You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
In three debates so far, climate change hasn't been mentioned once.
Notice also that UFO's and Bigfoot also are omitted in the debates.
Oh gee, why do you think no one is talking about it.....The only people that care are the ones that rely on funding for research and the Al Gore. It's a non-issue and asking the question itself manifests the answer.
The convenient truth is.... Because, it's make-believe!
"Climate change" is not discussed during the debates because regardless of whether "climate change" did or did not occur, it is a non-issue.
"Climate change" is like the weather (Duh). You can like it, not like, or complain about it, but you can't change it. So why debate it?
The article writer states that we have to do something to stop climate change. How many times have we been through this?? Earth's climate has always changed, and humans have nothing to do with it. Want to try to change the climate? Take it up with the Sun, or take it up with the forces inside the Earth's core. But driving your Volt car won't do anything except make you feel better about yourself.
It is a non issue. The earth is tilted, as the north pole melts, the south pole ice cap is growing. Junk science supported by Algore.
The term itself - "climate change" - answers the question. Like daylight change or wind change, the climate is not static. Never has been, never will be. As such, it is unworthy of agenda status, especially now that newly-released data from the U of East Anglia shows the world's temp has been static for 16 years.
With world population doubling efforts to use less fossil fuel can only delay the greenhouse effect. IF pumping massive amounts of water vapor into air also adds to the greenhouse effect stopping that (for all but planes) is feasible. I don't know if higher temps cause more vapor or more vapor cause higher temps. BUT that should be known before deciding what approach is the best bang for the buck. - - firstname.lastname@example.org
Why is climate change not being debated by the candidates? Because they never believed it was a serious issue to begin with. In 2008 Obama claimed it was the most important issue facing mankind; once in office, with strong majorities in both houses of Congress, he made no push for legislation to cut C02 emissions. He has stopped mentioning it in his State of the Union addresses as well. When he said, upon his innaugeration, that, like Moses, he would stop the sea levels from rising, he was pulling your leg. Shame on anyone who fell for this nonsense, and shame on anyone who believed Obama had actually fallen for this nonsense.
The AGW bandwagon has lost a lot of riders over the last couple of years. The president certainly had opportunity to bring it up in the last debate but he knows there's not much traction there anymore.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks