What do you think about John McCain's statements yesterday about global warming?

Question

"Mr. McCain, in a speech at a wind power company, also pledged to work with the European Union to diplomatically engage China and India, two of the world’s biggest polluters, if they refuse to participate in an international agreement to slow global warming."

“I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears,” Mr. McCain said pointedly. “I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges.”

"McCain...renewed his support for a “cap-and-trade” system"

“Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring”

“We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

What do you think?

Answer 1

Thank goodness all three candidates take the matter serious. It shows how poor the leadership of the current administration is and how the issue has evolved to mostly cross party lines.

My only worry with McCain is he will promise to drop the issue to get on the good side of neocons, but I really don't think that he will.  The neocons have messed things up so much that distancing yourself from them helps with electability.  

McCain is mostly conservative, but he does assess information, listen to subject experts, and draw his own conclusions.  He is far from a party drone. He works with others that across party lines to accomplish objectives.  That is why the neocons hate him and why he has a chance to be president.

I like all three candidates and have a hard choice in November.

Answer 2

The speech writers must have fallen asleep on this one. I find it hard to emote on the negative side much less any positive affirmations. (Bob) offered a decent description, but hey! we're talking politics and not a way of life.

Answer 3

yes, i read this, it's very encouraging. something is going to happen regardless of whoever gets in.

with many of the states just going for it any way, it was inevitable that the next premier would have to fall into line in theory at least.

my only worry is that his chosen method, cap and trade, has not worked out very well here in europe so far, as it is too open to abuse by business.

i suppose we will have a few years of nothing much happening until it either sorts itself out or is thrown out in favour of a more efficient system.

oh, i'm also a bit worried about that 'tax holiday' on petrol (wtf???? very 'free market'!) is this a sign of peoples true intent? in that case, despite my feminist pride in clinton, i would have to be rooting for obama if i was over your side.

edit: too right byde. no matter who you vote for, the government always get in. dunno why i'm so hopeful, we have a labour gov. and they are being totally c**p on this issue.

Answer 4

McCain is right on with this issue.  Rather than waste another 8 years, it's time for the US to take the leadership mantel and show the world we are still technological and industrial innovators.  We can solve the problem, keep a healthy economy, and still enjoy comfortable lives.  But all 3 of those areas will fail if we continue to sit on our butts and bury our heads in the sand hoping for the warming to all go away or some silver bullet to appear out of no where.

Answer 5

He is a politician.

Answer 6

He has sold out to liberal science.

Answer 7

I'm disappointed with McCain. I thought that he was a conservative. I heard his speech, and I wish that he would have discussed his views during the primary, but he waited until now to enlighten us on his views. He is becoming so liberal that I may have to vote for a democrat who would be more conservative than McCain.

Answer 8

Sounds like a politician trying to gain votes to me.

Answer 9

People still think there is a difference between candidates

as if what they say has bearing on reality

American politics is an elaborate game

that is playing the gullible public

The  leadership has only the corporate view .

Mc Cain is a different face from a different party that has the same force driving him as all the others do

The words may change and always will be to try buy the public,but the actions and strategy remains the same

who ever the president may be .

just look at the runners today

A woman ,A dark person and  McCain ,but all somehow related .

some body to appeal to all sides of the public.

Give me a break.

It is the same in most of Europe and certainly Mexico ,

which has had many political parties

that even assassinate each other .

but ALL have always been run by the house of Salinas

for 500 years

South Africa was a classic example ,From a fascist white supremest government ,to a black liberal one ,but all being run by the Oppenheimer regime .Different politics ,different faces, even different color,but from the same stable

And still people occupy their time with arguing who might be best ????? Blinded by the light of the words ,that were written by a speech writer,not the speaker.

Are there no kissing Princes left, to awaken them from their imposed dreams

Jesus comes everyday ,except in England

(Zeitgeist)

Answer 10

dont worry Jesus is coming!!!!!!!!

Answer 11

I think he's a politician who's trying to stay on the good side of everyone in the US, just like the other canidates. And like most of all the past presidents will do something else when he/she gets elected into office.

I know you still have faith in the US political arena, but in actuality they're all a bunch of crooks that steal from all of us. So don't put your blinders on and think you can trust any of them running to hold true to thier promises once they get elected.

Answer 12

Those are some of the most sensible words a politician has uttered regarding global warming yet.  All current proposals to pursue CO2 reductions are pointless if we don't ensure that China and India are involved.  It's scary that more politicians don't seem to understand that.  It's even scarier that they probably understand that full well, but they welcome the opportunity to dramatically increase our tax burden.

As for the responses adding up to "all politicians are crooks", most are, but while McCain has to play the game to some extent to stay in it, he's the only politician that I'm aware of that pursues campaign finance reform.  In contrast, Hillary isn't going to erode America's institutionalization of bribery, and you can be sure that Obama is eagerly looking forward to increasing his cut of the action.

If you haven't written your representatives to oppose ineffective CO2 controls and massive new taxes while China and India are not involved, and/or to complain about corporate payoffs (campaign financing) resulting in massive corruption, you don't have the right to complain.

Answer 13

“The neocons have messed things up so much that distancing yourself from them helps with electability.”

"I think it's an improved version of the Bush stall strategy. Better smoke and mirrors. Loaded with "free market solutions" etc. With ridiculous (and quite possibly dumb) stuff about how it could work, even if China and India don't participate. "

“His days of being a maverick are over... he's just pandering to the neocons and undecided’s now.”

“People still think there is a difference between candidates as if what they say has bearing on reality.  American politics is an elaborate game that is playing the gullible public. The leadership has only the corporate view.”

That pretty much sums it up.  I respect the guy for what he’s done, but I don’t trust him as far as I could throw him.  Or any of them for that matter.

Byde, shall we not take our privilege of choosing the lesser of two evils?  What you say is true to some degree or another, but what is the solution?

edit:

“The dangers are great. That is for sure. America's future hangs in the balance. Conservatives see that the global warming alarmism is more about destroying capitalism, private property and western culture than science-based responsible environmental stewardship even if some environmentalist can't see it. You would think they might notice that free market economies produce cleaner environs and therefore push for more free markets but that goes against core beliefs apparently.”

"I will relish the thought that as our nation crumbles, while Asia, China and South America under Chavez rises to the heights that we jumped from in an alarmist fit, I will take solace knowing that those responsible for our downfall, will have children and grandchildren who will hate them for the h**l that they will have wrought upon us all."

Jim & Believe, do you guys realize you manage to get things exactly bass ackwards every time?  I’m trying to figure out if you all suffer from the same thought process, or if you all get this stuff from the same great spin source in the sky.  Like, there is a liberal bias in a media that has consolidated and is now majority owned by conservative interests. Sheesh.

I am for libertarianism, private property, and western culture, so long as it does not destroy the environment upon which we all depend.  The whole point is we want science-based responsible environmental stewardship - and we are not now, nor have we ever got it.  We never got it yet.  Even the EPA gets it wrong, pandering to the public by chasing after Snail Darters while letting gigantic problems just slide by and the individuals who caused them slip out the back door, profits intact.  

Q:  If a free market produces a cleaner environment, how come the European Union has tougher environmental standards than the US?  How come the neocons in the Bush administration relaxed chemical discharge reporting standards?  Ad infinitum...

Answer 14

His comments are just politics.  He's trying to gain a few more votes from younger people who haven't yet caught on that global warming is the biggest scam in history.  The earth is now in a cooling period, as every credible scientist knows, but a lot of people chose to believe Al Gore instead.

Answer 15

I disagree with him on this point.

Answer 16

McCain is a politician that finished near last in his class.  He has proven to be a camera hound and someone who curries favor with the left.  

The dangers are great.  That is for sure.  America's future hangs in the balance. Conservatives see that the global warming alarmism is more about destroying capitalism, private property and western culture than science-based responsible environmental stewardship even if some environmentalist can't see it. You would think they might notice that free market economies produce cleaner environs and therefore push for more free markets but that goes against core beliefs apparently.

McCain pretended to move to the right, but after securing the nomination, he made an about "left".  He may erode his base just enough to let a far worse candidate in and that would be Obama.

Answer 17

I think it's an improved version of the Bush stall strategy.  Better smoke and mirrors.  Loaded with "free market solutions" etc.  With ridiculous (and quite possibly dumb) stuff about how it could work, even if China and India don't participate.  

I actually had more faith he'd take serious action on global warming before I read it.

Answer 18

I think he wants to be president.

Answer 19

He's pandering to leftists like you in order to take a few votes away from HUSSEIN osama bin Obama come november.

Answer 20

I think he's behind the curve on this one and he's trying to play catch up.

Sounds like an attempt at a soundbite and a chance to grab some coverage at a time when Clinton and Obama are getting the lion's share.

Answer 21

Cleaning up the environment is or should be a priority but just because politicans say something,  doesn't mean they are correct.  Ultimately these lawyers are not scientists and so they rule on the information given them,  as if they are true arbiters of science and man.

What I am referring to with McCain,  Gore, et al,  is this thing about man-made global warming.   They are wrong if they are implying that and neither is qualified to even make policy based on the man-made part of it.

Clean up our environment, yes.   But don't sell us progressive climate change which fries the earth.  We don't know enough to say that now.

Answer 22

At face value, there is little to zero difference between mccain the witch or the closet terrorist.

All three are willing to sacrifice America's industry, America's jobs, and America's security to please the pagan god of environmentalism.

As I have said before, I will relish the thought that as our nation crumbles, while Asia, China and South America under Chavez rises to the heights that we jumped from in an alarmist fit, I will take solace knowing that those responsible for our downfall, will have children and grandchildren who will hate them for the h**l that they will have wrought upon us all.

Answer 23

MY THOUGHTS ARE HE'S INTERESTED, BUT TO LISTEN TO SCIENTISTS WORKING OUTSIDE OF THEIR EXPERTISE IS FUTAL. IF MC CAIN HAD SEEN MY LINK AND TRIED MY EXPERIMENT, HE'D PROBLEY BE HAVING IT WORKED RIGHT NOW, IF HE'S REALLY SEROUS OR JUST BEING A POLITICIAN..   http://www.socyberty.com/Activism/First-...

Answer 24

Sounds like John Wayne but I think McCain's a better actor.I think MaCain means that he is justified to renege if China and India does not agree with his proposal which is nonsense because China have publicly declared that it will cut down its emission of pollutant gasses.

Answer 25

Mac Same is like a used car salesman, the only time he tells the truth is when his lips aren't moving!

Answer 26

We haven't had a true environmentalists president since Nixon was forced to resign for his felonies.   It's encouraging to hear every candidate talking like one but the pragmatism would be even better.