Hi Barbara,

I am afraid that you are contradicting yourself with those statements of opinion, at least how I interpreted them.

You stated that the economy and jobs are most important. But, the economy and jobs are closely linked with energy availability. And electing a “global warming is not real” candidate will cause energy to become even more expensive.

And of course, earthquake research funding will continue to diminish. I understand that the USGS has now been ordered to take a 10% budget cut for next year – more lost jobs!

Let’s consider the two factors that are, in my opinion, perhaps the main ones affecting the economy and jobs.

FIRST,

The administration and the Congress need to have realistic economic policies.

With that in mind, consider the following (if I remember correctly):

--- At the end of the Clinton era the U.S. was doing so well economically that we were starting to pay down the National Debt.

--- At the end of the (second) Bush era we were engaged in wars in two countries, there had been major tax cuts for the wealthy, and the National Debt had skyrocketed.

So, which administration had the better economic policies, the Democratic one or the Republican one?

SECOND,

The second most important factor for getting and keeping the economy moving is to have adequate supplies of environmentally safe, affordable energy.

The Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations have all largely dropped the ball with this one. And the really sad part is that during its first year the Obama administration had enough votes in Congress to push through some vitally important energy development legislation in spite of what would have undoubtedly been extremely fierce opposition from the oil industry. Now it might be too late. The (cash) cows (voters) have left the barn and probably won’t be back.

So, that brings us up to the

PRESENT TIME

The reason that some candidates are stating that “global warming is not real” is because they want the oil industry to give them some campaign cash.

When you admit that global warming could be real it means that it is important to look for alternate sources of energy that don’t add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. And the means less oil burned and possibly lower profits for the oil industry. Whether or not their profits would actually be lower is a matter for debate. The economics are complicated.

So, if one of those “global warming is not real” candidates gets into the White House it means that the oil companies will continue to get anything and everything they want. The price of energy will continue to be high and go even higher. The economy will fall apart even faster than it has been doing. And even more jobs will be lost.

If Obama wins a second term I would expect that if nothing significant changes, the economy will continue to get weaker, but at a slower rate.

On the other hand, if one of the “global warming is not real” candidates gets into the White House the economy and jobs will likely head into the tank at an ever increasing speed.

So, it appears to me to be a choice between bad and worse.

Electing a “global warming is not real” candidate won’t help. Instead it can be expected to have catastrophic consequences for us all.

Will that discussion change anyone’s mind on this? I would be surprised if it did. However, I work all the time on economic policies among other things. For example, unexpected earthquakes can have a catastrophic effect on the economy. I have been quite successful with some past efforts. And those are my opinions.