VP debate game thread

[allvol123]

More from Biden:

Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Gov. Palin and Joe Biden.
If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.

So he knows what the cause is? It is manmade? So he knows, but fails to tell us exactly what it is, right? What am I missing here? I cannot read the Biden code.

[TennTradition]

Originally Posted by allvol123

More from Biden:



So he knows what the cause is? It is manmade? So he knows, but fails to tell us exactly what it is, right? What am I missing here? I cannot read the Biden code.

I remember thinking that he said that incorrectly during the debate. I'm sure something along the lines of "man's emission of greenhouse gases," but he missed pretty badly..."we know the cause, the cause is man-made."

[TennTradition]

Originally Posted by KB5252

I respect your views on this subject greatly, however I am sick of the debate about whether it is man made or not. I am pretty sure most Americans can agree man has an effect on the environment around him. What we need to do now is try and distinguish man made vs natural/cyclical warming and try to work out a compromise instead of short selling ourselves with restraints without any real idea of the extent of our impact.

It is a very complicated issue and neither side has it right. Sadly it has become the new "controversial issue" that defines your party affiliation. Before any politician says something as strong as "it is man made without a doubt" we need to know just how true that statement is! American policy can be affected by statements like this.

I agree completely with your sentiments. There is nothing gained from further polarizing the issue...and we absolutely don't need more rhetoric. However, I think that we probably disagree on how much we know about man's impact...or know about the extent of our impact. The IPCC (and its task forces which are made up scientists from around the world) has combed through the scientific literature to make assertions about the extent of man's impact. I tend to accept those conclusions. I'm somewhat beyond the temperature issue...and now I'm more interested in how well we can predict the effects of that temperature increase - and I think that this could certainly be better (especially considering the $$ if we do something for no reason or don't do something when we should have).


Do you think the issue is that we need more studies...Or is the issue a perception that the existing studies are biased and therefore null and void? ....or is it that the politicians are just saying these things to make dramatic appeals but don't really understand it ... and aren't fully assessing the impact of their actions - either on the climate or the economy?

[KB5252]

Originally Posted by TennTradition

I agree completely with your sentiments. There is nothing gained from further polarizing the issue...and we absolutely don't need more rhetoric. However, I think that we probably disagree on how much we know about man's impact...or know about the extent of our impact. The IPCC (and its task forces which are made up scientists from around the world) has combed through the scientific literature to make assertions about the extent of man's impact. I tend to accept those conclusions. I'm somewhat beyond the temperature issue...and now I'm more interested in how well we can predict the effects of that temperature increase - and I think that this could certainly be better (especially considering the $$ if we do something for no reason or don't do something when we should have).


Do you think the issue is that we need more studies...Or is the issue a perception that the existing studies are biased and therefore null and void? ....or is it that the politicians are just saying these things to make dramatic appeals but don't really understand it ... and aren't fully assessing the impact of their actions - either on the climate or the economy?

All of the above really. I think the studies can be viewed as biased. There are some that agree and others that don't, they know much more than I so I have to trust their judgment. If a few studies come to the same conclusion from different angles then I would have to agree with the assessment.

Now we come to the issue of what to do. There are those in the "global warming agenda" that want to use it to further their agenda (America and capitalism=evil) and level headed and practical people of all kinds need to go out of their way to marginalize them. People like Al Gore need to also be marginalized because it obvious to many he promotes and imbellishes it for monetary gain, at least that is how many perceive it. Until this is done many will not trust in the issue.