Its good to see that the tide of drivel hasn’t dried up:
I am uniquely qualified to lead our nation during this technological revolution. While in the Navy, I depended upon the technologies and information provided by our nation’s scientists and engineers with during each mission…
is particularly stupid. I flew in an aeroplane recently, so I fully understand jet engines? Apart from that, McCain says nothing terribly interesting, though its all worthy enough. He will focus on this, and on that, and on the other, in a way that makes the word “focus” quite meaningless.
We know that greenhouse gas emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere, threaten disastrous changes in the climate. The same fossil-fuels that power our economic engine also produced greenhouse gases that retain heat and thus threaten to alter the global climate. No challenge of energy is to be taken lightly, and least of all, the need to avoid the consequences of global warming. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple commonsense demand that we act to meet the challenge, and act quickly. To dramatically reduce carbon emissions, I will institute a new cap-and-trade system that over time will change the dynamic of our energy economy. By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emissions, by 2020, a return to 1990 levels, and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050
Fair enough. Text somewhat weaker than Obama’s, but the same pledge to quick action, and a reduction to 60% below ’90 by 2050 is not much different to Obamas. Cap-n-trade as the solution, which I think was O’s too. Presumably Palin will be brought onside at some point, or quietly forgotten, or replaced by Michael. Clean Coal… not very keen on that; presumably its a boondoggle to the coal producers.
The rest is all a bit boring, hard to tell apart from Obama. So what exactly was the point of all of this?
[Update: Daily Kos notices the same problem with his drivel, and adds some problems with his claims to have sponsored tech. Thanks to T -W]
OK, I wrote all of that without looking at what anyone else thought.
What is striking here is the choice to open with threaten disastrous changes in the climate. Why not open with what the science states: that greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate, and the changes could become disastrous if left unchecked? The omission of the first clause is very curious. McCain`s opening line fails to recognize that the climate is currently changing, only that it might some day. That is a big difference
In principle I agree. But I think its just nit-picking: if you’re proposing quick action, and 60%-off-1990-by-2050, then you believe in GW, and the exact form of words you use doesn’t matter.
Didn’t find any of the other usual suspects commenting yet.
[Update: auctioning CO2 permits may be a difference. See comments.]