Since most Americans will now finally admit they believe in global climate change. The issue has now moved to, why is the climate changing? Is it simply part of the earth’s natural cycle of warming and cooling and nothing can be done to reverse it? Or is it somehow related to human activity and can be reversed, if it is not too late? Either way the change is happening. Do we just fend for ourselves and hope insurance companies will pay for flooded property on the inundated coasts, tornadoes in the Midwest and all other unforeseen disasters.

not all science is immediately practical, but we still need to support basic research!

I would like candidates to demonstrate an awareness that what has helped keep America competitive in the world economy is the historical and continued commitment to publically funded science research and development. Public money in this area goes towards the betterment of all Americans and, through economic osmosis, the entire world. Investment now will reap rewards far into the future.

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations like Cervarix and Gardasil have been proven effective at combating sexually transmitted cancer causing agents. Would you support an initiative to require these vaccines for all females in order to attend public schools, like so many other vaccinations that prevent critical illnesses?

What plans do you have to ensure that scientific and technological advances will be used for the betterment of society and not for its destruction (like nuclear power and chemical pollution)

Between 1985 and 2000, the United States averaged three times more science and engineering graduates than new job openings each year (Vivek Wadhwa, Bloomberg Businessweek, October 26, 2007). Currently, less than one-third of science and engineering graduates are working in a STEM [science, technology, engineering, or mathematics] field closely related to their degree, while 65 percent of science and engineering graduates are either employed in or training for another career field within two years ("Science and Engineering Indicators 2010", Table 3-4; also, Lowell & Salzman 2007, "Into the Eye of the Storm", page 31).

This is to see if the candidates have an understanding of science.

Many findings are reported which may conflict with previous findings, but are candidates able to determine which are closer to "reality" and their implications for policy development? Do they understand the scientic method and how new or additional information is incorporated with existing paradigms?

Similar to #12 in scientific integegrity category.

Global warming has historic precedents (a few ice ages, etc.,). So, It's probably not fair to suggest that the current global warming trend is entirely caused by human action. Still, the growth in population and creation of pollutants by man's activities in the last century have been significant. It is difficult to believe, then, that no part of the current global warming trend is not caused by man's activities.

More effective medicines & surgical procedures are coming to market with high price tags that could add trillions to the total costs of Medicare and other Federal health care programs. Would you favor tight limits on such Federal expenditures? Or would you favor paying readily for such scientific and technological advances in health care?

Do you understand the Fibonacci sequence, and how it would possibly be used in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence?

Health care costs are increasing, and it would be good to know how the candidates plan to control those costs.

The point is, of course, that by preferring the views of amateurs on global warming to those acquired over decades of research by 98% of the world's climate scientists, many of our politicians are effectively opting for the plumber.