VP debate game thread

[volsforever27]

Maybe I overestimate the knowledge of those who believe in man-made global warming. His point was clear to me...that man has does indeed have responsibility for changes in our climate...and full responsibility for (man-made) global warming. Of course many factors affect climate. Man does not bear full responsibility for the climate. Obviously. But "global warming" means mans impact on the environment inside a political debate...does (man-made) global warming exist or does it not. Biden says man does. That is how I took it. I'm willing to give you that might not be how certain members of his party may take it.

As for the McCain reference, I only brought that up to serve as a data point for my assertion that Biden is appealing to more than just the far left of his party in making that statement (and that it is viewed as plausible and not outrageous by more than just the far left).

We're been down this road before, and I won't rehash it. I think he meant that man was to blame, and to blame only, but we'll just agree to disagree.

 

[rjd970]

I would have to disagree with Biden on the global warming thing. It's probably happening for a variety of reasons, but we are definitely not the primary facilitator.

His answer seemed to suggest humans are the primary cause.

 

[TennTradition]

We're been down this road before, and I won't rehash it. I think he meant that man was to blame, and to blame only, but we'll just agree to disagree.

See my post just above yours...I hope it clarifies my position. I agree....it wouldn't be good to debate the details of how much man is to blame in this thread.

 

[KB5252]

TT, I have to say that the way Biden answered that question, something to the effect of "absolutely, man is to blame for global warming", seemed to indicate we are the biggest factor, when the science seems to indicate that we are a very small factor in a warming climate (if at all).

 

[TennTradition]

TT, I have to say that the way Biden answered that question, something to the effect of "absolutely, man is to blame for global warming", seemed to indicate we are the biggest factor, when the science seems to indicate that we are a very small factor in a warming climate (if at all).

He could have meant that - there is no way for me to know. But, to me the statement "absolutely, man is to blame for global warming" means ... "yes, global warming is attributable" ... as opposed to the views that man has no responsibility.

I would suggest that if science has but one voice, that voice has said man does has contributed to the greenhouse effect and thus warmed the planet. The same science that says man has only contributed about 0.5°C since the pre-industrial era also says that temperatures could rise another 3°C over the next 100 years or so (on global average) over that which they would be without man's influence (that means add that to the sun's usual ups and downs, roughly). I took Biden's statements to mean that he believes this science.

 

[KB5252]

He could have meant that - there is no way for me to know. But, to me the statement "absolutely, man is to blame for global warming" means ... "yes, global warming is attributable" ... as opposed to the views that man has no responsibility.

I would suggest that if science has but one voice, that voice has said man does has contributed to the greenhouse effect and thus warmed the planet. The same science that says man has only contributed about 0.5°C since the pre-industrial era also says that temperatures could rise another 3°C over the next 100 years or so (on global average) over that which they would be without man's influence (that means add that to the sun's usual ups and downs, roughly). I took Biden's statements to mean that he believes this science.

Maybe so, but to attribute global warming to man and give no mention to the extent that man is responsible is irresponsible and gives the wrong impression to a very uneducated population on the issue.

It sets the debate up for an argument on the subjects merits hindering any real effective policy that is economically and ecologically viable.

 

[volinbham]

I would have to disagree with Biden on the global warming thing. It's probably happening for a variety of reasons, but we are definitely not the primary facilitator.

His answer seemed to suggest humans are the primary cause.

Only cause according to his answer.

 

[TennTradition]

Well...I'm obviously in a minority on this one. When he said it - I guess I must have heard only what made sense to me...and applied a "sanity" filter that was perhaps to fair to apply. What I heard him say didn't seem out of line with what the IPCC says, but I think that it is because I took his use of the term "global warming" to mean something very specific in the context he used it.

So, perhaps the real question should be - what does he actually believe? It is pretty hard for me to believe that he thinks the sun has nothing to do with the cycles in temperature we see and that man drives all the warming we experience. Is it man waking up in the morning and breathing out CO2 that makes the day get hotter as ..... and only coincidence that the sun happens to come up at the same time? :crazy:

 

[TennTradition]

Maybe so, but to attribute global warming to man and give no mention to the extent that man is responsible is irresponsible and gives the wrong impression to a very uneducated population on the issue.

It sets the debate up for an argument on the subjects merits hindering any real effective policy that is economically and ecologically viable.

I still think that is because the question had more to do with is global warming attributable to man (or is all of it natural). I thought that he was just trying to make his position very clear - that man bears responsibility - as a contrast to Palin's wishy/washy answer. I'm not looking to defend him.....I just am surprised I heard something so completely different than all the others. And...I keep thinking in the back of my mind that I heard something different because I am more comfortable with saying global warming is attributable to man than are many/some others.

He probably should have chosen his words more carefully...but Palin probably shouldn't have also said that train wrecks on Main street were causing the problems on Wall street. Just as people rode Biden for being too specific with his policy wonk answers on the economy, he did the opposite here and gave a concise answer where elaborating would have been more useful, but perhaps more boring.

 

[KB5252]

I still think that is because the question had more to do with is global warming attributable to man (or is all of it natural). I thought that he was just trying to make his position very clear - that man bears responsibility - as a contrast to Palin's wishy/washy answer. I'm not looking to defend him.....I just am surprised I heard something so completely different than all the others. And...I keep thinking in the back of my mind that I heard something different because I am more comfortable with saying global warming is attributable to man than are many/some others.

He probably should have chosen his words more carefully...but Palin probably shouldn't have also said that train wrecks on Main street were causing the problems on Wall street. Just as people rode Biden for being too specific with his policy wonk answers on the economy, he did the opposite here and gave a concise answer where elaborating would have been more useful, but perhaps more boring.

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.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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.