Posted by: mark | October 3, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I love how people can change from global warming to climate change. Isn't fair enough to say maybe we don't know much about the Earth weather since we have not been keeping track of it relatively long compared to the Earth’s history. The scientists don’t even know what the weather is going to do tomorrow but we should expect them to know what the climate is going to be like for the next 25 years. That is ridiculous. This is just one of those items to throw us from the thing that can actually be calculated and things that can be controlled. Carbon emissions cut them back plain and simple I’m not a scientist. Who cares how they got there lets get rid of them and prevent them in the future. Energy is important to an economy, if you need an example look at China’s increase in last few years and see how their consumption has gone up. To simply eliminate one source without a solution that can be distributed instantly or is well develop is idiotic, especially considering the state of the economy.

Jack from Cananada….Great commentary, that is all you can do to stay away from the issues at hand.

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

To quote the British Environmental Minister, Sammy Wilson, The Global Warming histeria is a "Psudo-Religion." You can read about it here. http://www.newsroomamerica.com/world/story.php?id=430361 I couldn't agree more! I'm glad to see that Sarah is on track with this one and sees the Green movement for Exactly what it is; A clver marketing stratagy for "Green" industries and a power grab at the govenmental level. Don't be suckers, folks! You need to look at hard facts, not miopic statistics. Go and find out for yourselves instead of letting those with a stake in the "Go Green" team feed it to you. If you don't, It will COST you a lot of money and FREEDOM. God Bless You Sarah Palin for having a brain and a backbone!

Posted by: Scott | October 3, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Palin comes off as being just what she says she is ... Joe (I mean Jane) citizen. The problem is, the job she wants is not a job for Jane (or Joe) citizen. I believe she could eventually have some political success at the national level if she spends the next several years thinking seriously about National issues and world events and has some success (shows some creativity) dealing with Alaska's problems. But today, she just doesn't possess the substance needed for national leadership.

DrJ

Posted by: DrJ | October 3, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Sarah Palin is good!...at evading questions, that is. While she showed a lot of self-assuredness, her answers seemed to consist of spoon-fed talking points, canned assertions that she was determined to bring up regardless of relevance. Biden on the other hand had an almost encyclopedic command of facts, and gave the impression that he had thought the issues through. In short, he looked like a statesman, she a confident parrot.

Posted by: Phyllis | October 3, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Independent voter. I don't see how Biden keeps insinuating to expect more of the same past 8 years if you elect McCain... When he has been a part of those years. In fact, the Dems have had control for the past 2 of the 8 years. While I think Palin has faults, she has more EXECUTIVE experience than anyone else on the tickets. Why doesn't she give the answers we expect? Maybe its because she hasn't learned the art of "professional deception" So, do we vote for a man with ZERO history or experience(unless we count taking roll) that SAYS he will bring change... and has aligned himself with a wild card for VP? Or do we vote for a self proclaimed "Maverick" that has been a part of the establishment all his life...with a VP that hasn't learned to professionally deceive, but has run her own "country" of Alaska? Why can't we fire them ALL and start fresh?

Posted by: Kool Aid | October 3, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I keep hearing the comment that Palin has more experience that Obama. Let's clear that up. Palin was a communications major who bounced around to a variety of different colleges until finally getting a BA, and then became a LOCAL TV SPORTSCASTER. Barak Obama is a honors graduate of the Harvard School of Law, who went directly into public service in Illinois---where a decent sized suburb has more complexity and a larger population than all of Alaska. He has not been in the Senate for a very long time, but while Palin was covering local soccer games on a third-rate news channel, Obama was pursuing an education in the laws of our nation, and in the way that our constitution works. There is absolutely no comparison between that and a local sportscaster, and anyone who thinks there is---is dillusional and dangererously so.

Posted by: Scott | October 3, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

In Palin's home state they drill for oil.
That means that millions of years ago it was a warm, lush environment teaming with Dying plants and animals which have since turned to oil. If I am not mistaken this was during one of the many previous "Globally Warmer" periods.

Get over yourselves (humans), the world has been getting cold (the ice ages) and getting hot all by itself for millions of years before we crawled out of the seas. The earth will continue to do so, long after we have collectively turned to dust.

Global warming fans are merely trying to feel more important, in the greater scheme of things, then we really turn out to be. Mother earth hardly notices us on her skin, much like the micro organisms crawling about on your tongue, just a mile case of bad breath which she will out live and brush away without a second thought.

Posted by: zaphod | October 3, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

GREAT Camp Counseler for president! I can track Palin's record.. Can you track Obama's?
PRESENT...

Posted by: Kool Aid | October 3, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Hands down Palin lost the Climate Change debate. Whether you agree with her or not she never articulated any specific data or scientific studies which is an integral part of even HAVEING a debate. Maybe she thinks that God is causing it. Granted Joe Biden didn't site any scientific details either but it's common knowledge at this point, the burden of proof lies on the Palin.

The bottom line is that greenhouse gasses are the most significant cause of global warming AND it's the one thing that we can do something about. We should have been debating this Ten years ago. Now it's time to get something done.

Posted by: Bryan | October 3, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Ok. Let's talk about experiance... Has Barak ever held dwn a legitimate job? The answer is NO. He went to Harvard and Colubia which means he is certainly so full of him self by now that he'll need a cup hanging on his backside to catch the parts of his ego that leak out! He volunteered at a crackpot church, then campaigned for president for his entire term in senate instead of actually doing his job! Thsi guy is a Joke and so are you if you've been duped. Wise up!

Posted by: The Other Scott | October 3, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"I keep hearing the comment that Palin has more experience that Obama. Let's clear that up. Palin was a communications major who bounced around to a variety of different colleges until finally getting a BA, and then became a LOCAL TV SPORTSCASTER. Barak Obama is a honors graduate of the Harvard School of Law, who went directly into public service in Illinois---where a decent sized suburb has more complexity and a larger population than all of Alaska. He has not been in the Senate for a very long time, but while Palin was covering local soccer games on a third-rate news channel, Obama was pursuing an education in the laws of our nation, and in the way that our constitution works. There is absolutely no comparison between that and a local sportscaster, and anyone who thinks there is---is dillusional and dangererously so. "

How is this “CHANGE” SCOTT? Sounds like every other Politian ever made. I love it this is to easy.

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Scott - Palin has more executive experience, that is simply a fact. Palin is running for VP, Obama for President - HUGE difference, way different qualities in what makes a good VP vs. a good president.

As for Obama's education - big deal. Education is NOT experience. Education is NOT the abilty to learn. Education is NOT the ability to lead.

Obama is a very well educated and seemingly smart guy, no doubt. However, what you need in a president is someone that can quickly process information and make a decision. You don't want a guy to sit around for a few days to a week and then render an opinion or decision. And that is what I fear from Obaman the most. That and the fact that theory is far from practice in real world conditions.

Posted by: Mark | October 3, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

The experience question--

Obama --
Bachelors Degree from Columbia and law degree from Harvard. Fully got into the schools on his own (not ala Dubya). Was considered the top in his class at both schools.
Experience in a major city as a community organizer, and helped numerous people with their housing situation.
Law school professor at the Univ of Chicago.
Two-term state senator from an urban district.
US Senator now for 4 years from a diverse state (urban/rural, many nationalities, etc).
Honestly compare him to Dubya circa 1999 --
do you even see the same brain power or understanding of the issues.

Palin --
BS degree in Journalism (and she can't even remember a newspaper she's ever read).
PTA board member, city councilman, mayor etc -- of a town of only 7000. Governor of Alaska, for only 16 months. Alaska --(aka smallest population and the "ice box" state). Alaskan diversity? -- outside of eskimos, the African-American or Hispanic population must be pegged permanently under 5000. Understanding of world issues?
Understanding of the law? Understanding of
science? Come on. McCain whiffed badly on this pick.

As for McCain himself..
Bachelors degree only from the Naval Academy (where he was known more for his bullying nature). Got into the Academy
strictly on the backing of his Admiral Daddy. Was known as a mediocre pilot and had some well-known crashes prior to being sent into combat. He was never in a leadership or decision making rank or situation while Vietnam was going on.
He served admirably as a tortured POW, and finally didn't take advantage of his family connection to get released. That being said, what has he ever done in life beside being a Navy brat, Navy POW, to Navy commander
(led a non war-time squadron after returning from Vietnam), and then Navy liason to Congress. Tben, he married all the money he has ever needed for living and for initially bankrolling his campaigns. Yes, he's served in the Senate a long time, but somehow he admits to not being very bright on economics, he showed that same lack of brilliance on science (long-time non-believer in global warming), and his answer to every foreign policy question is generally military use, threat of military use, posturing, and not speaking directly with leaders of other countries.

Posted by: Jeff | October 3, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"As for Obama's education - big deal. Education is NOT experience. Education is NOT the abilty to learn. Education is NOT the ability to lead."

And if you had education you would know that you are wrong.

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Palin didn't crash and burn so given the low expectations for her performance she got by. Biden was good, not great, but solid and got hit message across.

The one thing that bothered me in the debate is how each evaded questions. In one case Palin said "And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also."

Why have a debate if you're going to ignore the questions? Spin is one thing but blatantly ignoring questions is another. Biden was guilty of it but not to the same degree as Palin.

Very frustrating from my perspective.

Posted by: John - Burke | October 3, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"The bottom line is that greenhouse gasses are the most significant cause of global warming"

No, that is not a given. Nowhere do we know how much they contribute IF anything meaningful at all.

But in any case, BOTH sides are 100% into alternative energy. The difference with the McCain/Palin side is that they want to reduce the dependency we have on oil from other countries. They are NOT conflicting goals, in fact together they make the most sense.

Posted by: Mark | October 3, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

1st for the climate fanatics. the IPCC has said there has been no climate change in the last decade.

2nd the only, and again i repeat the only, cause and effect that science (not al gore) has found through iceborings is the effect of the sun's magnetic field on the earth's climate.

3rd through the iceborings, scientists have found eras before man existed where carbon dioxide was 15 times higher than todays level.

4th palin has far, far more executive experience than obama as he has none!!!!!!!

5th obama has the 3 crooks from wallstreet on his campaign staff. that is enough for me to vote against him.

Posted by: bob | October 3, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Let's clear the climate-change global-warming issue up for everyone. No one disputes that our planet goes through cycles of warming and cooling. This is well known and universally understood. Climate change is not an issue BECAUSE it is happening. It is an issue because the PACE at which it is happening is out of whack with the way in which a normal warming cycle should be occuring. The accelerated pace is the reason mankind is so clearly implicated.

Posted by: Scott | October 3, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"1st for the climate fanatics. the IPCC has said there has been no climate change in the last decade.

2nd the only, and again i repeat the only, cause and effect that science (not al gore) has found through iceborings is the effect of the sun's magnetic field on the earth's climate.

3rd through the iceborings, scientists have found eras before man existed where carbon dioxide was 15 times higher than todays level.

4th palin has far, far more executive experience than obama as he has none!!!!!!!

5th obama has the 3 crooks from wallstreet on his campaign staff. that is enough for me to vote against him."

How can you live with yourself when you make up 5 lies and parade them as the truth?

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Well what is the exact date that we should normally expect global warming Prof. Scott?

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

""As for Obama's education - big deal. Education is NOT experience. Education is NOT the abilty to learn. Education is NOT the ability to lead."

And if you had education you would know that you are wrong."

Education is NOT experience. C'mon, this is not even debateable. I've worked around enough PhDs and MS to know this is true. I'm sure you have too if you think about it.

Education is NOT the ability to learn. Again, this is 100% true. I've seen folks get straight As, top of their class, because they can memorize, because they study hour after hour, yet that does not mean that they have actually learned the concepts. Plenty of folks make it through college without learning all that much.

Education is NOT the ability to lead. This is not even debatable. Leaders come from all aspects of life - schooled and non-schooled. That you got a degree does not in any way, shape or form make you a leader by default.

I am not anti-education by any means. But just having an education does not make one qualified for a key decision-making position. Maybe the ultimate decision making position.

Posted by: Mark | October 3, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

As a democrat, I have always said that John McCain was the republican that I could see myself voting for. Palin completely erases that, however. It is impossible to vote for a man who may die while in office knowing that a person who believes that the earth is only 4000 years old could become president. It is scientific illiteracy to hold such a belief. McCain's choice was so bad, that his judgement should be called into question. He is clearly not the same man he used to be.

Posted by: Scott | October 3, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Science education lackers:

1) CO2 in the atmosphere is directly connected with the global temperature of earth. This is proven by ice and soil samples from the last million years.

2) Fossil fuels release CO2 when burned. Do I need to prove this too?

Use some logic, and anyone with a highschool degree can understand that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the enviroment, thus raise the temperature.

A little bit of this is not an issue, but the scale that humans use energy is an issue.

99.9% of the scientists, the people that spent their lives learning this, the people that know more then you about this, say that humans are causing global warming.

If you refuse to belive in facts, then you may also believe that dinosaurs walked with humans less then four thousand years ago. You probably still believe the earth is flat and the sun rotates around the earth.

In fact, if you do not beleive in global warming, I am astonished that you beleive in computers. Are then not just "evil boxes that steal your souls?"

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"Education is NOT experience. C'mon, this is not even debateable. I've worked around enough PhDs and MS to know this is true. I'm sure you have too if you think about it."

What? If you had an education, you would undertand that simply stating something does not make it fact. Was your personal experience with PhDs and MS a documented scientific study? If not, it is just an opinion, and it probably is wrong.

"Education is NOT the ability to learn. Again, this is 100% true. I've seen folks get straight As, top of their class, because they can memorize, because they study hour after hour, yet that does not mean that they have actually learned the concepts. Plenty of folks make it through college without learning all that much."

So what is it called when someone shows you something, and you remember it weeks later on an exam? I call that learning. I would agree that some things that you learn you lose if you do not use them, but that does not apply here since Obama used his education in the constitution to teach and become a politician. Again, your argument is severly flawed.

"Education is NOT the ability to lead. This is not even debatable. Leaders come from all aspects of life - schooled and non-schooled. That you got a degree does not in any way, shape or form make you a leader by default."

I agree here also. But education is a great helping factor in the ability to lead correctly. Hilter was a leader. McCain is a leader. Obama is a leader. Being a leader is a charasmatic talent, and someone with this talent and a good education LEADS PEOPLE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I'm sure McCain can lead, but he will lead us just like Bush did, into an economy depression because he is an idiot and doesn't know any better. Lemmings are leaders, they walk of cliffs and the rest follow. If they had an education they would know that walking of cliffs is bad and they would lead the other lemmings somewhere safer.

"I am not anti-education by any means. But just having an education does not make one qualified for a key decision-making position. Maybe the ultimate decision making position."

That is why it is great that Obama is such an inspiring leader because added to his education he will make one of the best presidents ever.

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Whew! Why do blogs inevitably end up in "screaming" matches?

It's a shame that at a time when everyone needs to join as a team to come up with some real answers, we are stuck with two sides that so passionately get wrapped up in hatred for each other. There are both good points and bad points about each candidate.

I think you must pick your issues that mean the most to you and vote for the lesser evil. The issue of environment is a passion to me, it's pretty obvious that it is the Democratic party that is going to do the most positive changes. (Or so I can only hope) Drilling in Alaska is a band-aid. We absolutely need to put a huge amount of money into finding alternatives.

Posted by: Jill | October 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

If we don't put a band-aid on it we will bleed to death. It is really that simple thanks Jill.

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we all just leave our refrigerator doors open and cool Mother Earth down?

Posted by: CrackHead | October 3, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"If we don't put a band-aid on it we will bleed to death. It is really that simple thanks Jill."

But if the band-aid only stops 3% of the bleeding, will the band-aid even work?

America uses 25% of the worlds oil production, if America can create 3% more we will still need to by 22%. This will not make a difference because the 3% we will get will be traded throughout the world, so we will only get 3% of 25% off, or .75% off. That means that you would save less then 1% at the pump by drilling for more oil.

Yay for $0.04 off each gallon of gas! I am sure the economy will be great once that is taken off.

Meanwhile, all the countries in the world that do not kneel before the oil companies are reducing production on gas gusseling cars, promoting solar and wind power at the residential level, and finding new wants to produce electricity without burning something.

Why is McCain against creating alternative fuels, producing them in American factories, creating jobs to support them, and exporting them to other countries to increase the value of the dollar? Because the oil lobbyist have already payed him to be against it. Fact.

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Like I said before, Barak Obama went to school for a long, long time (which doesn't make him qualified to run my business let alone the country) vouluteered a crackpot church (haling to handout blankets and get people hired at McDonnalds or something), campaigned for president for his entire term in senate (again, instead of doing his job). He may have been a college professor, but I have to ask again... Where is that experiance? Standing in front of people and talking about what you think that you're qualified to do IS NOT EXPERIANCE. Palin, on the other hand DOES have experiance... and she's just the VP pick. O.B is goin' for the big seat. He is so nieve and arrogant and you all who support him are absolute suckers! If he get elected, you derve whatever you get... taxes up the wazoo and ten times the buracracy. Or you can vote McCain Palin and save this country from the socialists.

Posted by: SCOTT | October 3, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

You comment can be summed up as follows:

Blah blah blah. Talking point about Obama being too young. Blah blah blah. Scare tactics against Obama. Blah blah blah. Palin talking points about experience.

The truth is many presidents were never in the senate at all, so Obama already has more experience that 30 people who were already president.

"Experience" is an empty noun. Experience means nothing if the experience you have teaches you nothing. McCain has experience being a politician who takes bribes from lobbyists. That is not the kind of experience we need as president. Obam has experience helping out poor and middle class people, which you mock, because you are so much better then the people below you.

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

You now have to use Timmy for your name. If we produce the Oil then we wouldn't be purchasing it now would we. We can produce well over the 25% of the World oil.
I don't really care about the price it is the transfer of wealth to other countries that I don't like.

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Here's some information...read it and make sure you understand it:

The U.S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oilmen knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been
updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North
Dakota; western South Dakota; and extreme eastern Montana ... check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit

the floor. They had no idea, says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years,' reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the
Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada. For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

>That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 41 years straight.

2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because
it's from TWO YEARS AGO, people! U.S.Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!

Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006 Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction.

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the
other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

>-8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

>-18-times as much oil as Iraq

>-21-times as much oil as Kuwait

>-22-times as much oil as Iran

>-500-times as much oil as Yemen- and it's all right here in the Western United States.

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this!? Because the democrats,
environmentalists and left wing republicans have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil.

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very
compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels. Untapped.

That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today,
reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all
about the competitive marketplace, - it has to.

Posted by: BC | October 3, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Wow the band-aid is looking like a hospital now.

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"You now have to use Timmy for your name. If we produce the Oil then we wouldn't be purchasing it now would we. We can produce well over the 25% of the World oil.
I don't really care about the price it is the transfer of wealth to other countries that I don't like."

Last time I checked the oil companies were not owned by America, so yes, we would still have to purchase it. I think I should call you Timmy.

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

If we can produce 25% of the earths oil, why does everyone with a brain and a economic reputation think we can only produce 3%?

because you are wrong.

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

thought she laid the folksy act on pretty thick, and her accent seemed overly contrived. It wasn't that thick in her previous debates. I actually found it pretty excruciating to listen to for 90 minutes.

Other than the overly cutsy "dog gonnit" Joe Six Pack nonsense, she didn't do much differently than she did in her debates running for governor, which was answer different questions than she was asked when she didn't know the answer, and unleash a BS storm, laced with outright untruths and misrepresentations. Tragically, too many people in this country easily fall for that kind of thing.

Can't we just put her on a reality show where she belongs, instead of letting this actress hold high office? Then all the folks who like her can still watch her act every week, but we won't be governed by fools - again. I'm really sick of getting what they deserve.

Posted by: Teri B. | October 3, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Some of you folks should be writers for SNL!! LOL

Many of the opinions expressed here are from obviously very biased people. You certainly have the right of opinion,as I, but after reading an analysis of last nights performance by many true professionals, the debate performance ratings are clearly very partisan. These are so predictable on both sides that they quickly become quite boring. The only important pulse is from the millions of undecided, unbiased, voters in this Country and the question of whether their impressions will translate to John McCain in November.

I felt that McCain performed poorly in the first debate and must improve his performance in #2 and #3, or Obama will likely win in November.

Regarding my opinion on last night's debate, Biden struggled to a close victory on substance but Palin won by a landslide on style.

48 years ago, John Kennedy won on style and was elected in Nov. 1960, even though Nixon won on substance.

Regarding their statements on "climate change". Neither of these two people are experts on this subject, therefore their opinions are of little interest. True experts are clearly divided, even though Mr. Biden seems to be 100% convinced of anthropogenic forcing being 100% to blame. This is somewhat disturbing since he may be a part of a new administration that has tunnel vision on this subject.

Will America face a new financial crisis a quarter century into the future because of a Gov. mandated war on "climate change", only to discover this to be a futile or unnecessary effort?

I ask this question because the unspoken truth is that we are in the grip of a severe financial crisis today because of a Gov. mandated "Affirmative Action" on our mortgage lending sector from and within Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. During good times, this was the politically correct thing to do, but now the chickens are coming home to roost.

We should have a future energy policy that moves as quickly as possible toward developing alternative sources of energy, but also preserves and protects our way of life in the interim. This includes keeping energy prices affordable during the next quarter century while we wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. This will include developing as quickly as possible our own sources of crude oil, before our dependence on foreign crude plunges us into World War 111.

The future could be quite interesting!

Posted by: Augusta Jim | October 3, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Interesting conversations. I would like to add the following for comment.
First, if Honda can produce a hydrogen fuel cell auto that is available for purchase (true only if you live in Los Angeles), why are we wasting money on subsidies to oil companies? Why don't we invest in something that is renewable?

Second, I am not sure what everyones current state of residence is. I recently moved to Alaska from Oklahoma and grew up in Wyoming, All three have been top oil dependent economies. How many times has this country faced an oil crisis? At least three times that I am aware of, the 1970's, the 1980's oil bust, and now the first decade of this century. If we are so dependent upon one resource when others are available does that make us ignorant or just stupid?

Third, the gas pipeline that Governor Palin is so happy about is being built by a Canadian company and will end in Canada (there are others proposed, but this is the big one). How does that help the United States? Gas in the supposedly rich oil producing state of Alaska has been well over $4 per gallon all summer and is just now $3.99 per gallon. How much is regular gasoline in your state? Is it a supposedly rich oil producing state like Alaska?

Fourth, global warming may be a by-product of our use of fossil fuels or it might just be a normal change for Earth. I do not really care about the cause. However, I am concerned when you live somewhere and the politicians and lobbyists want to cover everything with oil and gas wells, refineries, and huge pipelines. Casper, Wyoming used to have four petroleum refineries in the 1970's. In the 1980's we had the oil bust and guess what, three of the refineries stopped production, laid off their employees and closed (Conoco, Standard Oil and Texaco). You have not seen anything as beautiful as large acreages of rusting metal structures, oil tanks, and all of the trash they left for the citizens of Casper. You could look at the mountains or you could like at rust piles, it was sooo beautiful!

Now, for something completely different, questions I would like to have the answers for as I am not sure if they are true or not:

Doesn't Europe have tougher emission standards than the U.S.? Don't the auto manufacturers in Europe have cleaner running, more fuel efficient cars than we do? If this is true, why does our government prevent us from being able to import them and purchase them? Why did we bail out Chrysler if economically we could remove the import tariff's on foreign cars and save American's some money? Why are we now thinking we need to bail out General Motors and possibly Ford?

Posted by: DavidH | October 3, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

We cannot completely cut off oil as a source of energy...look at what a huge market it is in. Alternative energy will require time to establish...you have to get everybody on board and make sure the effects are not catastrophic...for instance if it requires the US to invest in or change to another platform, such as an engine running off oil vs some other energy fuel, think of the billions of dollars spent to change over...also the possibility that companies such as GM, Ford or Chrysler might not be able to produce this technology without going under, eliminating millions of jobs. Think about it, this is not an overnight fix, alternative energy is a must but must be approached carefully and in the best interest of the people it will effect.

Posted by: BC | October 3, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I think Palin won the energy debate as a whole. Both McCain and Obama support alternative energy, and McCain has a LONG history of being very pro-environment (just ask some of the conservatives who dislike him). He even supports carbon cap and trade. The difference, really, is McCain supports more domestic oil production along WITH alternatives.

And the "it won't do any good for 10 years" thing is smoke and mirrors from people who don't understand commodity markets. The oil price is high because the commodity traders are speculating and anticipating potential future shortages. If they know the domestic flood gates are going to open soon, the price will go down.

Palin's answer on global warming struck me as, I'm not sure how much man causes it, but its clearly happening, and the plus side for dealing with it both in terms of energy, environment, and national security means it cannot be ignored. I think that's a fair answer. And by the way, McCain has gone on the record saying he does believe man is the cause.

Posted by: Jim in Blacksburg | October 3, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2012 The Washington Post Company