Given the current lack of knowledge as far as human contribution to the alledged global warming crisis, all of them appear to be basically pandering. Short of putting out the sun, their proposals and those of the Democratic hopefuls are basically window dressing on a perceived problem that humans are powerless to do anything about.

If I were a one-issue voter, I would write in Bill the Cat for President.

I assume you will also be covering the global warming positions of the Democrats for neutrality's sake. (Reply: I actually did a while ago, right after their first debate) I think the best way to see a candidate's stance on global warming is not through their words. It's better to look at their voting records and their proposed policies. Barack Obama recently released his energy and global warming policy and it is very specific and aggressive. It includes a cap-and-trade program with 80% reductions of 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 2050 and 100% auctioning of permits. I would like to see candidates on both sides of the table lay out their cards in this way.

Seem like measured responses for the most part. I agree with Romney, we should drill for more of our own resources and stop acting like we have made any serious dent in the capacity of the Earth to supply oil based products. Therefore, we should poke holes in ANWR as soon as possible. Using modern drilling methods, nature would barely feel the scratch.

Say Brett: Can we hear about what the LIBS, er I mean the Dems, want to do and how much they want to tax us to death.

Reply: I actually did a piece on the dems after their first debate, but that was awhile ago. I'll do an update on their stances in the near future.

Obama: 80% reductions of 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 2050

That would be impossible. It would require the end of all life on the planet. Only a politician would make a promise like that without checking the details, and only a total putz would vote for their own extinction.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/images/NewFlowFig2.gif

McCain has the best plan, but it's very encouraging that most of these candidates agree with the scientific consensus on AGW, and that we must do something about it.

There was a time, not too long ago, when Republicans and other supporters of corporate welfare wanted to eternally "study" this problem, stonewalling any possible mitigation strategy. Now we have turned the corner. We've "studied" the problem to death -- Bush's climate panel even sides with the IPCC conclusions -- and now we see scientific knowledge influencing public policy.

There will always be corporate apologists and anti-environmentalists that believe that we should do absolutely nothing, but fortunately for us, their 'voice' is largely heard only on Internet blogs.

Im not very good with politics Brett, only global warming. The two are completely different. Should we not try to make our cars get more miles to the gallon? YES! It makes sense to do that, it would save us money and conserve oil because it will not last forever. Face it, biofuels are not coming for awhile! If my car can get 50mpg ill take it!

Is climate change politics? No! Is oil conservation and energy reserve politics? Yes! I think people mix the two together.

All these polititons need to know is when we take fossil fuels from the Earth at ambient temperature and release its energy in the form of BTUs this alone adds to the total heat budget of GODS good Earth. Now they have to factor in the emissions they create and what are the consequences of those emissions.The consequences are almost endless. Health issues like skin cancer,lung cancer, heart attacks,asthma, strokes,WAR etc. etc..
Climate effects like drought,floods,melting Arctic ice,rising sea levels,earthquakes,volcanos,landslides,tsunamis,more hurricanes,tornados,winter snow storms,lack of snow,
loss of coral reefs,extinction of species both land and sea.

This is going to cost many trillions of dollars in the future my Tunnels prevent all that.

Hi,

Hottest please, No way no how. Bunch of political BS just like the debates. Doesn't matter who's on first. We can say anything just skew the facts. True if Dem or Rep. CO2 is not a driver of climate period. Land use and deforestation have more effect than any amount of CO2.

First of all, Brett, you quote an article from the NY Times--big mistake. Bad source for information about anything other than the days date.
The world MAY be warming, but it's not the first time it's done so. I don't believe it's caused by any human activity(who caused it the last time?). True, we can make messes and we have, for the most part, cleaned them up. But the idea that we have caused warming is preposterous, and the notion that we can stop it is even more so.
I keep my space clean and have participated in river cleanups. We should all do our part, but if the earth is, indeed, warming there's not a thing we can do to stop it. As for me, I hope I live long enough to tan myself on the beaches of the Gulf of Alaska.
Warm thoughts,
Ray

At least Giuliani recognizes the continued utilization of coal and, hopefully, nuclear technology.

Mark;
I know it seem hopeful but remember who we are talking about.
It is no accident that the nobel plans to save the world are targeting 2050. They will pay lip service to the issue as long as public opinion is on the AGW side. As soon as the tide changes and the true facts emerge, public opinion will change and so will the politicians positions.
This is a very clever way to buy time to let the science mature.
Our prime minister here in Canada also states platitudes about Climate change. We all know his real belief however, he is really not stupid but he know what it takes to stay in power.
This too shall pass.

I know, I know, there goes Brett with more political stuff.

Brett: It's can't be avoided. These Enviro-gestapos have made it political. It is not about the redwoods, the polar bears, or the children. It's about government control. Don't ever have second thoughts about posting any story about the Global Warming Fraud and politics.

As for the GOP candidates making themselves look good for the cameras with their "ideas," why not try this. Become less dependent on foreign oil BY DRILLING FOR OUR OWN OIL IN ALASKA, IN THE ATLANTIC, AND IN THE PACIFIC???? GASP, CAN'T DO THAT!!!...WE MIGHT HARM THE SEA OTTER OR THE CARIBOU!!!.....CAN'T DO THAT!!!...IT WILL ACTUALLY MAKE OUR ECONOMY BETTER AND THAT WOULD BE UNFAIR!!!...CAN'T DO THAT!!!!..IT MIGHT ACTUALLY LOWER THE PRICE AT THE PUMP MAKING THAT EVIL SWINE GEORGE BUSH LOOK GOOD!!!!...When are you people (lefties) going to realize that Coal, Oil and Nuclear are the ONLY engergy sources out there that will keep a high tech western economy viable, and that all other fuel sources will send us back to the stone age??? And that you CAN'T CONTROL THE WEATEHR!!!!!!

Save the planet from hot air. MUZZLE A BS-ING POLITCIAN!!!!!!

During the suffering of the dust bowl in the 1930s many Christians recognized the need to return to God. A strong faith in Oklahoma made the heat and drought stop. now we need a spiritual revival like the past to stop the flooding of the planet. If people do not listen to Al Gore we will all end up like the days of Noahs Arc. Most of the world will be underwater in the next few years, long before we all die.

Wow, Oiznop. Who's paying you to write things like you just did? It is about the polar bears and the caribou, by the way.

"Other fuel sources will send us back to the stone age?" Your affected bursts of drama do not a legitimate debate make.

Where's your faith in capitalism? People can create superior green technology, so doesn't the market dictate that green technology will be adopted and used? How can the adoption of superior technology possibly send us back to the stone age?

Whether green tech sends the Right's collective stock portfolios back to the stone age is another story all together, and I suspect where the real problem lies, and why you lie, as well.

This posturing by the politicos is aimed at getting the "green" vote. On a scale of 1-10 for issues of importance, AGW doesn't even make the list. AGW is not a "crisis" and we can't do anything meaningful about it anyway. CO2 is not a pollutant - we should be concerned with things that are polluting our air but CO2 doesn't qualify.

It's time for the fear-mongers to "chill out." I'm sure there is some government program somewhere for those afflicted with "global warming syndrome."

Now, here's a "philospher" who has the right idea. Warning: He uses profanity in this YouTube clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

"And that you CAN'T CONTROL THE WEATEHR!!!!!!"

My "TUNNELS" can control the weather by regulating SSTs. "Computer Modeling" will prove it.

The 80% of 1990 levels by 2050 is of anthropogenic (human) emissions and is the amount established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that just won the Nobel Peace Prize. The estimates are scientific based on the amount of greenhouse gas the Earth can uptake and the predicted climate impacts beyond this. Several Republican candidates for president also support these limits, including McCain. Though the Right tends to focus on nuclear power and the left on renewables, action on climate change is not the exclusive provenance of either party. Politics are being redefined because the issue is crucial to all people, economies, and world stability.

Very interesting mix of comments from people. Amazing how polarizing this issue of energy can be. Amazing to me how far on each side people can swing to the point of being completely illogical.
The apathy I'm reading towards any climate change whether it is human induced or natural is pretty appalling. Research has shown that there have been many great civilizations in the past that have crumbled due to minor climate change. Ray, if sunbathing in Alaska is something that people there are practicing in the future...most of humanity will probably be living in the stone age. I do like McCain's potential policy, cap & trade has worked for acid rain causing pollutants and I believe it can work for gw gases. Whether or not you believe in the whole issue of anthropogenic warming, you still need to bow to the fact that oil is finite commodity. My newborn son is going to have a tough time heating his home if oil costs several hundred dollars a barrel. Conservation of our domestic sources of energy now is our civilizations only prospect for future generations.

"This posturing by the politicos is aimed at getting the "green" vote. On a scale of 1-10 for issues of importance, AGW doesn't even make the list. AGW is not a "crisis" and we can't do anything meaningful about it anyway. CO2 is not a pollutant - we should be concerned with things that are polluting our air but CO2 doesn't qualify."

OK! How about these other elements.

Co2 doesn't Qualify. OK how about breathing in NO2,SO2,H2S04,HN03,lead sulfide, cyanide,Arsnic,Vanadium Pentoxcide,Plutonium and a few more on this list provided.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1569408&pageindex=3

The great thing about democracy is that usually problems are dealt with by middle-of-the-road responses. The GOP responses are just that. The suggestions to begin building new nuclear power plants again, to drill for US-sourced oil, to pursue cleaner coal technology, to increase milege standards for vehicles - these are all sensible solutions that will help the US and the environment under just about any likely set of future circumstances. Global warming or not. And these are actions that by and large the public will support because they are understandable and they make sense.

On the other hand, when it comes to investing untold trillions for an unproven theory (AGW), based solely on computer models that seem to simply ignore the causes of all previous climate changes, well, I would suggest that the public (Republican or Democrat) just is not convinced. Just try to add a carbon tax to the price of gasoline! You gotta be kidding!

The GOP candidates' positions are exactly right. First do no harm.

I think Ozio's post is a perfect example showing how deniers are largely to blame for bringing politics into the mix.

Relying so heavily on a finite resource is the quickest way to the stone age.

Dave,

...cap & trade has worked for acid rain causing pollutants and I believe it can work for gw gases.

Make sure you include dihydrogen monoxide in with the other GW gases. We will definitely have to keep that dangerous compound's numbers down.

My newborn son is going to have a tough time heating his home...

Not to worry, GW is here. He won't have to heat a thing.

Mark,

Until you can prove that the environmental green zealots over the last 40 years -- the ones who constantly lobbied and continue to lobby congress for more government controls over the bogus theories of Global Cooling and Global Warming -- were never politically motivated in their efforts, your comments about "deniers being to blame for bringing politics into the mix" are equally as bogus. I challenge you to do so.

GSN:

Wow, Oiznop. Who's paying you to write things like you just did?

REPLY: No one. This is what I believe.

It is about the polar bears and the caribou, by the way.

REPLY: BS.

"Other fuel sources will send us back to the stone age?" Your affected bursts of drama do not a legitimate debate make.

REPLY: And your affected responses do the same. Let's see you run a vehicle on ethanol and power your home with windmills and see how it works. Then get back to me.

Where's your faith in capitalism? People can create superior green technology, so doesn't the market dictate that green technology will be adopted and used?

REPLY: No but the enviro-zealots like Al Gore sure would like to, at everyone elses expense.

How can the adoption of superior technology possibly send us back to the stone age?

REPLY: Capitalism is doing just fine without these hair brained schemes being conjured up to bring it down. To bring down our lifestyles to a more primitive lot. To alter the course of this country's economy to even the playing field and suppress our liberties, which is what the IPCC, Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, Leo DiCaprio, and the Marxist United Nations want because they know our country works. All this over a bogus myth.

This first in the nation (NH) registered voter is still undecided, but in the end, it doesn�t really matter.

As far as I am concerned, the growing AGW rhetoric is right up there with Ellen Degeneris crying on national TV because they took her dog. They are both a distraction from the truth.

The truth is that we ARE going to level the economic playing field that separates the varying powers of the world. This will be achieved because of a uniting force behind AGW, and because of the cost and control of middle-eastern oil. The truth is that we are on the precipice of world-wide chaos, destruction and loss of life equaling that of biblical proportions. And it�s not because of AGW. It�s because of WWIII. This may offend most who blog here, but it�s the truth. Everything happening in the middle-east is eerily similar to what has been prophesized in either the Bible or the Koran. Is this prophetic or is this manipulation? It doesn�t matter. It�s happening right now, as it was written thousands of years ago.

Iran has a choice, to either stop or continue their nuclear ambitions. By continuing, they will choose war, which is what they want. Do we let them? Lines are being drawn in the sand as we speak. Iran�s ambitions of nuclear prowess will be ambushed by Israel. It is similar to the 6 day war in the 1960�s. It�s a matter of preemption. Israel will attack Iran and wipe out its nuclear reactor. This will spark outrage from a good part of the world, because Iran has allies and just wants cleaner, more efficient nuclear energy. This outrageous attack will embolden Russia and other countries to retaliate against the smaller and weaker Israel. This will be the start of ultimate chaos and destruction. This is what it�s like when worlds collide. This is how I see things unfolding. It will be interesting to watch.

So who am I voting for? It doesn�t matter. Our fates have already been sealed. Morbid, I know, but atleast I don't have my blindfold on. Have at it.

To the extent that Rich's fears are justifie