Candidates clam up on climate

  • Article by: JAMES P. LENFESTEY
  • Updated: October 24, 2012 - 6:37 PM

The media, too, has failed to enhance understanding.

  • 16
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
minn12Oct. 23, 1210:39 PM

Why not clam up? 'Climate Change' is a hoax. There's always been climate change. The earth warms, and the earth cools. Been going on eons before there was such a thing as a smokestack or gasoline engine.

15
20
freedumb86Oct. 23, 1211:34 PM

Minn12- Climate Change is a Hoax? What is your opinion on Gravity, Cell Theory, Bernouli's Principle etc? ...Can you use Fox News as a Methodology? Try again.

18
18
erikj3Oct. 24, 12 1:05 AM

24 years ago, both vice presidential candidates (of course, more so the Democratic one) agreed that, in a drought and the warmest year (1988) ever, climate change was an issue that needed to be addressed. Now, in 2012, in a drought and seeing almost every single year warmer than '88, the issue seems to be off the table. Certainly we've done some things for the better, but I predict future generations (especially those in third world countries) will not be kind to us.

10
9
owatonnabillOct. 24, 12 3:29 AM

"Three huge issues face voters this year: the national debt, the current state of economy and the ravages of climate change. Yet in three lengthy debates, not one question from moderators or selected "undecided" voters has directly addressed that third question." ................. True. And for a very good reason. In the past few years too much has come out about scientists cooking and hiding data, political handouts for "environmental" reasons to supporters (Solyndra, anyone?) and the profiteering antics of the supposed "Green" heavyweights, to give this movement any credibility at all. Bluntly, they're perceived by Joe Average Voter as kooks and nutjobs. Neither Romney nor Obama will touch this subject with a ten-foot pole for the very good and obvious reason that if they do the other side will immediately brand him as a kook or nutjob for doing so. It's a huge risk with very little if any return. Political suicide. And both campaigns know this all too well.

11
9
boss09Oct. 24, 12 5:56 AM

As soon as somebody plays the Fox News card, it's obvious they have nothing else. Climate change will continue with or without man. We have no real impact on the climate of this earth. Those that say we do get funding to study it, or they are simply clueless. There is ZERO proof man has caused the earth to warm. If you think there is, than you must also admit man caused the earth to cool between 1940-1975 when pollution skyrocketed. You cannot have it both ways!

11
13
martytoilOct. 24, 12 7:50 AM

boss09--Man did cause the earth to cool, and man is causing global warming. Each with different pollutants. It is not that hard to understand, for most.

5
15
cosmicwxdudeOct. 24, 12 9:17 AM

They're clamming up because; 1. Climate changes. We have little if any control except locally. 2. All observed change we've supposedly seen in the past 30yrs is well within envelope of past climate. 3. Climate will change again...and colder conditions will prevail...enjoy the warmth while we have it. 4. IT'S NOT CARBON(IE BLACK SOOT) EMISSIONS that suppposedly cause the tiny warming we've observed. IT'S CARBON DIOXIDE which we all exhale with each breath. Which a catalytic converter converts the air moving through your engine to, because the EPA DEEMED IT CLEAN 40YRS AGO. 5. Because the science is shoddy, manipulated and the so-called mainstream scientists are activists. and I could go on and on...

9
9
acctsah2Oct. 24, 12 9:43 AM

I do really think the simple answer is, if both candidates would have found this to be important they would have been talking about it every other day. You know they conduct polling constantly to see what people want to hear. Regardless of your feelings on the issue it's just not that important to a majority of people.

6
1
theruntOct. 24, 1212:32 PM

The atmosphere does not have infinite capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. We are three quarters of the way to filling it. Another 565 gigatons and it will be at capacity. Computer modelling projects we will be burning enough fossil fuels in the near future to emit 2,795 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Major overload. When the atmosphere cannot absorb it we will be very sad.

3
2
efleschOct. 24, 1212:35 PM

The science has become even more certain about humans role in climate change since the last Presidential election. Silence on the issue from 2 of the Presidential nominees speaks to the influence well monied interests have in our political system. Those who deny the science of climate change deny reality and have been led by a leash of propaganda which neither of the 2-party candidates will speak against.

6
4

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • 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.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT