New Cabinet position-for Global Warming-why not?

Question

Even if you are one of the ostriches, wouldn't you want someone in visible authority to look at the issue so there could be open and public debate? Not secret editing of scientific memos-

Answer 1

Already too much hot air emanating from the White House.

Answer 2

Nice idea.... but only in theory. Look how many people we have in government that are already supposed to be responsible to serve the people's best interests. All those people, from the President, the Cabinet, on down to the most measly legislator took an oath to serve us, the electorate. How many of them do you think actually do? How many of them listen to big corporations and lobbiests instead? Sure we make another cabinet position, somebody who will already be beholden to his or her appointer, and see much more corruption and waste we'll have to endure. Let's take a lesson from history, wasn't the EPA supposed to do all that stuff? Now I read they are relaxing standards for arsenic in water, power plant emissions, and so on. How about the FDA and US Dept of Agriculture making sure our food is safe, Not!...samonella anyone? How about Don Rumsfeld making sure our service men and women had the protective vests and equipment they needed before they were sent in harms way? How about FEMA rebuilding New Orleans and the gulf coast. How about the Department of Homeland Security securing our ports and borders? I could go on, but you get the idea. In the meanwhile I'll do my part to minimize my own carbon footprint:)

Answer 3

Why? Wouldn't it be covered by one if not many cabinet level positions already? Would you wrap part of interior and the EPA into that, so demote those two levels? Or will it just create another level of bearacracy that will be influenced by political gain and not the science behind the issue?

Answer 4

Absolutely NOT. Global warming is purely a political movement. Here is why I feel this way:

The primary argument in support of man made global warming is that there is a correlation in the rise of CO2 and the global temperature. This was most famously pointed out by Al Gore in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. Al Gore was correct in this assessment, and during his presentation he showed the correlation of CO2 and temperature over the last 650,000 years. However, his claim is that CO2 causes the temperature to rise and that is incorrect. In reality the temperature causes the level of CO2 to rise and fall. If you were to take a closer look at Al Gore’s timeline, you would see that the rise in CO2 lags behind the rise of temperature by roughly 800 years. That consistency has existed for at least 650,000 years. Al Gore chose to leave out that vital piece of information. How is it that CO2 trails behind temperature? As the temperature rises the result is that the world’s oceans emit more and more CO2. As the temperature decreases, the oceans emit less CO2. The reason for the lag time is that the world’s oceans are so big and deep that it takes hundreds of years for them to heat and cool. In fact, oceans are the world’s largest source of CO2.
CO2 is not a pollutant, and is required for most things to live. Both you and I are composed of CO2! Of all the gases in the atmosphere such as oxygen, nitrogen, etc., CO2 makes up only .054%. Of that percentage, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of humans is a mere single digit percentage of the .054. It is an astronomically small number. Still, those who support the concept of man made global warming use non sequitur logic to insist humans are the cause.
In the last 150 years, the temperature has risen just over half a degree Celsius. Most of the increase took place prior to 1940. In the post war economic boom when humans were putting all time high levels of CO2 into the atmosphere, the temperature dropped until 1975. After that it began to increase again. If you take a look at only the last 150 years, CO2 levels do not correlate to temperature as some would have you believe.
Now take a look further into the past. About 1000 years ago the temperature was significantly higher. It then dipped into a “mini ice age” and has since then increased. Did the world come to an end 1000 years ago because the temperatures were so low? Of course not, so why all the doom and gloom talk? Polar bears adapted just fine to the changes the mother Earth was experiencing. Humans survived too along with just about every other species.
Every year supporters of man made global warming point to articles showing the edge of the ice caps melting, and icebergs melting away. They fail to acknowledge that it happens every single year as seasons change, just as leaves fall off of trees every year during the fall. The Earth goes through periods of warming and cooling. It is perfectly natural. We should not and can not change this fact. The ice caps will increase in size when the Earth cools again.
Clearly the current temperature trend is an increase, but it is not a result of human activity. What then causes it? You need look no further than the bright orange ball in the sky, our sun. There is a stunning correlation between solar activity and the temperature on Earth. Many scientists believe that as the sun goes through phases of increased activity and an increase in sun spots, the result is the heating and cooling of our planet. Isn’t that a far more likely possibility than the flimsy argument that my opposition sets forth?
We can not afford to drastically reduce or prevent the usage of coal and oil as a precautionary measure just in case man made global does exist. There are over two billion people who don’t have electricity, or 1/3 of the Earth’s population. In Africa there is an abundance of coal and oil that could be utilized, but currently is not due to political pressures to save the planet from harmful man made global warming. The result is that countries in poverty are unable to develop into industrialized nations at a sufficient rate, and at this pace may never be able to. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying as a result of poverty. My critics will say that wind and solar energy should be used instead of coal and oil, but that technology costs three times as much as the conventional methods we use to power our homes, and it is not nearly as reliable. Why should the most impoverished people in the entire world have to pay the most just to have mildly reliable electricity? The thought is unfair and disgusting.
The concept of man made global warming is so popular because it is now a political movement. The explanation of how we got to this point will have to be saved for another time.

Answer 5

No! I am not an ostrich, but I do not trust that an employee of the president will be truthful and look out for the benefit of the world and not the benefit of the president - or themselves. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you ...... right.

Answer 6

This is going to be a huge financial market. It's in the best interest of the USA to capitalize on technology and industry that caters to this movement. Who cares if its real? Let's all make money.

Answer 7

Sure. Why not. They could just put a tax on air to found it. People already pay for air just look the next time you go to the gas station. JUST TAX IT.

Answer 8

the whole issue of golbal warming is bull shot, i'ts only a cycle the world goes through every few thousand years

Answer 9

Only if you have one for UFOs, crystal pyramid power and a Wicca priestess also.