Which Republican presidential nominee do you most agree with on global warming?

Question

Huckabee calls climate change "a spiritual issue."

"We ought to be moving rapidly toward energy resources that don't have a greenhouse gas effect."

Last spring, Thompson seemed to mock the issue. More recently, as a presidential candidate, he has said global warming is real.

At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire in October, Giuliani said: "Yes, global warming is happening. Yes, human beings are contributing to it. No, it is not an hysterical emergency that has to be dealt with...it should be dealt with as a long-term emergency in a sensible, mature sound way in which we allow our economy to grow."

McCain favors caps on greenhouse gas emissions, a "cap and trade" policy as a market-based way to spur industries to take action, and higher fuel standards for vehicles. He has been highly critical of the Bush Administration on global warming.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3922730&page=1

Which of these candidates do you most agree with?

I forgot Romney:

He does now acknowledge that mankind has contributed to global warming. When asked about it at his "Ask Mitt Anything" events, he often says he is in favor of reducing United States dependence on foreign oil by developing alternative cleaner fuels, and the use of nuclear power.

LOL - Tancredo is a complete jackass.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/climate/index.html

I'm asking it in 2 sections because it's the political perspective of an environmental issue. I want to get the political and environmental perspectives on it.

Answer 1

Dude, I thought you lived in Canada? What is your Prime Ministers position? At this point in the political cycle it's too early to pin candidates to specific issues. The Republican position on Global Warming will need to be something like - market based system that allows flexibility for American ecomomy, etc. PS A democrat is going to win anyway. ;)

Answer 2

I do not care about any candidates view point, global warming is not a presidential campaign issue, it is more of an issue that must be handled by the congress and the senate. And they seem to be more interested in fighting with Bush than solving any so called problems.


"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Environmental activists are frustrated. They can't get the issue of global warming into the presidential campaign.
"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/19/schneider.climate.forum/index.html

Answer 3

Actually if global warming is due to man??? Then I like Giuliani answer, I don't like him, but I like that answer and nobody can deny we need to get less dependent on foreign oil, thats just a no brainer!! No drastic action should be taking at the moment due to our projections range from and increase of temp from 1C to 6C.. that right there tells you the climate models are not in agreement. So we don't know what the future holds for us. So no point and taxing the people until we have a handle on the science. But yes get less dependent on foreign oil and try to clean up the air. But now GW has gotten so big it's past science. It's gone to a whole new level of politics and the thing to do is go green.. it's like a fad, like the terrible eighties of stone washed jeans and mullets!!!!! So your not going to get an honest opinion from any politician on there goal for a greener future. They feed the public what they think they want to hear. No politician holds up to their end of the deal!!!

Answer 4

I don't agree with any of the candidates because they are missing critical data. These guys have zero backgrounds in emissions, the creation of them or what might be causing the globe to warm. These guys and girl are administrators, they are depending on the science because it is impossible to do effective policy without the science.

The arguments on climate change further complicates the discussion because they have to balance economy and environment. To produce economy requires producing emissions. Some people are telling these administrators we need to curb GHG emissions and the administrator asks if they are willing to give up their employment? If they put you out of work and reduce emissions, do you care? You are trying to look after your family and you need to be employed to do that job effectively.

Al Gore brought the global warming issue to the forefront, the science is lacking or professionals would be on board now. Our laws are all about sustainable development, we just couldn't see outside the calculator for verification.

The earth's surface temperatures are monitored with thermostats, the buildings are designed with temperature completed in a calculator. At the end of the day, the entire building industry is signed off as compliant and insured.

The guess work is how they came up with the idea that buildings, development and anything we do on the surface of the planet is absorbing the sun's rays. From there, the discussion came about as to how are we warming the globe?

Burning fossil fuels for economy came into question because there are emissions associated with that. The CO2 theory kicks around and that one makes objective scientists crazy. How the hell do you heat an atmosphere and change weather with CO2? CO2 is plant food and the trees take it in and give off oxygen, it sounded simple to say quit chopping down all the trees. How do you melt polar caps with CO2?

Weather is the interaction of 3 things; they are water vapor, air pressure(cold or warm air) and temperature. It takes the change of any one of those factors to change weather, warm the globe and change climates.

In all of our assumptions about climate, weather and surface temperatures of the planet, we didn't consider the UV factor.

When we get an x-ray, they protect parts of your body because this fast moving wavelength is going to go through your body. UV is not as fast moving as an x-ray, it is fast enough to cause excitation of human skin and burn us. The same UV is causing the excitation of absorbent building finishes. The excitation is causing the building exterior to generate extreme heat the building isn't designed for.

Thermografix Consulting Corporation completed over 17,000 hours of the most advanced thermal imaging applications in the world to verify UV exposure. Buildings are generating heat that can approach boiling temperature. Due to the fact the heat couldn't be qualified we react to the symptoms with air conditioning, electrical waste, GHG emissions and radiated heat as high as 198 degrees F. The heat emissions from all buildings isn't being considered for contributing to lower air pressure and changing weather.

Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.html and see the heat generation with UV. The site has graphic visuals of temperature that will show you how you can make a difference.

The information you see on the page has been forwarded to the Canadian Prime Minister and Environment Minister asking for an audience based on an unprecedented environmental emergency. I am also asking my government to allow me to present for parliament and the UN meeting on climate change. Every city, state, province and country has this UV consideration, they need to paint, shade or coat for UV resistance. That is how global warming is going to be addressed.

I am just in the process of inspecting a highrise apartment, brand new, geo thermal energy used and the owners are upset with the function of their building from a comfort and energy use perspective. The first order of business for me was informing the owners and the engineer that the building is designed for a maximum of 92 degrees F. I sent them to the link above so they could see how UV is causing their building to generate heat twice the 92. That changes the entire function of the building and misrepresents the intent of geo thermal energy.

Answer 5

Don't worry. Regardless of who's elected, the world will keep warming or cooling, revolving around the sun and spinning on its axis.

No presidential candidate of either party is going to do what you want. Relax and go enjoy your life.

Answer 6

Giuliani is the least scary because I don't think he would act rashly. The fact that these non-scientist politicians say it is real is meaningless and goes further to indicate it is more about politics and faith than science.

Answer 7

Tom Tancredo

Answer 8

Why are you asking this in two sections of Y!A at a time?

Answer 9

Duncan Hunter he doesn't listen to all that BS about global what ever. but if your but if your smart you well invest in all the BS money making schemes that are coming down the pike.

Answer 10

Why should we listen to Politicians they are not climatologists?