Hey ! Barack Obama I’m freezing and soon to be unemployed…
“President-elect Barack Obama has indicated that he intends to move rapidly on one of the most ambitious items on his agenda – tackling climate change.
Speaking to a bipartisan group of governors by video on Tuesday, the president-elect said that despite the weakening economy, he had no intention of softening or delaying his aggressive targets for reducing emissions that cause the warming of the planet.
“Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,” Obama said. “Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”
Never mind that it’s been revealed that most of the modeling used by the GoreWhores is false. Never mind that there is growing concern that cooling is more likely and that warming isn’t so bad.Never mind that “green” jobs are far from panacea.
President Barack Hussein Obama will surely not disappoint those that oppose him and his agenda.
Quote from IHT story here
Ha Jim.
Also, Jonolan, not sure how “well known” the dissent from concensus was either. Once again, show me some evidence, and I will believe.
Actually, everyone knows that there’s a correlation between the amount of pirates and climate change. Based on the recent pirate activity near Africa, it looks like climate change might be decreasing if piracy continues.
Actually, peer review is too a loaded a term in the scientific community and I shouldn’t have used it.
It is well known though that dissent from the “consensus” on global warming was harshly criticized in the academic sphere.
To be frank jonolan I’ve never seen real evidence that “peer review” was discouraged. Peer Review is generally the act of publishing in academic journals and waiting for input from others in their field; which has been done ad nauseum with climate change studies.
If you have evidence of such I’d like to see it.
Frankly there’s no creditable science to support the theory of anthropogenic climate change; all the data models were completely polluted and flawed – and peer review was harshly discouraged.
We just can’t know how much of an impact our CO2 emissions are actually having on global temperatures.
That pretty much means that this shouldn’t even be on the agenda at all. Energy independence and sustainable production methods should be on the agenda. Both of these would lower COS and methane emissions as a byproduct but would focus on other goals that are proven.
Well, as far as corporate polluters, we could think about streamlining our justice system to better deal with. For the life of me I can’t understand why it is that if I dropped a few barrels of cancer causing substances into a water supply with negative intent, that is a criminal act getting me life imprisonment, but a corporation knowingly dumping cancer causing substances into a water supply to cut costs is usually only fined.
Longest criminal sentence for polluting? 2 years.
And of course I see the dilemma, and I’ve always thought supply side solutions (cleaner energies) were and are better than pricing externalities (cap and trade), yet as we seem to be under these illusions that things like clean coal exist we probably need to implement both until the energy industry figures out better ways to be clean.
And Kyoto’s crap, the whole world thinks so. To be honest, if it wasn’t likely economy crippling, I’d say we should tax all incoming chinese products according to how much sulfuric coal dust they pump into the atmosphere to make them.
You see we kind of agree ;however, green taxes,cap and trade schemes and leaving the “developing” polluters to do whatever they want isn’t the right course imo.
I also have little hope government can solve this any better than they’ve solved drug use,poverty and racism.
You want concentrated metro areas with excellent rail and mass transit ? A few thousand “smart cars” with electric charging “parking meters” here and there. I’m with you. I’ll go build the nuclear reactor and you go tell the inner city black family to fork over the keys to their 1994 Chevy and get back on the dole and we’ll get back together for lunch.
Are you seeing a bit of my dilemma ?
Well, calling it “global warming” was always hoaxy, which is why the vernacular was changed to “climate change.”
I’d point out too that you can’t separate suburban sprawl, car ownership, resource rape and carbon emissions. Suburban sprawl was really only possible as a result of increased car ownership, and both instances of American material wealth only really possible because of massive resource rape. All three activites lead to of course, increased carbon emissions.
The point I, and many environmentalists have tried to make, is that that had we just actually done more of some of environmentalists pet projects climate change wouldn’t be an issue; mass transit, better city and land use planning, urban renewal, economies accounting for pollution externalities, etc…
Instead we look to just make less harmful cars, less harmful sprawl, less harmful resource rape, etc… Looking, basically, for ways to conscionably support our cultural excesses. In terms of trends over history, its those cultures which only try to hold up aging systems instead of recognizing the need for change which fall behind.
This is where, I too, disagree with Obama. Big mistake if he truly does make that a priority. Actually, there are more people dying in England from the cold each year than the heat. And you’re right. What heat?
I won’t say whether I agree or disagree with global warming as I’m not a scientist (although more scientists agree that it’s a bit hoaxy), but it shouldn’t be at the top of the list of priorities.
Marc…feel free to call me uneducated again if you like. I am just firmly in the camp that things like pollution,resource rape and sprawl are more dangerous than a million SUV’s. I’m oversimplifying perhaps but I think you know what I’m trying to say.
Bottom line the possible cure the IPCC fans want won’t address the things I (and others) think are crucial and in fact will be a “cure that kills the patient” in some ways.
I could go on but would either bore or outrage you.
I actually did my thesis on the regional causes of the Death of Lake Erie and the popular history surrounding the 70’s restore the great lakes momvement. We could address it, and I’m sure I could bore you to death.
Yes we will just have to agree to disagree. I will only put it to you that the regional changes of ecosystems are indeed real but more attributable to other man made issues. But by all means let’s not address that.
Well Alfie,
i’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on climate change; i’m afraid the tendency to associate gore with all the science conducted in the field is well, just plain wrong.
Also, climate change not being that bad? Not sure who’s tried to assure you as such, but its not the changing temperatures thats immediatly worrisome; it is the changing ecoregions. a 3 degree change can mean some pretty goddamned bad things for our agricultural system.
I’ll use the great lakes region as an example. Every climate model i’ve seen sees that region getting an increase in rainfall in that area, which would normally be a good thing, except plantlife in that region aren’t adapted to deal with large flood events over an increased season, which in turn means more soil loss due to erosion and increased siltation of the great lakes, a possible crash in the fisheries and general overfertilization of the Great Lakes as what happened in the 70’s when Lake Erie died.
And that’s just one regional example. So if you ever though melting ice caps, rising oceans and more hurricanes was going to be our biggest problem, well then, you’re simply not educated enough about the realities of what we’re facing. The real problem is that small changes in climate can change huge changes in regional ecology, and its regional ecologies that provide the natural resources our economies are founded on.