Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good President? If so, why?

Right on with this evaluation, Ronald Reagan like!

I agree.

I agree, we do need someone with a firm grasp of the military!

I'm not sure where you get your information from on their political affiliations, but regardless, I don't really see an issue with "left-leaning", what I have an issue with is "left or die" or "right or die" individuals, which seem to be our only choices lately.

I am going to make an assumption that you think because a scientist studies or speaks about "global cooling, global warming, climate change" that they are automatically a liberal. And yes, the study of CLIMATE CHANGE is based on science. It is a proven scientific fact that climate change is happening...cause is the human industrial machine. Admitting to the fact that climate change is happening does not make you a liberal, it makes you intelligently informed. People that believed in the Earth revolving around the sun were considered blasphemous against god...guess what? The planets do actually revolve around the sun. So to say that because of someone's scientific beliefs it defines their political affiliation/religion/children's temperament is asinine and ignorant.

I could go into an extremely long explanation of climate change, how we know its happening, prove it with facts and logic and scientific knowledge, but I have a strong feeling I will just be called a crazy liberal with a political agenda....

To say that because the "lefties" support the idea of climate change makes climate change fake is EXTREMELY ignorant. I'll give you an example of some "science" the "righties" grabbed (to protect oil money coming into their pockets) was the fact that tetraethyl lead was completely safe in gasoline and that it caused no harm to humans after being burned. They even had real scientists "prove" its safety. Yeah, that turned out well once it was discovered that lead in the air we were breathing increased hundreds of times since the invention of tetraethyl lead. That's DEFINITELY not an example of the misuse of science.

On your final point, you seem to be putting an ungodly amount of pressure on our future president. I personally have never met anyone who is an expert in national/international policy, economics, diplomacy AND leadership. Besides, the president isn't the one making the decisions, our Congress and House of Representatives does. The president signs it. Unless you're Obama, then you just make an executive order and bypass the rest of the system....

Just so you are aware, leaded gas wasn't phased out because of toxicity at all. TEL is still used today (not commonly) but was primarily phased out due to the environmentalist push for cleaner exhaust. The TEL cannot be processed by the catalyst in catalytic converters and destroys them. Therefore it had to go. Of course, the additive isn't exactly good for you, but a lot of toxic crap comes out of the exhaust pipe if you were to suck it down concentrated like. You could say that the right had hold of the TEL due to oil money, but you would be wrong. Investors, not necessarily the "right," favored TEL simply because it was more effective than its only competitor, ethanol. Because it was more effective it was more profitable. There wasn't a huge environmental movement at that time, so there also wasn't an evil hand in the cookie jar. Nobody sought to poison people for profits, they simply followed good business. Thank god for good business in TEL, because fuel additives drove Aviation Science and contributed to winning the war.

If you were going to develop theories that point to evil schemers, I would say it is pretty convenient that catalytic converters killed TEL, leaving only ethanol to replace it. Of course, ethanol is the left-wing leaf-eater baby, but that isn't why I hate it. Ethanol is simply bad science, that costs far more than it is worth, has no environmental impact for the better, and contributes to inflation and absurd government spending. But hey, attack the right for good business and industrial advances, and praise the left for wasting money and brain cells.

I agree with SSG Allen's analysis. Climate change is a fact. That much is very easy to identify but what is NOT as easily discerned is what causes it. What is NOT the most direct and primary cause of climate change is human behavior. People, like Al Gore, use fear mongering to bully others into submitting to their blatant deceptiveness. Ironically, some of those who perpetuate the lie are some of the biggest violators of their own mantra. Again, look at Al Gore, one of the biggest "climate change" hypocrites out there. He flies around in jets and has a massive electric consuming mansion yet he dares to criticize others for their lifestyle when he "consumes" much much more.

Scientifically, climat change occurs because of natural occuring events. Most people learn these simple facts early in life, like the planet revolving around the sun. This revolving produces the various seasons throughout the year. In addition, there are plenty of other natural occuring things. One major one is volcanic eruptions which emit massive amounts of toxic gases, steam and lava into the surrounding atmosphere and land mass. At its initial stages, an eruption causes quite a bit of damage to the earth but strangely enough the earth eventually heals itself. In fact after some time has elapsed, much of the residue ends up being helpful to the land. I won't go into much detail since it can be quite expansive but it's some amazing reading. The irony too is a volcanic eruption does much more damage to the environment than what we humans could do combined in a year, yet as I stated above, the earth is constantly healing itself. Truly amazing.

This is an extremely long post. I don't blame you for walking away now. I got carried away and didn't realize how long it became. And I apologize now. I'm not trying to belittle anyone. If I did, it was an accident. Enjoy and thanks for debating with me...

I knew it was going to happen. Now I am a liberal supporter because I attacked the right-wing's "good business and industrial advances." Neither party has good business and neither actually support industrial advances. SSG Allen, you make the whole thing sound like Republicans are only out for making life better and left-wing liberal nuts are trying to stop the world from spinning. I'm going to copy and paste something I found. Its from Wikipedia (I know, can't be trusted), but I only pulled this because I had already known about this, I just couldn't find it referenced anywhere else: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead)

"In the late 1920s, Robert A. Kehoe of the University of Cincinnati was the Ethyl Corporation's chief medical consultant and one of the lead industry's staunchest advocates, who would not be discredited until decades later by Dr. Clair Patterson's work on human lead burdens (see below) and other studies. In 1928, Dr. Kehoe expressed the opinion that there was no basis for concluding that leaded fuels posed any health threat. He convinced the Surgeon General that the dose–response relationship of lead was "no effect" below a certain threshold. As the head of Kettering Laboratories for many years, Kehoe would become a chief promoter of the safety of TEL, an influence that did not begin to wane until about the early 1960s. But by the 1970s, the general opinion of the safety of TEL would change, and by 1976 the U.S. government would begin to require the phaseout of this product.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Clair Patterson accidentally discovered the pollution caused by TEL in the environment while determining the age of the earth. As he attempted to measure lead content of very old rocks, and the time it took uranium to decay into lead, the readings were made inaccurate by lead in the environment that contaminated his samples. He was then forced to work in a clean room to keep his samples uncontaminated by environmental pollution of lead. After coming up with a fairly accurate estimate of the age of the earth, he turned to investigating the lead contamination problem by examining ice cores from countries such as Greenland. He realized that the lead contamination in the environment dated from about the time that TEL became widely used as a fuel additive in gasoline. Being aware of the health dangers posed by lead and suspicious of the pollution caused by TEL, he became one of the earliest and most effective opponents of its use."

You stated that it was phased out because it destroyed catalytic convertors (which was mandated by the government to clean up exhaust emissions), which is true in part. TEL did cause damage to the honeycomb membrane inside the convertor. But that was NOT the reasoning behind its phase-out. It was based on years of research showing that lead levels in everything we breathed, touched, wore, etc was contaminated by extremely higher than normal lead levels. It was the leading cause of declining IQ levels, higher crime rates, illnesses in children, etc across the entire planet, but especially in the US. It took scientists years to convince the government that TEL was the cause. After TELs phase-out, research has proven that all of the things I mentioned above improved over time. Gasoline manufacturers (every Republican has stock in petroleum companies) hired Dr. Kehoe (in the above excerpt) to "prove" TELs safety to the public. Lead has been known for hundreds of years to cause neurological damage. But this one guy said "Nope, totally safe." Just because you can't see the immediate damage from a toxin doesn't mean its safe. This crap happened over the course of generations! Its hard to see damage to the environment when its visible effects take a lifetime or two to show, and by that point, those who are actually seeing it don't remember who it started in the first place.

This is why there is such backlash to the idea of human-made climate change. It has taken generations to create it, and only now are we actually starting to see a glimpse of its effects. Since the 1890's we knew that we were dumping hundreds of thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Now its in the hundreds of BILLIONS of tons per year. And no, a volcano does not dump that much into the air in one shot. Maybe a super volcano, but not the ones in Hawaii or along the Ring of Fire or anywhere else in the world.

SSG Redondo, what you are referencing is weather patterns, NOT climate. Look at it like this, climate is akin to a man walking his dog. Weather patterns and seasons are like the dog, wandering left, right, left, up back, etc. The man is still moving in a straight line. Yes, I got that reference from "Cosmos" which is an awesome show, by the way.

While you are correct that the Earth is constantly healing itself, the issue comes to how much can the Earth heal before it becomes overloaded? If we continue to dump not only carbon dioxide but lead, plastic, petroleum products, etc. into the environment, there comes a point that our self-healing planet stops healing and can no longer keep up with the wounds it keeps suffering (no, I am not actually saying Earth is a person, its a reference, don't call me a liberal nut SSG Allen). You can only take so many hits before your body quits and dies, same thing for the planet. And because we think that, well, it will hurt business, and we fear the short-term profit loss, we refuse to change.

SSG Allen, do you know how fast our technology would advance if we had to phase-out petroleum?! We already have the tech, but it doesn't have the funding from big corporations to become large-scale, however, hybrid engines, long-life lithium batteries, solar cells that create more energy than gasoline, alternative fuels that provide more bang for the buck, etc. All of this is more advanced than the same technology we have been using since 1900. But the big money isn't behind it because its cheaper to keep doing what we are doing instead of being forced into a cleaner, healthier future. Gasoline is old-school (I still love my 60's hot rods). We were forced into space by the threat of communists flying above us, why is it so hard to imagine us forced into an environmental revolution? Because it would lower profit margins temporarily and god forbid we cut into some rich guy's wallet, even slightly....

Only if forced at gunpoint.....