i was pleased the senator included food and water in his list of global challenges.

not much else to do but wait.

if talking tough to the russkies is what makes you electable, then that’s what people will do. putin’s not a child, he can take it, and he knows what cards he’s holding.

but if obama and biden get to antagonize anyone they want because “the other guy’s worse” — particularly, encouraging powerful countries to hoard fossil energy in preparation for near-war isolation — that sort of undercuts the message of ending our oil habit, doesn’t it? because it’s not like georgia is “just some country near russia.”

It will only help if it means that Obama/Biden get elected, so there is someone who actually wants to negotiate about the climate. Based on McCain’s voting record, I don’t see any evidence that he is actually interested in pursuing any steps to limit GHG. Whatever his stated position, his actions don’t suggest he would be interested in any negotiations on climate.

http://www.ucsusa.org/ assets/ documents/ global_warming/ exxon_report.pdf

I have seen no evidence of a serious debate among climate scientists about the reality of AGW. The only skeptics I know about (Spencer, et al.) got their data wrong and finally had to agree once the errors were corrected that their data supported global warming. Perhaps you can point me to major papers in the peer-reviewed literature that undermine global warming? Of course, there are a few scientists (and non-scientitsts) in other fields who take money from the oil companies to try to convince people that their product isn’t causing serious harm to the planet. Interestingly, at least one not only uses the same methods the tobacco companies used for years to try to convince people their product didn’t cause cancer, emphysema, etc.–he actually worked for the tobacco companies before he got into global warming denial business:

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1478

> In my opinion, despite 20+ years of research, science still has so many unknowns and inconsistencies that it can only meet the “balance of probabilities” test.

Are you saying that you agree there is at least a 51% probability that AGW is real and significant, but you still wouldn’t do much about it?

More importantly, if the science was really conclusive there would be no debate….

straight from stalin’s russia, the authoritarian understanding of… understanding.

So what don’t you understand about the concept of standards of evidence and how no discussion of evidence can take place unless one agrees on the standard of evidence to use? In my opinion, despite 20+ years of research, science still has so many unknowns and inconsistencies that it can only meet the “balance of probabilities” test. This is enough to justify some actions on CO2 but not others.

In the end, we will have to agree to disagree and that it will be the real data from the real climate that will show who was right. I can only hope we don’t waste too many resources solving an imaginary problem.

Incidentally, your “conspiracy” talking point is quite silly. I have already explained how different rational people can come to different conclusions looking at the same evidence because they have different standards of evidence. More importantly, if the science was really conclusive there would be no debate and no need to try and argue that science can be settled by a vote among scientists.

I see that you believe global warming is a worldwide conspiracy by malevolent forces out to destroy your way of life. As I said, this appears to be your ideology trumping rationality. That’s why my focus is on the scientific basis of our understanding of global warming, one that has been researched for 20+ years and has a very solid foundation. Probably I should have asked if you accept the IPCC 4th report. If not, I would assume that science is not a significant factor in forming your opinion. Perhaps you believe the scientists are involved in the conspiracy too…