Scientific American partnered with grassroots organization ScienceDebate.org earlier this summer to encourage the two main presidential candidates--Barack Obama and Mitt Romney--to answer 14 questions on some of the biggest scientific and technological challenges facing the nation. Pres. Obama and Gov. Romney have now answered these Top American Science Questions, which you can read below.
Editors will grade the candidates' answers for SA's November issue, which will be available on the iPad and in print in mid-October.
In the meantime, we need your help with this project. Do you find that the candidates' answers adequately address the thrust of the questions or do they sidestep important issues? Do the answers put forth concrete solutions? Did you find any of the answers particularly helpful or surprising?
We will highlight the most thoughtful and constructive comments and consider the best, verifiable information that you give us in our own deliberations and analysis. Please make sure to register with accurate contact information so that we can email you directly for followup questions, if need be.
See what we're tweeting about
148 Comments
Add CommentI am very glad to see they responded to the questions. Although the posted mostly goals there are a few actual proposed solutions even if a bit general.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's particularly sweet for us science geeks at SA is that several journalists who covered politics on a full-time basis privately assured us that neither candidate would answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a bit disappointed in both their answers on the vaccine question. They seem to have seen the word "vaccine" and just started to name talking points. Neither one really addressed the question of mandatory vaccination and its effect on mortality and herd immunity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding vaccine question . . . Yes, I saw that, too. Obvious topic for followup question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that in the discussion of math and science education, the emphasis is on producing more STEM graduates. There are already plenty of unemployed and misused STEM graduates. What we need is a society in which each of us has a better understanding of math and science than we do now. That way, we can better understand what STEM graduates are doing and make better use of their efforts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRomney and his supporters need a more thorough grounding in what science is, how science arrives upon the statements it makes, and what is meant by "theory" in the scientific community, as in "theory of evolution." Theory, in that sense, means that a scientific notion has been so thoroughly tested that no credible evidence contradicts the theory, and the theory is accepted as fact. Likewise, Romney erroneously states that global warming "suffers a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk — and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community." However, the scientific method never has required the level of consensus he disengenously omits defining, which he apparently thinks is 100%. The fact that he's aligned himself with a small number of incredibly well-funded but mis-informed critics with out-sized megaphones who have temporarily hijacked the debate will never change the level of agreement the scientific community requires to achieve the necessary consensus for the scientific advancement of public policy or public endeavor. Consider Apollo 11 or any other highly risky endeavor. If we waited for Romney's level of consensus, we'd still be bound to Earth's orbit. Further, we'd not be doing what are now fairly routine organ transplants, flying jets faster than the speed of sound, or living in a world free of small pox. In sum, Romney has not only dodged the question, he's conflated the financial interests of industrialist political supporters with a thoroughly politicized mischaracterization of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlad we partnered with SciAm! Our site is presently crashing under the heavy traffic. Any angel investors out there want to fund a beefier back end for ScienceDebate.org, let me know. @shawnotto
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hear this all the time and have concluded (with anecdotal evidence only) that it's confirmation bias. Political reporters largely come out of the humanities and their last science class was probably high school chemistry. Because they aren't interested they assume no one else is. Changing this old, 20th century thinking is part of what the ScienceDebate project is all about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right - they punted. It's disappointing, but also revealing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich is why an actual debate or forum that allows for followup questions is so important.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRomney must think we scientists are stupid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is partly what Obama was talking about, IMO, but you are right; neither addressd the underlying pipeline issue. What we need isn't more stem grads; it's more stem grads of specific kinds, and we don't have a good way of managing that flow yet, so we wind up with PhDs unable to find jobs in their fields.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMark Martino wrote: "What we need is a society in which each of us has a better understanding of math and science than we do now. That way, we can better understand what STEM graduates are doing and make better use of their efforts."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRomney has little to say except roll back all environmental, health & safety regulation to before Roosevelt (Theodore that is), break unions, abandon alternative energy to Europe & China, & pander to global warming deniers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeither has been challenged to address the fundamental priorities of federal funding of R&D research.
Obama will continue business as usual, but neither will address the fundamental shifts in R&D priorities required to address issues of global warming, resource strains, environmental collapse in oceans, fisheries, water supplies, i.e. all the issues where solutions are required to achieve a sustainable technological society.
Such issues will never be prioritized while the Depts. of Defense, Homeland Security & DOE's nuclear weapons programs consume over 60% of federal R&D funding ( or 75-80% of funding left over after National Inst. of Health budget is subtracted)
Here, here
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you serious or this post is really a joke? I certainly hope it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you actually submit any evidence Romney says he wants to roll back environmental, health and safety regulations to the 1930s? Lets turn that around, you liberals and Obama want to impose so many regulations that a man can't inhale or exhale without a breathing apparatus the liberals can use to measure oxygen used and CO2 output for taxation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe democrats, the party in power for 80 of the last 100 years are the ones who handed alternative energy, space, nuclear power and most everything else to china, france and etc... You have actually lived in America for the last 40 years or so?
How about we leave R&D in the hands of american ingenuity that comes from individuals who think for themselves and guess what, we will have the alternative energy and etc... you want so bad. It is socialists and communists who destroy environments and will never come up with anything useful. You are living in an ivory tower of liberal utopias if you believe a capitalist who would make tons of money from an alternative fuel is somehow not pursuing the lucrative goal.
Break unions? not sure how that even applies to this discussion, but lets hope so. The vast majority of the 16 Trillion dollar US debt and most of the deficits in every government in America are caused by bloated over paid pointless unionized government workers with their lavish pensions for working a short amount of time, 25 days of paid sick leave, 30 days of paid vacation, "free" healthcare and I no where does the Constitution say the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the taxpayer is abridged when government workers want lavish pay and union bosses want to be billionaires. Lets break the private ones too, I for one would not mind the price of cars, communication and most manufactured items coming down to reasonable once we get the bloat of unions out of the way. Again, not sure how this even applies but you brought up the union thing.
Meh, lots of rhetoric, few examples. Romney seems to have an unhealthy obsession with deregulating industry, he's turned every question into a speech about same. Let me know when their answers contain verifiable citations and have undergone peer review.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGovernment government government. The democrats do realize this is not China, russia, india or any part of Europe? The government is NOT the answer to much of anything and when it comes to the questions posed, the government is more likely to spend 10 times more than necessary for something that doesn't work. How do I know, I have personally seen how they spend money, easily 10 times too much. The other problem is once politicians have decided some ridiculous scheme or idea is the one they will fund, they will keep it going for years past the time when it should have been tossed aside as a bad idea. There are notable exceptions, such as DARPA but still, Obama is living up to his socialist beliefs, government government government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found it very interesting that both responses to the Education issue focussed on the teachers, much less so on the students. Is it not possible that the success of the educational system depends at least partly on the socioeconomic status and background of the students? What about issues like student safety, role models, nutrition...what about the possibility that many students may not see themselves as participants in the larger society, but instead as part of one of the numerous subcultures somewhat at odds with larger society, and attack their educational strategy (or lack thereof) from that perspective? Seems like nobody really sees the elephant in the room...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be nice to see answers from Jill Stein and Gary Johnson as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeither has overall "great" answers, but Obama's answers are slightly more believable and sensible than Romneys.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, it sounds like Obama *may* have actually written his own answers. Romneys are obviously "ghosted" by a staff member. ...Hence the inability to "keep it short and simple"....
I've only one simple query: Were the Questions 'evolved' or 'created'? LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"At the same time, I will confront nations like China that steal intellectual property from American innovators while closing off American access to their markets."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's hard to prevent China steal intellectual property.
given the costs for nuclear vs coal being almost the same http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisromney's idea of 'streamlining the regulatory process' would only make them cost the same. not exactly an incentive for nuclear. obama's cap and trade will actually drive the industry towards using clean energy eg. nuclear.
OK so both sides have some good views and I am not sure who I want to vote for this year, however Romney shut up about "Obama" can you think for yourself and prove that you are better than him with out trying to bad mouth him. Bullying and name calling are school age grow up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCome up with policies that can be proven. Most of what I have read so far you plan on messing up the messed up tax system and spending more tax dollars. Hmm sounds like your counterpart.
There is a definate need for better spending in the US we have gotten out of control and way too dependent on throw away technology. Employers should be encouraged to keep jobs in America and to create and produce American goods. It is proven that Americans can and do make better products but they tend to be at a high cost. Too much greed in the corporate enviroment. DOES any one have pride in their work in the corporate enviroment. How many executives go to bed at night and think they should send more jobs overseas. Seems like way too many. Bring the jobs back keep the jobs here and push to create inovation.
Romney says '(Obama's) “Utility MACT” rule is purportedly aimed at reducing mercury pollution, yet the EPA estimates that the rule will cost $10 billion to reduce mercury pollution by only $6 million (with an “m”).'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould someone tell Romney that we measure mercury pollution in notations like ppm (parts-per-million) or µg/g (microgram-per-gram), not dollars? (But of course, the correct notation wouldn't make any voters angry, would it?)
Very open debate by Presidential candidates on Science,Energy and Climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
I'm glad I took the time to read this Q&A from the Presidential Candidates. While I found President Obamas' answers quite lucid; I found Mitt Romneys' answers somewhat lacking in coherence. A few of his answers left me in a confused daze and required re reading to grasp the apparent answer he provided which at times was not a direct answer to a direct question at all. Couched intentions and elluding to a position on a matter while not answering a direct question with a direct answer is annoying enough in public interviews of politicians that will not make clear their position on a given matter.From what I can tell Romney would have the country as a whole revert back to pre EPA and National Park Protected Areas laws for personal motives and business ventures with associates of his own choosing rather than tolerate the notion of "Public Property" with Public Property Rights and preservation left intact by a former President. He embodied the epitomy of the arrogant selfishness of a profit for profits' sake and for the sake of profit mentality. I see no regard for environmental health and well being in his answers to these pertinent questions. I don't believe I need a follow up review of this debate. It was quite educational as it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate that they both answered the questions, even though it's pretty transparent and most of it lacks depth. But I still find it disturbing that while Romney keeps saying "I will do this" and "I will do that," please ask yourselves, CAN HE REALLY? Because the Obama platform in 2008 was "Yes We Can" and then he found out that because of stupid Congressional behavior, NO HE COULDN'T. So who's to say that Romney can actually keep any of the promises he's making? Does he have the power and authority to actually implement what he is saying he will do? I think not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWas anyone else surprised that Governor Romney agreed that global warming is real, caused at least in part by humans and that policy leaders should "consider the risk of negative consequences"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been watching and listening to both sides VERY CLOSELY and realized early that the right wants to DEREGULATE most safety aspects in the science world thru energy , global warning and the worlds food. No matter what the candidate says or claims to believe in the GOP will insist that if elected a republican president WILL do what the GOP wants so the wealthy backers of the GOP can make more and to hell with OUR world.In the past those who were fortunate enough to become wealthy from investing in AMERICA assisted in the structuring of our roads our parks our people and our future. Now todays GOP only invests in those who want to spend your money not thiers, they want less and less regulations for safegaurding our people and our planet and only focus on making the rich richer.If Romney was so intent on making America stronger why isn't he proud enough to show AMERICA, by hiding his monies in off shore accounts so he does not have to pay taxes which helps fund parks and jobs.He is a wealthy tax evader ( funny how you only here of those people when they run for office) who wants other wealthy tax evaders to have someone in the white house that will step on the havenots and give more to the HAVES. I DON'T BELIEVE A WORD MITT SAYS BECAUSE HE SAYS WHAT THE GOP TELLS HIM TO SAY AND WILL CHANGE HIS STATEMENTS AS SOON AS HE GETS THE CHANCE1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell done!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHonestly I think they both did a good job answering the questions with the information they have. Romney is just not as informed on the facts as Obama. I do like how Obama said, "We appointed scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology." His well rounded responses can probably be attributed to this one fact. He does not claim to know all the answers but he is willing to listen and take advice from people that spend their lives studying these things. Romney's grotesque science misconceptions only prove his argument that American public education needs reform.
The current regulatory requirements in the USA over the desgn and construction of nuclear plants are estimated to add more than 50% to the cost of building a new plant. These inefficient and slow approval processes is why it takes so long to get approval and to build a modern facility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not a republican, but imo Romney has a better energy policy than does Obama
I really like how Obama said "We appointed scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology." His well rounded responses can probably be attributed to this one fact, he is wiling to take advice from the very people that spend their lives studying these things. Romney's grotesque science misconceptions only validate his point that U.S. public education needs reform.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRachel praises Obama for ""We appointed scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishint...these are canned responses. It's amusing that Americans are so gullible that they think these answers matter a hoot. Science is issue number 96 on the agenda of both these candidates.
On every Sunday both Obama and Romney will be attending (sometimes twice) church to worship a dead-guy-on-a-stick and not going to a science museum.
The contrast on the issue of climate change could not be more stark. Clearly Romney refuses to acknowledge the overwhelming consensus view that global warming is man-driven, claims (falsely) that there is a still a debate over this in the "scientific community." There is not. The debate is between real scientists on the one hand and energy industry hacks / anti-regulatory zealots on the other. There is no science behind the climate contrarian position. None. As for Obama, his response is lukewarm at best (no pun intended). Although his response clearly indicated he believes that global warming is anthropogenic, it remains to be seen if, in a second term, he will have the political courage to move that problem from the back to the front burner (again, no pun intended).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou gotta start somewhere. Either light a candle or curse the darkness. I'd rather light a candle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKudos to Science Debate for their persistence to get the campaigns to do this! As expected, the answers are rather vague; they'll never truly satisfy the scientific community, but that's what one would presume to get given how campaigns run these days.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo keep this topic (science issues in policy decisions) hot in the public sphere, I'd recommend that every organization, blogger, and individual get out press releases/posts headlined, "Romney agrees global warming is caused by humans" and link back here. That's the BIGGEST news out of these answers and will drive traffic and, thus interest, to all the other issues addressed. It'd be great to get this to become the dominant theme in the campaign for days.
I dont think there is anything incorrect in Romney's statement that the risks associated with Global Warming are unknown, because they truly are not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you read both of the responses to the global warming question with an open mind, I honestly think Romney's approach may be better, and I am a liberal minded engineer working for a solar company.
Look, I want reduce GHG emissions as much as possible, but trying to do this by commercializing Solar and Wind right now is not going to be effective and the main reason is that the average US consumer is not willing to see their utility
bills triple or quadruple which would be the result if any significant portion of our electrical generation infrastructure were supplied by wind and solar (overall higher cost + intermittency costs). Furthermore, if the US takes the economic hit to deploy a huge amount of renewables, conventional resources like natural gas, and coal that we are importing now will simply be sold to other less developed countries. The change in emissions will effectively be zero.
On the flipside, if we focus our investment into renewables on the R&D, not commercial side, then the money will work solely toward the goal of providing a cost-effective solution that the general public will be willing to pay for. In the mean time our economy will become healthy again by fully utilizing natural resources. We will be able to make even stronger efforts to move away from fossil fuels once the economy is more stable. Obama's strategy is to basically produce `3-5% of our energy from renewables even though current costs are huge. The intention is good, but the benefit of 3-5% isnt worth the investment. When the technologies are cost-effective enough to produce >25% of the countries energy, then it will be worth it. Nuclear is the most promising low-cost, low-emissions power source of all.
Im a scientist, what Romney says does make sense if you have an open mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@sjn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvery good comment. R&D needs to be re-prioritized. R&D in energy solutions needs to gain much more funding. Right now a lot of the funding for new energy technologies goes to deployment rather than R&D, I feel that this is backwards and a reversal would yield much better and quicker overall results. That is why ironically as an environmentalist I think I will have to vote for Romney though I would rather vote for neither.
@pridseren
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood comment, but try being less abrasive. Attacking liberal-minded people turns them off to alternate ideals even more and doesn't do anything to dispell the myth that conservatives dont care about the environment.
We have to explain that yes we do care, we just have a much more realistic and effective means of dealing with it.
Actually Romney's answers are much more substantiated whether you agree with them or not, he lists many more actions. I appreciate the more thorough response whether it was he or his staff. Afterall, a president's trusted peers are very crucial in many decisions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou aren't accounting for the costs of the regulatory process (and the construction delays they cause). These costs are huge and are why the $/kWh for a nuclear plant built now is much higher than for previously built plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a silly comment, knowing the value in $ of eliminating said mercury pollution is the only way to know if the investment required is worth it. DUUUHHH
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually I think Romney is more informed. investing in R&D of energy alternatives is appropriate. Using the natural gas and coal resources in america to stabilize the economy is appropriate because they will be burned eslewhere otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInvesting huge sums of money in commercialization of non-cost-effective solar technologies to displace <1% of GHG emitting sources is not worth it and it is a fallacy that we can switch our energy infrastructure to a majority of non-GHG emitting sources right now without paralyzing the economy. Invest that money instead in R&D so that we can deploy huge amounts of cost effective wind and solar in the future. and nuclear too. Obama has good intentions, but isn't the actions are not realistic and won't be effective.
Great comment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said it well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscookeemonst wrote, "We have to explain that yes [conservatives] do care [about the environment], we just have a much more realistic and effective means of dealing with it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease tell us about your "realistic and effective means." Do you mean closing down the EPA and eliminating environmental regulations to allow the "free market" to protect the environment? If that would work, BP would now be out of business (or at the very least BP would no longer have a retail business).
Corporations are very shortsighted -- executives and shareholders want to get rich now. Environmental problems take a much longer time to reveal the consequenses to public health. Consumers don't care (or don't know) when it's not in their backyard.
Aren't you asking a bit too much of either candidate? You're asking them to address questions that only an expert can address in a thorough way. I think it's intended that the candidates lay out general thoughts on the topic, rather than engage in in depth discussions
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe EPA calculated the value of MACT w.r.t. IQ loss: "The present economic value of avoided IQ loss from reduced mercury air emissions due to implementation of the Toxics Rule in 2016 is estimated at a range of $4.1 million to $6.1 million."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo tie the economic benefit of MACT exclusively to this $6 million estimate is ridiculous.
It is shocking that in 2012 someone can be running for the presidency of the most powerful nation in the world and still avoid taking climate change seriously. Contrary to Romney's oft repeated but incorrect assertion, climate scientists have reached consensus on global warming as a serious event that has begun and the adverse effects of which are already being felt in many parts of the world, and that humans are the primary driver of this climate event and its diverse consequences. People are already dying from these effects, as affirmed by the World Health Organization. To put off acting until consensus is reached on every single detail by every single climate scientist not only indicates a serious misunderstanding of science and how it works but an extremely fool hearty and dangerous stance for someone who might soon wield considerable power. The president of the United States should not merely be a mouthpiece and servant of the oil companies and others who economically benefit from ignoring the radical changes that are occurring on Earth because of our actions. But by sidestepping the seriousness of climate change and by calling for steps (e.g., unfettered growth) that are the actual causes of the problem that is precisely what Romney is doing. That makes him a very scary man.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe research that goes into a failure is just as beneficial as the research that goes into success. Romney and the GOP think science is just a tally of "winners and losers" in the market. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuick clue to Romney and Obama; Short, sweet, and to-the-point always works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the Climate Change question - I am glad that Mr. Romney at least acknowledges that if "global warming" is not happening then something else is, and it is not good. "Global warming" is a pitfall. The single biggest mistake made by anyone who loves the environment is to latch on to "global warming" as the catch phrase. There is not a consensus that "global warming" is the end of the world as we know it - obviously people (even intelligent scientists) still argue about the actual and direct impact of global warming. However, as an engineer in the power sector (ground zero of the greenhouse gas, clean Air, clean water, etc. debates) I can tell you from personal experience that no matter how "conservative" someone is or how adamantly they argue against the consequences of global warming, they cannot help but admit the same thing Mr. Romney did. Something bad is happening all around us, humans are to blame, and it is not just the temperature that is the problem. Clean Water, minerals, forests, animals, and clean air are all vital to our improved lives and we are damaging them all. Find someone who can argue that we are not. The other point I thought was critical is that we (U.S.) are not the leading polluter in the world anymore and that further injuring ourselves to put a band aid on the problem is not helping anyone. Carbon taxing is one of the worst ideas to come out of Washington DC and ivory tower think tanks in a long time - and that is saying something. You might not know that our regulations for permitting a new power plant are 10 to 100 times more strict than anywhere else in the world including Europe. The World Bank will finance projects that do not meet the US 1972 era Clean Air Act limits which we have ratcheted down in the United States a dozen times now. My company builds some of the cleanest plants in the world here in the US. We are seeing plants built overseas (Europe, Asia, South America) that would not have been permitted here in the US 20 years ago because the emissions are too high. If we cannot control what our neighbors are putting out, maybe we should spend more time on technology to change the outcome. Instead of taxing (or costing) US companies billions to ratchet down emissions below detectable thresholds while other countries pollute away - let's invest some money from each power plant in figuring out how to clean up the air and water post-combustion. I am not saying we should stop regulating cleaner plants, but there is a diminishing return and we are there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe contrasting positions seem (to me) to be centered around the government as a restraint (or a prod) to business's (Obama) versus the government as an ally and support to business (Romney).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I take from this is that Obama is working to fix the problems while Romney is looking to profit from them (well, the wealthy as a whole to profit).
The main point of business is to profit and when government starts becoming the 'partner', expect private profit at public expense. Romney doesn't understand that fascism (the merger of corporate and political power) doesn't work. It only provides a path to totalitarianism.
What is disturbing to me is the clear lack of scientific understanding by both candidates. As a chemistry teacher I cringe every time I hear Obama talk about "clean coal" Coal is carbon. It turns into carbon dioxide when burned. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas... Limiting the import of foreign oil is good for American energy independence, but continuing to drill and frack our own land does not reverse global warming, or show global leadership to reverse the problems created during the Industrial Revolution. Romney's statement that "there is a lack of scientific consensus on the topic" clearly shows his lack of understanding of even the basics of scientific process. He answers the questions as though they are economic issues, avoiding addressing scientific concerns as much as possible. I have chosen to address only one question in this comment, but the same trend can be seen throughout many of their answers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think Romney needs to scientifically prove, using peer review, that Mormon magic underwear actually works. Now, that would be interesting. If he can prove that without a doubt I'll follow him to the ends of the earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding Question 2 - Climate Change. Romney's comment that there is a "lack of scientific consensus on the issue" is false. The scientific consensus is overwhelming that global warming is real and human activity is the major cause. Romney promotes continued discussion - which means take no action - on the most pressing long term problem facing humanity. His position on this is unacceptable. Obama's answer is better but still weak. He needs to do more!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell put. You said it better than I did. Its hard to know what Romney really believes, as he has changed his position on so many issues. He does not have the support of his base on this issue, so he takes a wishy-washy stance on climate change. I'd love to see some real political courage on this from him (and Obama).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as I can tell:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama's answer to question 3 seemed to cover a bigger variety of research to fund than Romney's.
Romney's answer to question 4 provided more specific steps than Obama's to deal with pandemics, but not bioterrorism.
Romney's answer to question 6 mentioned that Obama rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline, but did not mention that Nebraskans were against having it routed over its Ogallala Aquifer and that Obama approved the Oklahoma to Texas segment.
Romney's answer to question 7 addressed foodborne illnesses, but not other risks (hormones, pesticides, herbicides, etc.)
Obama's answer to question 9 didn't address the problem of improving internet access for the rural areas, but Romney's answer didn't address the problem of ensuring that no internet content is restricted in favor over other internet content.
Romney's answer to question 11 mentioned relied on an editorial that misinterpreted EPA's analysis (see http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/12/08/385329/epa-mercury-rules/?mobile=nc).
Maybe you guys can add to whatever I missed in my observations.
As a (Swiss) outsider, let me try to analyze the key elements advanced by both politicians addressing the first and most crucial question "What policies will best ensure that America remains a world leader in innovation?":
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama: "... we must create an environment where invention, innovation, and industry can flourish. We can work together to create an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, and skills for American workers."
He hits the nail on the head in prioritizing invention over innovation -- yet by fostering an economy built on US-only manufacturing, energy, and worker's skills, he either promptly dismisses the importance of invention he just stressed, or insinuates that inventions and inventors should be imported...
Obama: "... 100,000 science and math teachers over the next decade. These teachers will meet the urgent need to train one million additional STEM graduates over the next decade."
Exactly what I feared: his heavy, if not exclusive, reliance on teachers tends to indicate that, as a pure intellectual and despite giving invention priority over innovation, he may actually neither understand the fundamental difference between invention and innovation, nor, so much the more, the foremost importance of invention.
An example may illustrate my view: in the early twenties, an immigrated Russian aviation engineer, Igor Sikorsky, founded a US company that was going to produce the worlds first fully functional helicopter; another immigrant, Werner von Braun, became the initiator of the US space saga; and still another immigrant, Albert Einstein, led America to the first atomic bomb.
However, are you sure that all these are genuine inventions? Nope! Neither the chopper (invented by Mother Nature), nor the rocket (invented by the Chinese), and not even the bomb, which resulted from collective fundamental research, were inventions according to the underlying meaning of the term 'to invent' -- which stems from 'inventory' and means 'to gather an inventory', whereby the substantive 'inventor' designs the gatherer. Inventory of what? Of the state of the art, i.e. of all existing solutions pertaining to a given subject matter -- whereby the challenge consists of combining two or more existing solutions into a new and more efficient one.
(2nd part)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo illustrate this, here's another example: about 30 years ago, the most advanced fast-cruising VERTOL aircraft concept, i.e. the V22-Osprey tilt-rotor, was launched by a Bell/Boeing military joint venture. Although this concept was indeed not to be considered a genuine invention, it has in the meantime become a challenge to inventors, since it suffers from a redhibitory snag, being unable to auto-rotate, i.e. to land safely in helicopter configuration after a total engines-out failure. This problem is right now being tackled through a call for submissions issued to private US companies by the US Air Force -- yet, cynically enough, no provision is made for the transfer of the forthcoming solution to the civil version, the AW-609, launched in 2002.
This means that the US government is withholding from the civil society a potentially game-changing invention yet to be made. This forthcoming invention (a variable/reversible-twist rotor-blade) is likely to unleash a massive trend towards individual aero-mobility based on personal ultra-light electric tilt-rotor aircraft deemed to replace the traditional motor car for intercity traffic, leaving as its sole survivor the ultra-light electric mini-car for urban traffic.
Why should this be politically so hot? Here's why: if Russia, China, and India were heading full steam for the motorcar, a planetary disaster would become unavoidable -- not so much because of the motorcar itself, as it will soon become non-polluting, but because of the huge motorway networks that would have to be put into place, with astronomic construction costs and yet incalculable maintenance costs, especially for Russia with its extreme annual temperature changes.
If the would-be US rulers-of-the-world continue to deny these perspectives, Russia, China, India, and, mind you... Europe (maybe ahead of all), will seize the opportunity to switch from power enforcement based on absolute military control of the global airspace, to the enforcement of civil authority, based on sheer occupation of the global airspace with myriads of personal aircraft of the above described type.
(continued)
(3rd and last part)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMitt Romney: "Innovation is the key to economic growth and job creation..."
But is growth and job creation all you want? Could it be that he is scared of game-changing inventions?
"... protect American intellectual property around the world."
Well, at least he doesn't recommend importation of inventions and inventors...
"We must reform America’s legal immigration system to attract and retain the best and the brightest..."
Oops! That's indeed what he meant: around-the-world protection of intellectual property generated in the States by imported inventors -- tell him I'm a candidate!
Or maybe you should import your next president!
(End)
I also agree that both vaccine replies didn't address the real problem, however I don't think mandatory vaccination is required - rather a modest sized public education campaign targeted to areas with particularly high 'opt-out' rates would probably be adequate. Something like drunk driving ads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery disappointed that Romney chose to use this forum as yet another attack on Obama. Cannot he answer a question on its own merits?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, in a nutshell, Romney offers vague stuff that helps the ultra-rich and big polluters first, while tossing GT science students (and GT students in general) in the gutter, and ignoring all of the evidence on global warming, etc. . Nothing we haven't seen before.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRomney quote: So I oppose steps like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system that would handicap the American economy and drive manufacturing jobs away, all without actually addressing the underlying problem. Economic growth and technological innovation, not economy-suppressing regulation, is the key to environmental protection in the long run. So I believe we should pursue what I call a “No Regrets” policy — steps that will lead to lower emissions, but that will benefit America regardless of whether the risks of global warming materialize and regardless of whether other nations take effective action.
What the **** does that even mean? I can see "slash the EPA", "protect polluters", and "eliminate environmental protections for profit" there.
In a later passage (Question 4, to be exact), Romney implies that it is better to get more drugs out faster than to make sure that those drugs are safe. Hmm, really?
My interpretation of Romney's energy plan: "Green's too expensive for my boss--I mean, this country, so let's go ahead and risk a major oil spill right over a bunch of huge aquifers."
Keystone XL is such a bad idea, I can't go into detail here, but basic information is available on many environmentalist sites.
Romney's Clean Water Act policy: Cut it out, and let "market-based programs" run wild (=let the polluters do what they donated to Romney 2012 for).
Romney loves to complain about the President "bankrupting" the coal industry (hard to do, given the profits that I've somewhat unreliably extrapolated from the approximate number, frequency, and placement of TV ads from coal companies), and then claiming that that would somehow be a bad thing. With coal, the sooner we're off it, the better.
On Question 13 (I'm not going to copy it here), Romney manages to change the subject, so that he emphasizes his regulation-free oil plan at the expense of any actual policy on rare-earth elements.
Nothing there that hasn't been said before, but it's got to be said.
priddsen: It's funny how you defend DARPA, one of the biggest "wasters of money" ever. Didn't they try to get agents to kill goats by staring at them ( using purported "paranormal" powers)??? I think the military may be the biggest source of the national debt. That and failed right wing econimic policies brought in since Reagan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEducation:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunetly, there are 2 things missing from our education: desire, and standards. I have been a student in the education system for 21 years now and I've noticed that 1) People come out not prepared because standards were lowered so everyone could graduate 2) People don't graduate or require lower standards because they are not willing to put in the hours and hard work. We are the land of oppertunity, which is why we work so hard to provide education to every child in america. But eduation is an oppertunity, not a right, and if children don't want to put in the dedication to earn a degree, than that oppertunity should be allowed to pass them by. You can't change the american culture by attaching teachers, or throwing more money at the institution.
Water Resources:
I find it disheartening that Obama lists 'swimming' as an important use of fresh water over 'farming'. Irrigation used to support our population uses more water per acre than human consumption currently (ex. Phoenx AZ). This IS a huge issue that our next government must tackle. Aquafers are drying out, huge droughts are setting in, and cities are using more water than the environment can support. Plus, the concept that water resources can not be used to 0 doesn't seem to cross their mind. Water must be left so rivers can run, wildlife can survive, and natural ecosystems can function to continue to produce more resources. Both responses show a lack of understanding of the importance of water.
Natural Resource:
Romney: State regulation of destructive practices such as those in energy are worse than Federal (ex. fracing in PA). States are eager for the income and will approve anything. That's why the turnover is so fast.
To Both: While rare earth is important (and stated as an example in the question), other very critical resourses that MUST be managed better if we wish to feed & cloth our nation and export in the future, are WATER (NOTHING happens without water), grasslands (cattle, sheep, pigs), SOIL (NOTHING happens without soil), forests (commercial merchandise, construction), and ocean ecosystems. When other practices, like housing booms, fracing, mining, and overgrazing and water depleation destroy these resources, this should be a major concern. Otherwise, we'll soon be not only dependant on importing oil, but water and food as well.
Dear Mr President Obama and potential next Mr President Obama/President Romney,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all due respect to your high office, there was one pivotal and yet a simple question in fundamental physics, the bedrock of science, for which question an answer was not forthcoming at all from the mainstream science community or from its hierarchy. In desperation I wrote to President Obama two letters (1 and 2, below, hard copies of which were also rushed to the White House by FedEx) over three years ago. Even an acknowledgement is yet to be received; and so this open letter to you, thanks to Scientific American here.
In answering the letters, you may well decide the future course of basic research and possibly save millions in research grants or rechannel the funds into more useful science research such as the ones you mention here.
(1) http:www.sittampalam.net/PresidentObama.pdf
http:www.sittampalam.net/PresidentObama.pdf
(2) http:www.sittampalam.net/PresidentObama2.pdf
Thank you, in much anticipation,
Eugene Sittampalam
Ottawa, Canada
www.toe.tv
here's what Romney said in his convention speech about global warming:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans. My promise is to help you and your family."
That's what Romney believes and that's what he's going to do about global warming. Zero. Zilch. Or less than zero. So don't worry about what his staff members wrote- it may look very nice, but it has no bearing on his actual position.
I was stuck by the contrast: Romney almost always responded a great length, but said much less. Obama focused on clear principles and statements about what he had already done, and his priorities going forward. Romeny focused on what he insists the government should not do - rarely what it would do under a Romney administration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFour years from now, America will be much more competitive with the rest of the world, and far further along the journey to a sustainable and clean economy, with Obama as President.
I hope that SA will comment on the veracity of the comments when asking any follow-up questions, especially when the candidates invoke the alleged statements and positions of their opponants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout attempting to go into huge analytical detail, the most visible difference between the two responses was that Romney spent more time "dissing" his "reframe" of Obama's actions than Romney spent on ~coherently~ describing what he (Romney) could reasonably expect to successfully be doing (in re creating conservative consensus).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I have a followup question that begs to be addressed. Unfortunately, it comes in the form of a link to Forbes ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/01/31/is-the-us-in-a-phase-change-to-the-creative-economy/ ) which is referencing an article in Vanity Fair ( http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/01/stiglitz-depression-201201 ). I would be EXTREMELY interested to hear the two candidates respond to the critical question posed by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz: is the US economy going through a fundamental shift in the nature of the economy? Is the US economy undergoing a phase change — a shift from one fundamental economic state to another? Even better would be for someone more adept to take a shot at distilling from those articles the fundamental four or five "actionable" questions, and getting responses to THOSE. Good luck with that...
Because none of the initially posed questions really addressed the issue of positions being replaced by technology. There are NO jobs (other than "service economy" positions) emerging for 90% of the people who have been laid off over the last several years. And when FedEx and UPS and the USPS gets automation that will handle picking up and moving randomly positioned 130 pound boxes from here to there, one every three seconds, ANOTHER twenty or thirty thousand people are going to be "out on the streets".
I know, they both used the words "Innovation" and "Creativity" -- but if the underlying issues aren't in focus, ANY attempted solutions are going to be seen, in hindsight, as mis-spent resources, pushing us closer to a tipping point of "we can no longer get OUT to where the resources are available to fuel our recovery".
Not to get all dystopian, but as someone who SHOULD have been famous SHOULD have said "Can't pull yourselves up by your bootstraps once you've already eaten your boots..."
All of these questions were of the "what will you do" variety. Obama answered all (too often with conclusory or vague statements) in a direct manner and never once mentioned Rommney or answered for the Republicans by assigning them a position. I counted 19 times that Rommney referred to Obama by name or referred to "him" or "his" action directly. That doesn't seem to be the point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs has been said before, the real difference in the two responses throughout is that the President provides concrete responses and Romney provides nothing but rhetoric, apparently taking "science" to mean simply "regulatory strangulation of economic growth."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best example may be the Ocean Health question which, in essence, asked "What role should government play in the health and sustainability of the oceans?" Romney spoke only about the business of fisheries, not ocean acidification, pollution, eutrophication, recreational value, and other "health" issues that in the end affect fisheries... and then answered, "...what form of governance should be employed: where are international agreements required, where is government regulation most appropriate, and where can the fishing industry itself serve as the best steward?" Huh? If anyone can find an actual answer in there, I am all ears.
One is left asking just who wrote the Romney opinion on energy issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do the Republicans feel so passionate about
using up our own energy sources first. We did that
with our easily obtainable oil and wow that got us real far in energy independence. Now we will draw down, as we have with
water in the Midwest, the last remaining portion of energy on this continent. Now what is independent about
a pipeline from Canada to the Gulf coast? Is that somehow part of 'our' energy supply too?
I remember, as a student on exam days, how the teachers -- prior to handing out the test papers -- would emphasize the importance of reading, and rereading each question, to be sure we understood just what was being asked, what information we needed to provide to create a complete and correct answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomeone should have given that little talk to Romney.
It seems that Mr. Romney misconstrued this informal exam as just another campaign exercise. By my count, he attacked Pres. Obama by name in five of his eight answers. Pres. Obama did not mention Mr. Romney once, not even obliquely.
I'd like to have an edited version of both sets of responses, with all of the "the other guy is/isn't doing blah blah" parts taken out. just to be able to clearly comprehend each person's intention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell put.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama's comment that the USA has 100 years of gas is telling. What happens then? that is only 3 generations hence, and it seems more than unfair to the future to use it all up now. who gives us the right to do that?
Romney wants to put larger fawcets on all of the wells, and the neighbours wells also, to fix current shortages. so, maybe that means "less than" 100 years before the piggy bank is empty? this solution is "more of the same, less of the new", and is stifling.
Obama's approach to many and alternate sources is a better long term strategy. yes, there will be failures and dead ends, but something will work, something will develop, and society will benefit. it will be harder for large monopolies to profit from micro-sources, and efficiencies are almost impossible to tax, so big business is bound to cry. but it is the only viable long term solution.
Close, but I though R had the better answers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found Romney's answers occasionally misinformed, and often polemical in nature. I found Obama's answers concise and precise (or at least more so than Romney's.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth seemed long on promise and short on plans.
Basically, Romney's answer to each question was, "Yes, that's a problem, but my big business contributors won't let me fix it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPresident Obama offers real solutions to real problems, and gives priority to the wellbeing of real Americans, and to leaving a healthy country for future generations.
Is Obama short on words or does Romney suffer from verbal diarrhoea?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's the problem I see with science education: In order to get a decent job in R&D, a scientist must go through 4 years of college, 4-5 years of graduate school and 2 years for a fellowship. He/she completes all of this schooling and maybe gets a job making $80K/yr. Why not just become a medical doctor or even a nurse? As a nurse, you can get a job in any part of this country but as a scientist, you're limited to certain areas: New Jersey, Texas, etc. and if your spouse gets transferred, good luck trying to find a research job in the new area. Training thousands of new STEM teachers is not going to solve this problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that he at least understands this distinction, valuing science for its uses and credentials rather than its conformity to ones belief, it pretty impressive for a politician. Most adults will pick and chose the science they want to "believe".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny paragraph that starts with "Unfortunately" on the Romney side should be removed as it is pure partisan political propaganda. Keep what each candidate is "for", remove what they claim their opponent is against. Please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was surprised at how much I agreed with the Romney responses, despite the first one, which seemed to be just another neocon "blame the government" knee-jerk reaction. I was especially impressed with their response to the global warming question, that it is global, and that poor countries may see pollution as the price of economic development. After 150 years of clearing the forests, burning coal and petroleum products with abandon, and allowing industry to dump wastes into the nearest valleys, ponds, and lakes as the price of progress, we finally became wealthy enough and informed enough to care about the environment, especially as we moved from a manufacturing-based to a services-based economy. How can we fault poorer countries for wanting to follow the same shortcuts to reach the same ends, especially when we import their goods? The solution has to be one where green is more economical and profitable than dirty, and this takes R&D and innovation rather than simplistic solutions like cap and trade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any event, I am more optimistic about the future of scientific research under either administration -- until we have a budget crisis. (That might have been an interesting question.)
They din't need to give a lecture on the why, I just want them to address the entire question and know the reason behind the need for widespread vaccinations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey try that. That idiotic British doctor and Jenny McCarthy made them think it's a conspiracy. They'll whine and scream when it gets forced, but at least their kids won't die of polio....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey try that. That idiotic British doctor and Jenny McCarthy made them think it's a conspiracy. They'll whine and scream when it gets forced, but at least their kids won't die of polio....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe Romney response to question 11. Science in Public Policy (maybe we need separate comment threads under each question?)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe says that " the EPA estimates that the [“Utility MACT”] rule will cost $10 billion to reduce mercury pollution by only $6 million (with an “m”).
I read everything I could find on http://www.epa.gov/mats but could not verify Romney's claim. Instead what I found can best be sumarized by t his line from Fact Sheet: Benefits and Costs of Cleaning up Toxic Air Pollutants(20111221MATSimpactsfs.pdf):
"The value of the air quality improvements for human health alone totals $37 billion to $90 billion each year."
I'm disappointed at Mitt for injecting politics into the answers. We did not ask what the other guy did wrong, we asked what they will do if elected. It is clear from his answers that if he does not like the scientific answers he will ignore them. Global warming is one of those, he calls it the "No regrets policy." Really?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell its hard to control it when the USA companies are literally giving it away. They were so in awe of the possibility of China as a market that they placed their manufacturing plants there thus giving away those "how to" secrets. Then to throw good money after bad they transferred research to India/China/Taiwan/Korea. When you move your basic research to China what is the only possible outcome? Do I have to say it/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent comment. I fully agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes I noted the same thing. His answer is nonsensical. My best guess is that if you take all the mercury that will NOT be released its street vale may be $6 million?? I see this through and through Romney's positions. He is a spreadsheet wonk and does not get the underlying human/real life point of the question. He is saying we are spending billions to prevent the release of stuff that costs millions not at all putting a price on the human health consequences!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe Romney reponse to question 9: The Internet
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSetting aside the absurd rants misrepresenting 'network neutrality' and the practices of the current government, Romney claims that he "... will clear away barriers to private investment and innovation and curtail needless regulation of the digital economy."
Commerce is conducted on the web. Claims are made about products; Contracts are entered; Money is exchanged.
This is highly commercialized public space. Internet activity needs to conform to the same kinds of laws that regulate these kinds of activities in other venues.
This is also the most effective access citizens have to some services and information. Of course providers need to be held accountable.
Anarchy is not freedom.
check out comment 62 by 'avisitor' ... It contains a pointer to the article that might be the source of the bogus mercury number.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sorry that you think President Obama punted. From what I read, he has pushed for research, better education, alternative materials to address global shortages, advanced green technologies, etc. As for Mr. Romney, he is not in a position to say what he did. He can only state what he would do. His idea of giving the States control over oil and gas exploitation is misguided. This decentralized approach would make it easier for the oil and gas industry to take over to an extent much greater than they already have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe latter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRomney: "For example, his "Utility MACT" rule is purportedly aimed at reducing mercury pollution, yet the EPA estimates that the rule will cost $10 billion to reduce mercury pollution by only $6 million (with an "m")."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, Romney does not give a source. This is essentially data mining; and the $6 million figure used in this context is bogus. I believe the $6 million figure comes from an EPA analysis of the economic benefits of avoided IQ loss.
See "Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Toxics Rule: Final Report (March 2011)."
http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/ToxicsRuleRIA.pdf
Chapter 5, page 2 (5-2, last paragraph):
"The average effect on individual avoided IQ loss in 2016 is 0.00209 IQ points, with total nationwide benefits estimated between $0.5 and $6.1 million."
continued:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's what the EPA actually said: "The benefits outweigh costs by between 5 to 1 or 13 to 1 depending on the benefit estimate and discount rate used."
See the Executive summary at http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/ToxicsRuleRIA.pdf
Here's some more details of what the EPA actually said:
"This proposed rule will reduce emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) including mercury from the electric power industry. As a co-benefit, the emissions of certain PM2.5 precursors such as SO2 will also decline. EPA estimates that this proposed rule will yield annual monetized benefits (in 2007$) of between $59 to $140 billion using a 3% discount rate and $53 and $130 billion using a 7% discount rate. The great majority of the estimates are attributable to co-benefits from reductions in PM2.5-related mortality. The annual social costs are $10.9 billion (2007$) and the annual quantified net benefits are $48 to $130 billion using 3% discount rate or $42 to $120 billion using a 7% discount rate. The benefits outweigh costs by between 5 to 1 or 13 to 1 depending on the benefit estimate and discount rate used."
SO IS THIS ANOTHER LIE FROM ROMNEY??? Maybe I misunderstood the analysis?
Has SciAm and ScienceDebate.org not fact-checked these responses from Romney and Obama?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is NEGLIGENT if SciAm and ScienceDebate.org allow this type of misinformation.
Question 2, regarding Climate Change, is one Obama addresses defensivly and Romney refuses to really address at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, the question is the greatest challenge of the first half of the 21st century. If it is not fully addressed by the middle of this century, none of the other questions or centuries that follw will matter to us at all.
Obama, listened to Wall Street and imitated Europe with a cap and trade proposal that failed to get political support and would have failed to get results. California has approved legislation that will follow the same failed path.
The science is clear. carbon fuels must be retired. If most of the world is to maintain an industrial society, or a "post-industrial" one, there must be a way to generate electricity on a terawatt scale to provide heat, cooling, light, transportation and energy for industry.
If there remain any proponents of nuclear power for that role they have their heads in the sand or are drinking the cool-aid.
Romney's sole useful contribution to the discussion is the idea that corporations can contribute to national (and international) objectives most effectively when policy is clearly defined and expected to be stable over the depreciable life of the investments to be made. Such stability is not achieved by selling national policy to the highest bidders from one industry or another. The policy has to be perceived as sustainable and effective.
Romney is completey wrong in calling for lower nominal income tax rates for corporations or the wealthy. In fact, maximum nominal income tax rates should be raised. Many tax shelters and subsidies to industry, particularly those that promote the production and use of carbon-based and nuclear fuels should be eliminated. A "carbon tax," assessed on the basis of the global warming effects of the use of any carbon-based fuel should be assessed. A tariff on imports from any country that does not impose equivalent carbon-taxes should also be imposed. (Idealy these would be part and parcel of a global compact.)
The tried and true use of investment tax credits should be used to stimulate domestic investment in research, plant and equipment intended to produce clean renewable energy. Such projects should be subject to EIS requirements, EPA requirements and significant cost hurdles for the use of land, aesthetic impairment and so forth. Through the imposition of reasonable regulatory costs and market processes, the appropriate technologies should be installed in the most suitable locations. This would be a refreshing change.
Tony Conway said: "Would someone tell Romney that we measure mercury pollution in notations like ppm (parts-per-million) or µg/g (microgram-per-gram), not dollars?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is actually incorrect. We measure a substance's ubiquitousness with such metrics -- but they tell us nothing of it's relative effect. For instance, the exposure of radiation from, say, the crashed 1MT thermonuclear device that crashed and sank to the bottom of the Pacific in 1965 compared if the crash was over a population center is the same in terms of your dimensionless quantity, but radically different in terms of relative cost.
In the real world, these decisions ARE based on a cost. A "dollar" or any currency is nothing more than massively distributed information metadata which allows for realtime computation of actions & expected actions of an underlying entity. It is ideally suited to these types of multivariate problems.
Real conversations and policy modeling of AGW over a sufficient time-frame follows the outline of Romney's remarks. Any 'solution' must include the large costs of fixing the problem today, in lost productivity and forward momentum of industry and scientific advancement when we throttle our GDP, verse the expected costs of fixing the time-evolved problem, given current scientific projections of the costs, tomorrow.
If we look to history, there are recent examples such as the Green Revolution (which not only reduced carbon output per unit of land utilized, but increased the standard of living for much of the 3rd world) that present a strong case that forward progress is the only solution.
There are strong cases that given the expected rapid social advancement of China and India's underclasses toward a higher standard of living, the only way to contain the tremendous emissions will be technological solutions. Currently, half the world lives on under $2 USD/day (http://tinyurl.com/7gxwvwb); using this as a proxy for energy consumption and assume energy cost trends continue, what do you think will happen to emissions when they spend $4 or 7/day? Much less anything like your EU or US luxury life. In which case your Prius might make you feel good, but slowing down the engine of creation that is our GDP will only make us fall in the ditch a few seconds later. Personally, a techno-optimist case along these lines -- accelerate and make the jump or die -- seems correct *if* the AWG projections are correct.
Unfortunately, your post was partisan nonsense and nothing more than an attack attempt based on a rudimentary understanding of the topic.
No, Romney's answers were a reiteration of his same old talking points. He misconstrued this exercise as just another politically exploitable opportunity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy my count, he attacked Pres. Obama -- by name -- in five of his eight responses. Pres. Obama mentioned Romney, let's see ... never.
No, Romney's answers were a reiteration of his same old talking points. He misconstrued this exercise as just another politically exploitable opportunity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy my count, he attacked Pres. Obama -- by name -- in five of his eight responses. Pres. Obama mentioned Romney, let's see ... never.
Thank you. You hit several important nails right on their heads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, and the US nuclear energy concerns have shown they can be trusted to function safely without regulation ... how?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of Romney's responses were 'canned.' He obviously adspted hi talking points where possible and handed the rest off to his 'crack' team. (SEE: European Tour).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour response shows you are either as ignorant as the candidate you obviously favor or you are simply 'in the bag.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, having read several of your comments and responses, I'm beginning to think you and several others commenting on this thread (with whom you keep exchanging back slaps and 'well done's) are Romney campaign trolls.. It is definitely not beneath the Romney campaign -- the most dishonest political outfit in this nation's recent history -- to stoop to such a tactic. And they have plenty of dirty money for such petty tactics.
I apologize if I am wrong on the political angle and you are, indeed, simply ignorant.
In his answer to the question of domestic production of rare earth elements (REE) (#13), a critical need for high-tech innovation, Gov. Romney claims that a production decline was "driven more by regulation
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthan by economics or scarcity."
This seems to be flat out, demonstrably wrong. What regulation? For decades, the world's leading supplier was a mine in Mountain Pass, CA, now operated by Molycorp. In the 90's, production declined due to
opening of Chinese mines which increased supply and reduced commodity prices. Now, with the fear of China reducing REE exports, Molycorp is again operating the mine (full capacity expected 2013).
I challenge Romney's so-called "wonks" to name ONE regulation enacted by the present administration that is responsible for decline of domestic REE
production.
Romney's responses read like a paper submitted by a college kid who hasn't done his research & is desperately trying to fill up space with inane, evidence-free generalities, with occasional references to the professor's real or assumed biases. I lost track of how many times he tried to score political, as opposed to scientific/factual/policy points with "Unfortunately, the Obama administration..." has/has not done x, y or z.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese two are competing for one of most important and difficult jobs in the world, not to mention most powerful. O is a lawyer and R is a businessman. Pick your poison. R pokes at O because he is the incumbent so he has to be critical of the current admin. and present his position to make his case to the science community. Works for me. O states the viewpoint that he thinks worked for him the last time he ran. I would do the same. The intent of this exercise was to get those views together to compare them. I thought they both did well presenting their cases. (Yes, they were probably compiled by staffers, are we surprised? Or do you think O and R have read the AHC bill front to back?).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was referenced on MSNBC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, and the bitumen in Canada will be burned in China and possibly kill the world. A more reasonable assessment would be education and conservation coupled with multiple intensive Manhattan Project-style research efforts on wind, hydro, solar, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSEE:
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/sustainability/2012/05/11/canadas-oil-sands-means-game-over-planet-warns-nasa-scientist-james-hansen
He treated this as just another political exercise, attacking the president by name in five of his eight answers while the president never mentioned him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the tip on Molycorp. That's one of several details we aim to follow up on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRomney does not really believe there is a problem to be solved, despite whatever acknowledgements he has given in his reply. Else, why would he mock Obama for stating his intention to work on the problem?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese "Answers" do not read like answers to me, certainly not answers made by these two men individually. So while I appreciate that SA is happy to have something "in hand" like this to work with for this story/journalistic project, the real answers come in actions taken by these men. The above lists made are plainly platform statements from their respective campaigns. From here now, with the publication of this article, begins the real answering...where will these statements lead in the campaigns as the so-called election process progresses to voting day? and most importantly, where will these "Answers" lead as far as real time progress on the issues at hand. The questions were well thought out. Solutions are well past due!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisplease help to uncover the mystery of nature for mankind,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand solve all these problems for good.
http://www.meetherconcept.com/english/
The way to satisfy both Republicans and Democrats is through new technology for energy cheaper than coal. Republicans fear that carbon taxes will put the US at an economic disadvantage to exempted developing nations. Democrats fear that continuing CO2 emissions will increase global warming with disastrous consequences for water and food. Both are right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US has the capability to develop advanced nuclear power technologies that can produce energy cheaper than coal. Making such clean, safe power plants available globally is the only way to convince 7 billion people in 250 nations from burning coal -- economic self interest.
The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), originally developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratories, is now being refined by China, while the US fails to harvest this technology that could check global warming, end energy poverty, and as well lead to a $70 billion export industry. The new book about this,THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal, is described at http://www.thoriumenergycheaperthancoal.com
Romney believes, or at least says, that a non-governmental multi-stakeholder model Internet is — and always has been — open to all ideas and lawful commerce as well as bountiful private investment. First, when has the DarpaNet/Internet ever been non-governmental, and second, how did that non-governmental multi-stakeholder model work out for broadcast media? Fair and balanced, right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd "a collaborative instead of combative relationship between regulators and businesses" will make our food safer? How did that relationship work out for the banking industry?
Anyone else have trouble with this math? "'Utility MACT' rule is purportedly aimed at reducing mercury pollution, yet the EPA estimates that the rule will cost $10 billion to reduce mercury pollution by only $6 million (with an “m”)" - uh, what?
National energy "self-sufficiency" destroys the free market Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" describes. Free international trade is the reason we don't kill each other more often. Yeah, let's eliminate trade.
Mitt says "Economic growth...is the key to environmental protection in the long run." - Uh, what?
Mitt says "Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response." Uh, what? Oh yeah, Mormonism believes that no matter how ridiculously we abuse our planet, God will fix it. At least until Armageddon arrives.
Face, meet palm.
I had no idea Scientific American was "owned" by the Republican Party. I am VERY unhappy to learn this and will be cancelling my subscriptions. No wonder the US is so far behind other countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've *studied* (words between *s denote EMPHASIS) both President Obama's and Candidate Mitt Romney's statements of objectives (and beliefs), and I've at least *read through* practically all of the 126 Readers' Comments posted thus far.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOffhand, I'd say that President Obama makes a better reasoned defense of his positions than does his challenger - but I am not a US citizen; I'm from India. I find that neither of the candidates adequately address the thrust of the questions; it's not that they're 'sidestepping issues' - it's just that this 'pure prose' mode of discussion** to which they're limited does not permit any deeper understanding of issues: they've both done the best they can, given that they're stuck in the 'pure prose mode' of discussion/argument.
As noted, I believe President Obama has presented a somewhat better reasoned statement of his ideas on science and technology (S&T). No - their answers do not put forth adequately concrete solutions. President Obama's responses seemed to be *somewhat* better reasoned.
**The difference between 'pure prose' and 'prose + structural graphics' (p+sg) has been broadly discussed at my responses to Ferris Jabr's "Why We Need to Study the Brain’s Evolution in Order to Understand the Modern Mind".
G.S. Chandy
Terrapin Station (next to Akshara Montessori 'Art of Learning')
Sathanur Village
Bagalur P.O., PIN 562149
Bangalore, INDIA
Tel.: +91-80-2279 2756
e-mail: gs (underscore) chandy (at) yahoo (dot) com [Pleasse substitute the appropriate characters for the words in brackets, remove the spaces around them, and Lo! & Behold!! you'll have an email id!].
Romney constantly says what is needed is less industry regulation, or leave regulation up to states or the individual industry to police themselves. What this amounts to is little or no regulation because no all industries will make decisions based on what costs the least and states will remove or weaken regulations to attract industries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat would a baseball, hockey game or any sport for that matter be like if there were no rules. If you think about that for even a few minutes you will realize that sports as we have them would not exist. Perhaps we would have gladiatorial combats but that's about it. And if we have rules, we also need referees and umpires to enforce them.
Why should this be any different in the world of competitive business? Businesses that can use and abuse the air, water and ecology of the biosphere we live in?
Obviously researched answers attempting to say what their core voters want to here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA few things that scared me.
Question 11. Science in Public Policy. um..?. "establish a regulatory cap" ?! How about a cap for how much those in power can give themselves bonuses and tax loop holes etc...
4. "Pandemics are not new — they have happened at different points throughout human history. And it is a certainty that, at some point in the future, they will happen again. "
5. "The education challenges America faces are not new."
Okay? Now what are you going to do? How can anyone write so many words and not say anything that makes sense?
P.s. If I remember correctly Obama got criticized for his long winded answers to 14 science questions in 2008.
I think that both candidates miss the point on energy. Mr. Romney is suffering from “analyses paralysis”. If he were running a business that had the financial indicators that we are getting on climate change he would be steering that business into bankruptcy. We are getting clear signals that climate change is starting to cost us real money and jobs. The climate changes are starting to affect the world’s ability to produce food and fiber as well as causing damage to our infrastructure. The droughts, floods, extreme winds are starting to take their toll. Mr. Obama’s approach is simply chaotic. In his first term we have done nothing of substance to change our consumption of carbon containing fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat can we do?
1. A large portion of greenhouse gases are produced by our power generation system. Most thermal generating plants generate their power through a process known as “condensing power”. This process is about 30% efficient. Existing technologies can capture a larger portion of the wasted energy. These processes are cogeneration and exhaust stack heat recovery. If we did this we reduce our CO2 emissions by one third to one half.
2. We waste a lot of electricity by needless outside lighting .This outside lighting hurts wildlife, produces emissions, disrupts our sleep and costs us money. Let’s just turn off some of the wasted lights and replace the needed ones with ones that don’t scatter light everywhere.
3. We have allowed our railways to fall into disrepair. 40 years ago you could ship clay from Georgia to northern Maine in 7 days. Now it takes 30 days or more. The difference between shipping bulk commodities by rail versus truck is over $50/ton.
Man-Made Pollution: Limitless, Unabated, Unrestricted and Unstoppable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPollutants are Raining down on us from Above and Bubbling up under our sneakers from Below. Our Finite(Closed) System is filling up Relentlessly and Inexorably faster than we can pump it out. How come only the millions of "toxified" fish in our lakes, rivers and oceans and the dead and dying trees of our forests have noticed this?
It certainly appears that no one in Washington gives a whit about it.
Do you think that our city, state and federal legislators realize, as do their major polluting benefactors, that obese "Bottom Lines" and a Clean Environment are not compatible?
Understanding science is tough as many of us are social scientists that use mixed research methods appropriate to basic and applied science. Hard sciences are seen as less hard these days and soft sciences not so soft it seems to me ... It is the wicked problems and finding their possible solutions from a balanced human perspective that interests me most. In the debate I found Obama to be the most balanced and nit exuding the aggressive bully style that most of us hate to see in ourselves or our children or our neighbors ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it interesting in last nights debate Romney said he would work to build consensus on Capital Hill. Yet in this article Romney attacks Obama in his answers while Obama doesn't mention Romney at all. Is that the communication style of someone who portrays himself as building consensus and reaching across the aisle? Also I find it concerning that Romney strongly supports nuclear power after Japan's recent experiences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKudos to you MorganKelly. The 'Theory of Global Warming' is like the 'The Theory of Evolution.' You can choose not to believe it, but there's enough scientific evidence backing it to justify its inclusion in the school curriculum. Who doesn't believe in evolution? Jehovah's Witness. Mormons. Extreme conservatives. Unless you're so heavily invested in the fossil fuel industries, there's no reason not to believe a simple 4 line chemical equation that shows how 6 greenhouse gases combine in the upper atmosphere in such a way as to leave more carbon than there's ever been in the entire geological history of the planet. Non-believers stand to loose BIG MONEY. A form of poetic justice, evolutionary economics. They painted themselves into a corner, and they deserve their DARWIN AWARDS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr Romney had some seemingly compelling answers in his responses to the questions - but his acceptance of scientific studies and data would have to be further evaluated based on public and private sector input as well as the markets in said industries. My concern is "Who are the scientists that will be helping these sectors make informed decisions relative to their input. I fear that in reality - his proposed policy points regarding even indisputable and factual scientific data will be weighed against the priority he will give to the opinions of those that focus solely on markets as well as those who have their personal opinions whether they are public sector folks or private sector business folks. The markets and opinion slingers cannot form scientific policy and be wholly successful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know for the Republicans they would like us to wipe from out minds the Republican President that started down a lot of these paths. They behave as if it never happen. But in Romney's answer to question 2 on climate change he states that China long ago passed the US. But China only surpassed the US in Total Fossil Fuel Emissions in 2003 according to data from- CITE AS: Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres. 2011. Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2011. So I guess the Bush Presidency was long ago in his mind, no wonder he forgets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Doctordub
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo wait... let me get this straight. You want mandatory vaccines?!?
I think one reason the candidates don't want to discuss it is because it would be an obvious violation of civil rights. At the very least, property rights. That is, if you believe you indeed own yourself.
Also, I believe in climate change, but to base policy off of the pseudoscience of global warming would be a huge mistake. To many people climate change != global warming. That includes Nobel prize-winners. Therefore, basing policy on it would be unfair. If you truly believe in global warming as a cause though do not wait for government to fix it- go out and do it yourself. Otherwise, you will have to support all kinds of scientific "theories" that you don't believe in just to be fair.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a shame they present only these two wanky pretenders for the "American People" to choose from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe spin gets spinnier once they're safely selected..er..I mean elected, of course I do.
In response to Mr. Romney's answer to Question #3, I find it disconcerting that he still believes that all of the $90 billion went to green energy. I know some will baulk at the reference, but if I refer you to this link: http://factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-clean-energy-whoppers/ where they show an honest representation of how that money was spent. I am also surprised that as a business man with 25 years of experience, as Mr. Romey claims, that he does not understand the inherent risks in R&D. Including that you might be successful in developing a better widget, but the market might not be ready for it. So of course not all the money sent to these companies would yield success. But Romney wants to spend more on defense, which has a better long history of "failed" R&D efforts. Yet just like any good scientific investigation, going down an unknown path can teach that it is not a path worth pursing, you learn what not to do because it does not work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistiannelli-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you heard of the Great Leap Forward that Mao Zedong launched? Do not measure pollution in realtion to population or GNP. Maybe China's emissions have not been measured by their output but they have been contributing more and more greenhouse gases for decades while the west have been reversing direction.
Chillidogg-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou need to look into Darwin's works. He even stated that some of his evolution theories are a long shot. Read Darwin On Trial by Phillip E. Johnson.
Regarding global warming: I think anyone with any intelligence would agree that the gases we emit are not good for the climate. Even Romney concedes such. It is the level of destruction and the contribution to global warming that comes in to question. Nevertheless, we need to be proactive and do what we can to improve how we do business. Unfortunately, even if we try to be the model country, we will only send more jobs overseas and cause more damage. Didn’t you read Romney’s response? Do you understand the economics and science relation?
I knew about the 20 that compared the threat of climate change to that of nuclear weapons arsenal. I only know of one Nobel physicist, Ivar Giaever, who argues it is not as dire a situation as so many have stated. The other scientist often mentioned did not win a Nobel prize, but in some blogs is noted as having done so, is Mr. Freeman Dyson. In Mr. Dyson's case it does not appear that he questions the science, only the conclusion that the models being used come to. It is interesting though that men you made their living and careers based on modeling, question the results of others models, but that is what science is, a constant questioning, observing, drawing conclusions, generating more questions. Some of Mr. Dyson's disagreements about the future appear to stem from his own belief that the changes advocated by environmentalists to avoid the predicted catastrophe will impact the poor more adversely than the rich. It also may stem from his own analysis of his personality as a subversive. The choice of words says something, instead of calling himself a skeptic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have not read or heard anything that suggest either man disagrees with the anthropogenic rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. They disagree with the dire predictions. Ivar in his speech calls it climate change pseudoscience, but then uses pseudoscience to make his point. In his speech he makes a lot of I statements, and provides his opinion. So he only serves to make one question the long term predictions of climate change. I would have to agree with him that the APS use of the word incontrovertible in there statement on climate change. However, the models used for predictions are based on our current abilities to understand, observe, and measure all of which have margins of error. The complexity of a climate only servers to compound those margins of errors. So the farther in time you project the more uncertain the result. Thus scientists take reasonable steps to reduce the variables involved. This is even evident in Ivar choice to focus on CO2 and not on all the other gases man-kind puts into the atmosphere which are sited as causes of global warming.
So remain skeptical of the disastrous predictions if you will but it is not unreasonable to ask questions and seek answers to how have and are the billions of people living on Earth impacting our ability to continue to do so.
Have either of these guys read the constitution since they were in high school? The president does not make laws. I'm not sure either of them has a grasp of what pure research is, the kind that is not trying to develop something to sell. Mr. Romney seems to twist every response to something about the economy. Does anyone at SciAm know who wrote the responses? Did the candidates take the time to write them or were they assigned to staff?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany of the topics are missed by both, but the key misses are Climate Change and Energy. These topics are so interlinked that discussion of either independent of the other is impossible, yet this is what both candidates have done. Yes, we need cooperation of all countries to reduce CO2. However, the US is not aspiring to leadership in these areas because of status quo fossil fuel idealogies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What actions would you support to enforce vaccinations in the interest of public health, and in what circumstances should exemptions be allowed?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry guys, but when it comes to inserting things into my body, my needs triumph yours. Science is pretty cool, but it is not God and should not be making godlike decisions.
BAD NEWS: In the 21st century, nobody mentioned in the U.S. presidential debate, nuclear power, nor hydropower: anachronistic position of those who bet on the war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can assume that: Nuclear, due to national security; Hydro, because weapons do not work with it; and those mentioned, justify the continuity of the not mentioned.
In the century of informatics, ie information for all; dinosaurs still exist, very smart, but small-minded, who think their country is the only one who will inherit the earth. Never mind that for that: they have to destroy it.
Are not interested, or worse, are postponing for after his war, seizing the "OCEANOGENIC POWER" of Panama.
Slick move into redefining the word theory to mean fact. However, I don't think there has been any testing, let alone thorough testing so that no credible evidence contradicts the theory that all of life has evolved from amoebas and that we have descended from primates. Unless, your going to redefine the word testing to mean that considerable thought has been given to the subject at hand. How can you test millions of years of slight evolutionary change? Proving that species do evolve does not prove that one species evolves into another. Which is why it is a theory, meaning not fact, but a base understanding that someone seeks to prove. The proof has yet to come, but you are right it has been taught as fact. And the climate change advocates are taking that example and running with the same premise, we say its fact so it is!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had to laugh at Romney's response to the question about the Internet. Basically four paragraphs saying the same thing and saying that govt shouldn't regulate it. I don't think we're regulating it at all, and frankly, if the govt tried, there's too many out there who wouldn't let that happen. Then you look at Obama and he talks about a free adn open internet, protection of intellectual property online and cybersecurity. Now that's what's important.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this