Presidential Vote

[windhound]

All of the candidates stress simple ideals in their speeches (Hope and Change, Nation and Country, etc.): these are not their policy positions. Windy noticed this yet fell into it.

I fell into it because I'm lazy, like the vast majority of americans. I know what I know from snippets on the radio and the occasional digg article. Not so much digg anymore because they're fairly rabid and bury anything that sheds Obama in a negative light or McCain in a positive one... I mostly use digg for pictures of rabbits with pancakes on their head

But really. What's on his website doesnt matter much. He might get a million or two hits on his website, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of people that will watch his dumbed-down speeches and think that's all there is to him... He needs to say what he means to say, not wander all around it with vague promises of Hope and Change
But hell. Its working for him, so whatever works.

Global warming is not a black and white issue. Its been shown that excess carbon dioxide in the air occurs as a response to the earth warming, not as a cause.

[bjornredtail]

I don't see it as contrived. I, and every single one of my acquaintances in Europe, see it as a historic election, and yes, because Obama is black. We think that if he were elected, it would be a sure sign that a majority in America has conquered racism; if he were not, the jury would still be out.

Obama is just as much 'white' as he is 'black'. So... Yeah, I'll say it's contrived.

Incidentally, laws prohibiting discrimination promote individual liberty, by not allowing systematic oppression of a class, just as the fundamental laws of democracy seek to prevent violence and oppression of any citizen by prohibiting murder, theft, etc. These decrease the liberty of allowing us to help ourselves to any property, whilst increasing the liberty of private property. In the same way, anti-discrimination laws decrease the liberty of those oppressing others, whilst increasing liberty from oppression (for all).

Indeed, though those are trade-offs between freedom and order. It is possible to value order over freedom and freedom over equality. This can put you closer to the conservative camp (or, depending on what extent, entirely in the conservative camp). Just a matter of degree...

Nuclear power isn't necessarily about climate change, nor is environmental preservation. Coal mining pollutes and degrades its surrounding environment.

It's possible to engineer a clean coal power plant and a relatively clean coal mine (at least when it's depleted and properly reclaimed. It's not possible to engineer a facility to store nuclear waste in the time frames necessary to make it safe to handle.

Individual liberty vs civil or social liberty is a misnomer. Individual or human liberties are usually divided into three classes: civil, social, political. So when I say that the democrats favour civil and social liberty, I mean that they enhance individual liberty. I don't see how you can claim that the Republicans favour those; when you look at the PATRIOT act, the TSA, the burgeoning Homeland Security, invasive surveillance, and all the rest of it.

And the Dems DON'T want to force their social agenda on us... Not! Both parties have black eyes in the eyes of libertarians and populists. Quite frankly, I don't see what you can accomplish comparing the two at a party level. Of course the Democrats and Republican's 'official' stances are not going to reflect the views of libertarians. Instead, look at the individual candidates and office holders...

[Shadow I]

I don't follow american politics enough to argue it, but I have small interjection aimed at kraken about global warming:

it doesn't matter whether or not global warming is manmade, or if it is even happening. What matters is that the solution to global warming will have a massive positive impact on the global environment and ecosystems no matter what the final outcome would have been had we not changed our ways, and should be something that happens anyway, regardless of potential longterm impact.

That being said, I think that anyone who fails to see that global warming is man made has their head up their ass and will probably keep it there until the ocean starts lapping at their feet. AKA Palin.

A vote for the green party will not get you an eleted leader from there, but if enough people do it, it sends a statement.

[The Beatles]

I fell into it because I'm lazy, like the vast majority of americans. I know what I know from snippets on the radio and the occasional digg article.

Well then your stance is no better than the average American's; a political child. Seriously, if you don't take the time to participate in the leadership of your country (by voting), you're part of the problem -- every problem. Sorry to be harsh, I know in general you have a nuanced political opinion.

In fact I'm appalled that of the electorate that have posted more than one-liners to this thread, only Bjorn has an independent and considered political view.

You bitch about speeches. Well, I decided to look into it and read the two latest speeches made by Obama and McCain (as random a selection as I could fairly find).
McCain:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/transcripts/20080904_MCCAIN_SPEECH.html
There's little specific policy that's factually true. (He does, to his credit, cite several specific policies, but this is tempered by the fact that he's lying about some of them). What they are: aggressive moves toward energy independence by drilling, clean coal, and nuclear power; school vouchers.

Obama:
http://obamaspeeches.com/120-Obama-Turn-The-Page-Speech-California-Deomcratic-Convention.htm
Obama also mentions specific policies; unlike McCain he doesn't discuss the outcomes so he cannot be accused of lying. These are: multi-payer universal health care; higher pay for teachers; carbon caps.

That's 3 policies to 2 for Obama to McCain, in similarly-sized speeches. Of course, both also discuss other issues but either fail to cite specific enough policies or lie about the outcomes. So the complaint of other people in this thread is probably rubbish. They just don't want to admit that they only listen to media soundbites from his speeches (and Obama's speeches lend themselves to that better) instead of even listening to or reading his speeches. You at least have the honesty to admit to this. But it leads to the sort of political infantilism that labelled Obama a fascist, by I forget whom on the first page.

Obama is just as much 'white' as he is 'black'. So... Yeah, I'll say it's contrived.

Not in racism -- genetically heterogenous, mulattos were treated just as badly if not worse in racist societies, including America until the 70s. So it's still a watershed election; but I can rephrase it if you like: if a mulatto is elected president, we'll know that a majority in America have shed their racist past.

It's not possible to engineer a facility to store nuclear waste in the time frames necessary to make it safe to handle.

Of course, every single time we've had this argument in the past you've dodged the obvious solution of reprocessing. France reprocesses almost all of its nuclear waste, gaining more energy from it, and even imports nuclear waste of other countries (which, incidentally, is another way America could dispose of spent fuel if it didn't want to reprocess it -- export).

And the Dems DON'T want to force their social agenda on us... Not! Both parties have black eyes in the eyes of libertarians and populists. Quite frankly, I don't see what you can accomplish comparing the two at a party level. Of course the Democrats and Republican's 'official' stances are not going to reflect the views of libertarians. Instead, look at the individual candidates and office holders...

That's not good enough, because then you're practically taking them at their word. Party affiliation and background is important. And I still maintain that across a broad spectrum of issues, Obama is more aligned with classic liberal (i.e. libertarian in America) interests than McCain.

A vote for the green party will not get you an eleted leader from there, but if enough people do it, it sends a statement.

As I said, Shadow, this is not a parliamentary democracy but a presidential democracy. Thus, a third-party vote for an election is useless; the system naturally becomes two-party, and effectively guarantees that about half of the population will be unrepresented for 4 years by one half of the government structure (in terms of the two major 'branches'). Until several things happen -- a revised voting system, the merging of the legislature and executive, the abolishment of fixed terms -- this is unlikely to happen, although any of those things on their own would improve things in the short-term.

[Arthus]

Global warming is not a black and white issue. Its been shown that excess carbon dioxide in the air occurs as a response to the earth warming, not as a cause.

I am taking environmental courses in my first semester at university, and I am quite happy that one is primarily based on environmental problems. One of the major ones is climate change. The increased CO2 levels are increasing the greenhouse effect, which absorbs some of the infrared energy emitted by the planet from leaving and is reflected back towards the earth, thus increasing the temperature of the Earth. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, there is also methane, nitrous oxide and CFCs (chlorofluorocarbon compounds) that are also impacting the environment and maybe some others. For those that do not know, CFCs are created by man, they are not naturally occuring and are one of the main sources of ozone depletion. Though CFC concentration is decreasing due to them being banned, etc.

Basically, Global warming is not only based on increased CO2 but it is a strong factor in it. The Earth changes climate temperatures between cold and warm, just started the course so not exactly sure about the specifics yet, but it is possible that it can also be a factor.

[windhound]

Well then your stance is no better than the average American's; a political child. Seriously, if you don't take the time to participate in the leadership of your country (by voting), you're part of the problem -- every problem. Sorry to be harsh, I know in general you have a nuanced political opinion.

noworries. I was pointing out that my stance /is/ one of an average american, as close as I can tell. And yes, it is a problem.
I honestly dont have much more than a "oh. that's interesting" view on any of this. But I never said I wasnt going to vote
And really, the problem isnt people not voting, its uninformed people actually voting

I mentioned it a while back, but there was an article published on cnn "Black women have a difficult decision this election - to vote for a black man or a white woman" or some such. It got through the editors and published on the front page, so the people at cnn thought it was applicable. Its scary to think that people will vote simply based on skin color and gender... but from what I've seen, people are going to.

I've looked over the basic issues covered by each candidate and made a choice as to who I thought was the lesser evil. That's basically all it comes down to, you're not going to agree with every choice they make... just so long as long as they stay the lesser-evil

And yes Arthus. Most people will agree that pumping crap into the atmosphere isnt great... and it probably does have some effect. But the question is how much. The scientists know what they do from the past thousand or two years of observation and data gathering... most of the 'good' data within the past hundred or so years. How long has the earth been around, and how many climate swings has it gone though?
I mean, peeing in the swimming pool doesn't raise the temperature of all the water
I'll agree its worth looking into, but I dont think it deserves the panic and rabid media attention its been getting

[Shadow I]

Global wamring wont destroy the earth, windy, thats not the point. The question is whether or not the life that is on the surface of earth (aka me and you) lives through it.

if global warming exists and we do soemthing about it, we live for sure

if global warming exists and we do nothing about it, we diefor sure

if global warming doesnt exist and we do soemthing about it, we get a cleaner earth

if global warming doesnt exist and we do nothing about it, self riteous conservative morons get to say 'I told you so'

So basically, doing something about it is win-win, if only for the sake of our pride.

Back on topic:

Sorry Beatles, like I said I know almost nothing of american politics beyond that they are convoluted and wrong and should be fixed. Not a chance though. Question:

What if Obama and McCain each get less than 50% of the vote?

[Gen. Volkov]

Global warming is not a black and white issue. Its been shown that excess carbon dioxide in the air occurs as a response to the earth warming, not as a cause.

Oh what a big fat stinking load of BS.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q1

Go read it yourself. It's from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). The first two "FAQs" are a direct contradiction of your statement. There is NO debate about whether humans have been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is also NO debate on the the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I'm tired of this stupid debate. Global Warming is real, and it's at least partially our fault. I didn't like Gore's stupid ass movie, but that didn't mean he wasn't right in the fundamentals.

[windhound]

I like NOAA
However, that link failed to tell me anything I didnt already agree with
I said the CO2 was having an effect. I also said peeing in a swimming pool could have the same effect.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-9.gif
The temperature changes do not correspond to the areas of manufacture, the places spewing the most CO2 arnt having any decernable change. Yes, gases flow. But I'd expect atleast some correlation.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/09/correlation-falsification-the-missing-global-warming-CO2-link
I like that link.
Now, proceed to tell me why its wrong, please.

Edit: Oh. And Shadow... being environmentally friendly costs businesses extra money. A good percentage of our manufacture has already been outsourced, and we cant tell China how to deal with their trash.
We already dont get some nice cars with uber high fuel economy because they dont meet emission standards.
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_actionitems.asp
The vast majority of items on that list are things people should be doing anyways, as they can benefit themselves without any extra cost and minimum hassle.
I like the "Meat Reducer" one. Bring on the vegetarians.
The "turn off your car in traffic" one has been debunked I think, and continually starting and stopping your car is extra wear and tear.
Do you have anything to add to the list?
I mean. Saying we should stop Global Warming is wonderful. How do you propose to do it?

[The Beatles]

Sorry to be unclear there windy, when I meant participate in the leadership of country by voting, I did mean informed voting, so thanks for pointing that out; I certainly agree with you.

[Freenhult]

I like NOAA
However, that link failed to tell me anything I didnt already agree with
I said the CO2 was having an effect. I also said peeing in a swimming pool could have the same effect.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-9.gif
The temperature changes do not correspond to the areas of manufacture, the places spewing the most CO2 arnt having any decernable change. Yes, gases flow. But I'd expect atleast some correlation.

"Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995."

Thats Question 3 windy. Why would the SE United States and the North Atlantic be cooling? Well, since the distribution of CO2 isn't even over the Earth, and the Southern US is known for agriculture. And there isn't much in the North Atlantic, or even that far north really. So you just proved the point yourself. There ain't no CO2 going up there, so its cooling. Like it should be. However, wherever else we've got industrial complexes shooting up out of the ground, its getting warmer.

However, we both know that the swimming pool example leaves some dynamics out. Infact many. But still, a good try.

[windhound]

Um. Well. Here... few links.
First - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
...The US is First in CO2 emissions
Second - http://news.uns.purdue.edu/images/+2008/gurneyvulcan1.jpg
...Most of the CO2 emissions are Eastern US, with the South having more than its fair share
Third - http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13741-food-miles-dont-feed-climate-change--meat-does.html
...Meat is a major contributor to CO2
Fourth - http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/branch/ex1/m5-meat-supply.jpg
...We make a ton of it down here
Fifth - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Prime_farmland_USA_1997.png
...The farmland doesn't really matchup to the CO2 map. Dont get me wrong, we do have quite a few farms down here. But we do have our fairshare of CO2 production.

The way you put it, the South is nothing but farms soaking in CO2... maybe 200 years ago, but we've modernized a bit since. You should come down and see.

The unequal distrobution of CO2 doesnt explain why its forestland and tundra that have the highest temperature rise. Afterall, arn't forests supposed to, you know, absorb CO2? If MotherNature can put off so much CO2 that even massive forestland cant keep up, maybe our pitiful attempts (that apparently dont even show on the radar) arnt making much of a difference?

I'm looking at China, which barely blips on the coastline, despite having massive pollution in a concentrated area

Also. You said the SouthEast is cooling -as it should-
This means you believe the Earth really should be cooling right now, instead of warming. Otherwise, if it was just doing its job per-normal, it would retain constant temperature. Why cool?

The swimming pool example has its flaws, but it illustrates my point alright. Plus I get to say "pee in the pool," which amuses me
You find me a better example, preferably one dealing with potty humor.

...
Cheers Beatles

[Freenhult]

Okidokie

The unequal distrobution of CO2 doesnt explain why its forestland and tundra that have the highest temperature rise. Afterall, arn't forests supposed to, you know, absorb CO2? If MotherNature can put off so much CO2 that even massive forestland cant keep up, maybe our pitiful attempts (that apparently dont even show on the radar) arnt making much of a difference?

Right. Forests act as carbon sinks. However, when we hit the fall and winter season, all of the CO2 that was stored is re-released as decaying matter. This causes a large pocket of CO2 to arise over an area. Which in the winter, a few degrees can make a difference.

As for the temperature rise, going off memory here. The poles are a heat sink so to speak. The equator, being the closest to the sun receives the most solar radiation. The mid-latitudes where we live, don't get as much, and the amount we get declines quite fast the more poleward you go. The problem is that with more CO2 and in effect, more water vapor in the air. Less heat is transfered back into space in this large region, when it hits the earth and reflects off from the albedo. So, you have 60 degrees of the Earth where heat diffusion into space is far less inefficient. And of course, that heat has to make it poleward. So, you introduce more and more heat to the region through other matters, and of course you're going to get a bit warmer. Key word is a bit. The ice caps are getting warmer. The global average I think is something like 2 degrees? Whatever it is, its an average. 2 degress over everypoint pushing northward? Yeah. Thats part of the reason. Melt a little ice, and you make the diffusion process even worse. Etc etc.

Also. You said the SouthEast is cooling -as it should-
This means you believe the Earth really should be cooling right now, instead of warming. Otherwise, if it was just doing its job per-normal, it would retain constant temperature. Why cool?

I may have been mistaken, but I believe we should under normal conditions be moving back towards an ice age. Of course cooling would be a normal thing. Also, to clear up confusion, the Earth as a whole is warming. Whats to say that regions can't get cooler than the average, and some regions get warmer? It sounds illogical, but its indeed a fact. Also, the Earth doesn't keep a constant temperature. Climate change is a continuous progress. After we hit our peek, we should have started too cool. But instead, its kept going up, and faster than it has before. Much faster. So obviously, something is forcing this trend to keep on a path its not supposed to walk, and also, force the temperature up at an unnatural rate. We can say, hey. We put GHGs into the air, so it must be us. I'll concede, there may be more to it. But it looks like a good first guess/analysis.

Now, as for the pictures.
1) As expected. The US has a lot of industry and also cities. Which happen to be the main sources of CO2 emissions. This is illustrated by your second link.
2) There are no units. Seriously. But yes.
3)Hrm, while the cow population has increased I won't really say thats a problem. I mean lets face it. There are 104,300 thousand head of cattle in the US right now. There are over 300million people. We all poop, and breathe and fart too. Infact, there are over 6 billion of us. I think we are spitting far more out than the cows. Plus, not buying meat? Oh well. Still got the cows. Might as well just kill them off too. :/
4)Pah, http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/PullData_US.jsp The south makes nothing compared to say California, or Nebraska. Yet they don't have very high rates except for their cities.(Nebraska and Cali) Cows aren't in the city, so why aren't their pockets of higher CO2 emissions? Because its negligible. Cows are not driving cars.
5)I see a correlation. Areas that are farms and open space are not polluting. Simple. The exception being the west, its hard to make farms on mountains. These areas are carbon sinks. I'm sure in the winter, they values are at least up one color.

Also, sure. Going for Veggies for dinner is a great idea. So you reduce the demand of say beef, and increase the demand for fruit from South America, or from the west, because, there isn't that much space to grow cabbage here! So what happens now? You have to move those greens! And but how? Trucks and planes! So in effect, you're trading cow farts for plane exhaust. I'm not going to see which is worse. But I don't think its too far apart.

[Gen. Volkov]

However, that link failed to tell me anything I didnt already agree with

Then you agree that your argument here, and Noel Sheppard's is complete BS. The NOAA directly contradicts what you and he say about CO2 and warming.

In fact, Sheppard's graphs show exactly what the NOAA is talking about, both CO2 levels and global temperatures have a general upward trendline. What he fails to show is that CO2 levels jiggle all over the place too, just like temperature. The "CO2 level" graphs that he showed were trendline graphs, while the temp graphs were raw data graphs. It's a bit of quick intellectual trickery on his part. If you compare raw data to raw data, or trendline to trendline, the two graphs do match up quite well. There is significant correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.

Freen, stop trying to explain everything, the argument that it should show the heaviest warming in certain areas is bull in the first place, and windy knows it. CO2 is a gas, which means it's very quickly going to move from areas of high concentration to low concentration. The CO2 emissions from the US spread out over the globe very rapidly, much shorter timescales that the multi-year patterns that we are looking at. What the regional warming data is going to reflect is simply what the local weather patterns are and how heat flow works in the global system. You're going to have little warming around the equator, and more warming towards the poles, which is exactly what the data shows.

[Freenhult]

Freen, stop trying to explain everything, the argument that it should show the heaviest warming in certain areas is bull in the first place, and windy knows it. CO2 is a gas, which means it's very quickly going to move from areas of high concentration to low concentration. The CO2 emissions from the US spread out over the globe very rapidly, much shorter timescales that the multi-year patterns that we are looking at. What the regional warming data is going to reflect is simply what the local weather patterns are and how heat flow works in the global system. You're going to have little warming around the equator, and more warming towards the poles, which is exactly what the data shows.

Oh? I do because that way I know I'm right. Also, you're quite wrong.

CO2 does not spread from high concentrations to low concentrations. Nor would that work in the pool example. If you pee in a pool, the pee doesn't spread out through the entire pool. At least for a very long time. Even so, the distance between pee molecules would make it hidden.

However, since there is a lot of CO2, it would seem like it would spread out and make a blanket. But it still doesn't. Why? The answer is called parcels. When the air moves, we have to think of it in a thing called a parcel. There are a few ways to look at the parcel, either it interacts with the air around it, trading air or its completely isolated. Each view has its weaknesses but both generally work for showing air movement patterns.

And the only way that CO2 is getting mixed is by either vertical mixing in the air between layers or from advection with the wind. Even from advection, you're moving pockets of CO2 around. Not spreading it so much. Which makes sense. CO2 from the west coast, goes over the rockies, and because of the downslope flow, moves over the plains. Where it is absorbed there. Not all of it, but some. As it moves and advects over the ocean, its absorbed by plankton and junk. Again, not all but some.

Also, you're warming statement is the same as mine, so why re-explain? Also, windy just agreed with us. He just had another question. Which I explained. Tada. No need to be so grumpy about it.