Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Gore for president?
With his efforts to inform Americans of their effect on global warming, I believe that he would be the best canditate for president in the Democratic party. Not only for his environmental efforts, but also his experience as Vice President during the Clinton administration. He surely has more experience than Hilary. Hey, there is still 15 more months until the Presidential election and anything could happen. If Gore decided to run, who would vote for him? I definately would.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
You don't understand how much happiness this would give me!! First off, I am registered a Republican, but I would change to a democrat to have him as president. He is extremely caring and deserves to win this time. Please let this be true!!
I do appreciate Gore for his environmental efforts, especially concerning pollution. However, I think the whole global warming thing is still a bit of an uproven subject. I've seen positive and negative data on the relationship of carbon emissions and global warming. About fourty or so years ago, scientists made fun of people for even bringing the subject up, now its the complete opposite. It could just all be media hype and biased research. I mean, there are jobs soley constructed around global warming, there has to be some sort of bias.
He is currently riding too much celebrity for me to vote for him. If he did run he would barely have to speak to the issues, even less than most candidates have to. I like the unknowns or the up and comers such as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Ron Paul is crazy but what a fun time it would be to see everyone leave the nation if he were elected president.
>However, I think the whole global warming thing is still a bit of an uproven subject.
Not in the official scientific community there isn't. A study was done a few years ago that examined over 900 research articles in academic journals and not a single one disputed global warming.
>I've seen positive and negative data on the relationship of carbon emissions and global warming.
The information that opposes global warming doesn't come from valid scientific sources.
>About fourty or so years ago, scientists made fun of people for even bringing the subject up, now its the complete opposite.
This is because if you look at the historical trends on warming and cooling, we are supposed to be in a cooling trend over the last few decades. People who said otherwise were laughed at because we were supposed to be getting colder. Over time, though, the evidence became clear that the opposite was happening because of human activity, which means that things could be a lot worse if we were in a natural warming trend on top of the human-made trend.
>I mean, there are jobs soley constructed around global warming, there has to be some sort of bias.
All of these jobs (except Al Gore) are on the anti-global warming side and these people produce most of the anti-global warming research.
I'm not saying I'm against the idea of global warming. I'm just not convinced yet. 40 years ago scientists were also claiming there was going to be another ice age. There were plenty of research articles claiming it was coming, and the media even frenzied over it. There has been cooling and heating trends the entirety of human history. Plants, dead leaves, the ocean and volcanoes spew out tons of CO2 (collaboratively more so than humans), but it is humans who get pegged as the culprits. If anything--if CO2 emissions does cause global warming, I don’t see it as completely our fault.
The government gives grants to scientists to research global warming, and EPA even has a part of their web site dedicated to the subject, so I know there are plenty of people being supported by global warming research. I can’t find an anti-global warming web site up by the government, I'm sure that would be bad form... If there were I’m sure that would make activists crazed.
Also with this mainstream frenzy over the subject, I can see why there would be so many articles. It’s a popular subject, just like obesity is… which is why you find thousands upon thousands of articles on the subject.
I’ve had so many teachers give me information towards and against the idea, so really I don’t know who to believe. I also feel that when people claim they are tentative when it comes to or even opposed to global warming, they're looked down upon. I just saying, I’m still not entirely convinced!
>I'm not saying I'm against the idea of global warming. I'm just not convinced yet.
And I'm not trying to convince you or look down on you, just trying to help you make an informed decision.
>40 years ago scientists were also claiming there was going to be another ice age.
That's because we were. Global warming has reversed that trend and stopped us from going into an ice age.
>There has been cooling and heating trends the entirety of human history.
Yes, but there have never been reversals this quickly.
>Plants, dead leaves, the ocean and volcanoes spew out tons of CO2 (collaboratively more so than humans), but it is humans who get pegged as the culprits.
We get pegged as culprits because we are the only new factor added to a totally new trend. All these other things existed in the past and we've never had change like we're currently going through.
>If anything--if CO2 emissions does cause global warming, I don’t see it as completely our fault.
Of course not, as with everything else, the causes are multiple and complex. But the part caused by humans is something we can do something about, that's why it's an issue.
>The government gives grants to scientists to research global warming, and EPA even has a part of their web site dedicated to the subject, so I know there are plenty of people being supported by global warming research.
But all of these jobs would still exist if it weren't for global warming research, which is only one part of their jobs.
>I can’t find an anti-global warming web site up by the government, I'm sure that would be bad form... If there were I’m sure that would make activists crazed.
That would also make scientists crazed. It would be like having a site that was opposed to the theory of gravity.
>Also with this mainstream frenzy over the subject, I can see why there would be so many articles.
But this is totally beside the point. I'm not talking about popular articles or opinion articles. I'm talking about scientific articles that report the results of scientific research. All of these articles over the last 10 years agree that global warming is happening and it is influenced greatly by human activity. There is no valid scientific evidence that disagrees on global warming.
>I’ve had so many teachers give me information towards and against the idea, so really I don’t know who to believe.
Don't believe any of them. That would be the argument from authority. Look at the research, not at what a teacher says. Besides, any teacher who isn't a climatologist isn't qualified to give an opinion on global warming itself.
>I also feel that when people claim they are tentative when it comes to or even opposed to global warming, they're looked down upon.
While it isn't valid to look down upon people who aren't convinced, it also isn't valid for an untrained person to reject scientific evidence without clear and compelling evidence that proves the opposite. On global warming, no such counter-evidence exists. A good place to start reading on this subject is: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Maybe, he prob would be better then Bush.
I wish he would. Maybe this time around he would actually win Florida without having it taken away. Kathleen Harris has left the building.
Braytez Barnes
POS 2041
Thursday 7:15p.m.
Post a Comment