Global climate change-is it dereliction of President's duty because he has not developed 'what if' plans?
955453
You practicing material for your stand-up routine?\n\nGlobal Warming always makes me laugh.
1090554
I think 2 shorter terms of 3 years would be wiser.  The present president is clearly a madman - I know the entire country can't be held responsible for his actions (as well as lack of actions in times of crises), but I just cannot comprehend how this could have happened!
314675
Scientific data is ambiguous and conflicting as it pertains to "global warming." Current data only exists for a few hundred years. The rest is from computer "models" which use differing assumptions and yield differing results.\n\nSince no conclusive data exists upon which to base conclusions, actions ought not be based on inconclusive data. Those are facts rarely discussed or admitted globally.
809222
You sound young and dumb, which is good. You've been warned early. You need to understand that global warming is real, and will cause a shift in geopolitics that is probably going to eventually kill you, or at the very least, make you poor and hungry. If you knew the true implications, you'd be shaking in your boots.
874619
Right. And he needs to be held accountable for his global warming lies that he perpetrated upon the American people. This figures, seeing how he claims that he invented the Internet (he must be a compulsive liar, as there's a pattern here).
551903
Wow..that's an opening for president bashing if I ever heard one!! LOL\nSeriously though...\nHow about allocating a HUGE amount of money towards \nalternative energy sources like the sun and wind. They are ever lasting, low if any impact on emissions and simply put, smart!
363651
He isn't. Keep in mind that it is the United Security Council that is making decisions about what happens on a global level, not just the President of the United States.
1173864
No. There are plenty of other theories. The EPA can't and hasn't proven any of their theories. Even a Harvard scientist said that we may just be recovering from a mini Ice Age that caused famine for 400 years (Ireland's potato famine). Who am I supposed to believe? I am not scared, although I do believe it is a good time to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Who knows what the cause of "global warming" is? Oh well. Let's just reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There's nothing harmful in that.
35095
Probably not. In my humble opinion, humans ultimately play a very insignificant role in the processes that shape this planet, when viewed from a geologic time-scale. After all, more than 90% of all species on this planet were extinct long before hominids evolved. The planet has experienced global warming much more extreme than the present warming trend, and forces such as plate tectonics and isostatic rebound are contributing to problems like the subsidence of the Louisiana coastline probably more so than man's changes in the drainage of the Mississippi River. There is evidence that the modern coastal subsidence of the US Gulf Coast is related to isostatic rebound from the glaciers melting in North America over 10,000 years ago. That is how slow many of these processes work. The climate of this planet has never been static, nor has the shape of the continents. Natural events like climate-changing volcanic eruptions, earthquakes (which build mountains that ultimately change weather patterns), catastrophic tsunamis, meteorite impacts, erosion, catastrophic floods, landslides, glaciation, all have much more impact on a geologic scale than man has done. Even catastrophic oil-spills occurred as a result of natural processes long before man built a supertanker. This planet might not even be habitable by humans if not for the warming effect of radioactive decay within the earth, and over geologic time, that will gradually decline. Light and heat from the sun is something we have no control over that will certainly change over time. Of course, none of this excuses man for damaging the planet with deforestation, greenhouse gases, habitat destruction, etc., but we all need to recognize that even our best efforts may not affect the long-term changes that are taking place around us almost unseen due to the slow progress of these changes. We are going to have to work at not becoming just another part of the fossil record and our ability to adapt to climate change is probably the only thing that will allow the human race to survive long-term. This is just the opinion of this geologist.
1029800
Dude....\n\nHe'd be dead by now!!!\n\nOnly if mean to say "President" and not "Presidend"
600756
If he was a monk, the world of monetsries would be very sad.\n\nI dont think he changes the eco systems. No, the rivers wouldnt run rampant.
1053898
1. He's trying to support his movie because he put a great deal of thought and time into it and he believes strongly that the global warming issue is perhaps the most important issue of the century.\n\n2. He has NO plans to run for president at this time. If you have evidence otherwise, please post it. I would love to see it.
721387
haha bush isn't doing anything about anything that is important.  and honestly do you even think bush knows what global warming is?  he has an intelligence of a two year old
128214
President or Precedent???
454260
George Bush is the first and only answer. He refuses to accept valid scientific evidence that the world's climate has changed drastically and means future catastrophes are in store. He has only two agendas: get as rich as he can by accepting huge sums of money from the oil companies, and becoming a world dictator. No matter what he says his intentions are to destroy and control all of the Arab nations.
313551
No, it seemed obvious that he did not want to do anything that would hurt the oil and energy companies. Most scientists (except energy "experts") had enough evidence to indicate that  the world needs to act now.\nThe idea that we should have more research I believe was a ploy to put off doing anything that would hurt the corporations.\nIt also was consistent with the administration's hostility toward any world agreements, such as Kyoto and the U.N. \n\nUnfortunately, this is one area where world-wide cooperation is important, but I don't see it happening.
1073265
The defense is to ignore it as a problem that they can do anything about. The most common argument that you will hear is: "The global climate has been changing throughout its history." We do have more than 100 years worth of data, and yes, there has been major climatic changes in the past.\n\nThere is some disbelief that human actions can affect anything as big as the global climate, too. Arguments that take science into consideration are the best ones, but they're the least often used. Usually, it's just this general statement of disbelief that is given.\n\nLet's take the previous poster's example of the Mars ice caps melting, and how we haven't been studying the Earth's climate for long enough. First of all, there is no statement about how this is beyond the normal seasonal fluctuations of Mars. After all, the ice caps wax and wane according to the seasons. Now, consider how long we have been studying Mars too. Have we studied Mars sufficiently long enough to be able to decide what is or is not normal seasonal changes for Mars?\n\nAnother claim to helplessness is to say, "This is the only choice that we have - without a fuel source, economies would collapse." This argument relies on the fact that there are no viable alternative fuels. However, I would like to see a little less helplessness, too. If we don't have another source of fuel for getting to work, why doesn't the government fund research into alternative fuels? Before you say there is no money, think about how much money we spent on Iraq. Wouldn't it have been better spent on research & development of alternative fuels? If we are no longer dependent on foreign oil, then we are not funding terrorists.\n\nAnother tactic is to attack people on a personal level, to distract attention away from the problem. In truth, it's difficult for the individual to make big changes in the world, and that is why for things like that, the government has to step up to the plate.\n\nHowever, I do not want to be mistaken for towing a party line. I do not limit this rule for Republicans or Democrats. While the Democrats have been slightly more environmentally friendly, I would like to see somebody more radical from either party come into office - you know, somebody who is willing to try to fix the problems that the government is presented with, both on a national and an international level.