world

Obama says climate change deniers ignoring science

59 Comments
By NEDRA PICKLER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

59 Comments
Login to comment

What does he mean by "deny climate change". I don't think that anybody is actually denying that the climate isn't changing, it has always been changing and always will change. I don't know anybody advocating climate stillness.

Isn't the correct term for someone who questions a hypothesis a "skeptic".

Of all the myriad scientific debates in history why is it that in the man-made climate change debate and only in the man-made climate change debate, the skeptics are called "deniers".

4 ( +5 / -1 )

consumed by “small things”

Thanks, burning bush, for helping Obama make his case.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

With everything that is going on. His foreign policy is in complete ruins, Iraq is disintegrating before our very eyes, Al Qaeda and ISIS are looking more everyday like they will take over the country, the Taliban are making a comeback. Syria is out of control, our relationship with our friends is greatly strained and worsened with our enemies. We have a porous open border despite him saying that it is secured, we have over 90,000 kids overwhelming our country, courts and legal system and looks like there are more to come. The VA scandal is so out of control and corrupt that it will take years to fix. We have a $17 Trillion national debt, we keep printing money, the poverty rate is rising, we have a complete lifeless do nothing congress and this joker wants to make climate change the central issue of conversation?? This guy NEVER ceases to amaze me!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Would Obama have said the same thing 35 years ago when the ice age was coming? Today, just as then the may be wrong. We have such limited "accurate" data on weather patterns over decades, centuries and thousands of years.

Besides he has bigger issues at hand.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Hmm, can Obama deny that there has been no increase in global temperature in, what? 17 years? Can the IPCC deny that they predicted that temperatures would rise for the past 16 years? Can they deny that they were wrong? Can they deny that the arctic ocean is not completely melted, as they predicted it would be by 2013? And since they have been wrong on every single prediction they have made since 1996, can they deny that they don't really have any idea what they are talking about? How many wrongs must they commit, and yet still be considered right?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Hmm, can Obama deny that there has been no increase in global temperature in, what? 17 years?

Can you deny that you are stating untruths? Your "17-year" statement is a distortion of a larger report by a scientist in England who, in the same paper, advises that the earth has greatly warmed since 1950 and human activity is the primary cause. The 17-year reference is to a passage where he says that using a period of 15-20 years would not be statistically valid for proving climate change. A longer period is needed.

Can they deny that the arctic ocean is not completely melted

No, not completely melted -- but melting at a very past pace.

How many wrongs must they commit, and yet still be considered right?

And how many wrongs must the science-deniers commit, while they head humanity towards crisis?

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Can Obama deny that he is not a scientist? Is the climate changing? Sure. It's NEVER stopped changing, nor will it, with or without humans on the planet. A recent study of West Antarctic subglacial melting discovered that not only are underwater volcanoes having a much larger than previously estimated effect on melting, but also that rather than a relatively uniform heating pattern as previously believed, instead there are several large hotspots accelerating the melting, and that the subterranean heating has a far greater influence than any atmospheric conditions.

Let's stop volcanic heating, NOW!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

What an epic strawman. Nobody in the world is "denying climate change". The climate is always changing, and as far as "global warming" is concerned, the climate has been warming for the last 10,000 years, ever since the last ice age.

What a lot of people are "denying" is the hypothesis that a) the climate is solely dependent on the 0.00152 % (yep, no mistake, that is the figure, check it out), and that b) politicians of one country can regulate this 0.00152% content with new laws and taxes.

It is truly embarrassing to see a Potus stoop down to such pathetic and childish polemic.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The party that denies climate change tends to be the same party that tells us that the earth is 6,000 years old. They aren't really big on the whole science thing.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Suprlib, can't you get that it isn't climate change being debated but whether mankind can either cause or alter it.

7 ( +7 / -1 )

The party that denies climate change tends to be the same party that tells us that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Perhaps the scientific thing to do would be to objectively review the facts instead of just labelling people as one type or the other.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The 17-year reference is to a passage where he says that using a period of 15-20 years would not be statistically valid for proving climate change. A longer period is needed.

And this is what many scientists have stated, but the IPCC cares not to wait, they want to tax and regulate now, now 100 years from now.

I have read all if the UN's IPCC reports, and I know what they have predicted, they are available online if you care to look. Not one of them says that a longer time for statistically proving climate change is occurring, except the 1996 final draft report (IPCC-SAR Chapter 8) which stated as follows:

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

The above paragraphs were deleted from the final draft, and replaced with the following:

"There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols ... from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change. ... These results point toward a human influence on global climate. [ch.8 p.412]

The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate. [ch.8 p.439]"

The above paragraphs were added just before the full report was released in Madrid, and the peer review group of scientists were only made aware of the changes at that time. The changes were made by Dr Ben Santer, who did so so the report summary would agree with what "policy makers" required it to say.

Since policy makers (who needn't be scientists) have carte blanche to change IPCC reports to say whatever they want them to say, I can't help but be skeptical. But even the 1996 report predicted some warming by the years 2006, 2010, and 2015. No one can deny that all of these predictions have been proven false, there has been no warming since 1998.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"We have a porous open border" The most common method is overstaying. Don't forget Reagan inked 3M amnesty. You cannot plug the border like a leaky roof anyway. Immigration is reversing anyway as GDP growth in Mexico is increasing.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Your "17-year" statement is a distortion of a larger report by a scientist in England

No it is a statement of fact and can be verified by going to the climate change supporters own websites and looking at the last 17 years of temperature data.

No, not completely melted -- but melting at a very past pace.

The last few years have shown reduced melting. And just as your claim above, with known natural climate cycles of 60 year length, the 30 years of Arctic sea ice data is not long enough to make statistically valid claims, or does that only work for one side?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"man-made climate change really is happening"

What about Mother-Nature-made climate change? Isn't that happening?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Can Obama deny that he is not a scientist? Is the climate changing? Sure. It's NEVER stopped changing, nor will it, with or without humans on the planet.

What an idiotic comment. If there were no humans on the planet then we would not be having this discussion. Discussion is not the right word as the facts are in. Human activity, coal burning in particular, is changing our earth for the worse. And human activity can be changed to make the negative impact less severe. But the republicans, heavily financed by the oil and coal industries, make up stuff to convince others that yes gravity is an unproven theory, or that the earth was created in six days, or that there is a place in the republican party for black people. All lies.

This is why voting republican is voting for disaster. For failed wars, for climate change to be worse, for the government to be in your bedroom, for an all old white guy leadership of the USA. No one wants the bush disaster years back except the tea party republicans. The republican party as can be clearly seen on this issue as anti-science, anti-future, anti-fact and both tired and angry.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

What disturbs me is too many in the Republican party literally believe in the Bible (including Revelation). I'm fine with the argument of pro-business and other traditional Republican values that help maintain balance. But the fact that some of them literally believe in the second coming of Christ and the destruction of the Earth by God, the Devil, or whoever, what's the point of taking anything seriously including climate issues. What can you expect from a group of people who think the Earth is seven hundred years old.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It's said that good scientific theories have ‘predictive power’ - that, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

A majority of scientists have put forth the theory that, because carbon absorbs and retains heat much more efficiently than other atmospheric gasses, its increase should lead to higher temperatures.

These scientists then measured atmospheric carbon levels and confirmed that they have soared several hundred percent over the past 100 years. They also isolated this increase to human activities. They did so so accurately that their resulting predictions are rather spot-on.

Some, though, confuse science with, "Well, sh!t happens." I'd like to see theories backing what these people profess and data to back up their conclusions - but it doesn't exist.

Republicans: Going the way of the dinosaur, and dragging us down with them.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

And this is what many scientists have stated, but the IPCC cares not to wait, they want to tax and regulate now, now 100 years from now.

You mean you would rather have them wait until the process is much farther along? It's a bit like telling a person to keep smoking two packs a day until more evidence on "cancer sticks" comes in. It cracks me up when conservatives use a 5% doctrine for some threats -- like WMD -- meaning that a 5% chance should demand a response. Why not apply the same logic to human activity which puts greater and greater amounts of heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere?

The last few years have shown reduced melting. And just as your claim above, with known natural climate cycles of 60 year length, the 30 years of Arctic sea ice data is not long enough to make statistically valid claims, or does that only work for one side?

This is where ultimate motivation has to be questioned. The people who hunted the American bison to near extinction constantly told others that the supply was nearly limitless. I'm old enough to recall the decades of skepticism that "pro-business" folks applied to the warnings about smoking. I also come from the Great Lakes area and witnessed how virulently the pro-business types opposed restrictions on dumping mercury and dioxin-laden waste in the public waters, and spewing toxic emissions into the air. I recognize these same types pooh-poohing the scientific metrics being used as cautionary signs. The mentality of the deniers has been with us throughout history; I am not counting on them to be right for the first time, when the stakes of being wrong are so high.

One thing my years in industry have taught me, a problem caught and corrected early requires far less cost and disruption than one that's allowed to fester. It seems to me that a real conservative attitude would respect that take on things. As a kid, I recall going to the beach at Lake Erie and not being able to step anywhere because of the mass of dead fish. (Not to mention the complete destruction of the fishing industry on the lake.)

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

" Discussion is not the right word as the facts are in. Human activity, coal burning in particular, is changing our earth for the worse." And the science does not support your position. As Sangetsu03 correctly pointed out, the draft version of the report was significantly altered at the last minute. Further, any scientist who openly questions or dares to evaluate the data objectively is soon discredited and harassed for not toeing the line, much like the rabid Obama-lemmings here at JT.

If the data actually supported the theory(using the term loosely as it hasn't risen to the theory level), then I would support taking reasonable actions, but the fact is the data doesn't support.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The party that denies climate change tends to be the same party that tells us that the earth is 6,000 years old. They aren't really big on the whole science thing.

I don't believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, but I am NOT jumping on that band wagon that the oceans are rising, the polar caps are melting and California will sink into the ocean one day. I do believe that there are changes and we need to be aware and take care of the planet, but you guys take it into a complete different stratosphere. Thank God, Al Gore went away and we don't hear so much from him, the hypocrite! If Obama and liberals would spend MORE time trying to solve the nations problems, like Jobs, the national debt, our Veterans getting the absolute best healthcare and treatment without question, securing the border, lowering taxes, getting American working again, those should be the absolute first and top priorities for Obama. Climate change and spinach energy can wait, let the private sector deal with it.

"We have a porous open border" The most common method is overstaying. Don't forget Reagan inked 3M amnesty. You cannot plug the border like a leaky roof anyway. Immigration is reversing anyway as GDP growth in Mexico is increasing.

??? So the 90,000 that just came over here in a mass exodus are here just for shopping at the Premium Outlet for the weekend? We are NOT talking about giving any law breakers anything. Again, Obama said, the borders are sealed. Sealed? Oh, really?! Obama is the biggest liar there ever was. Do you know how much these people are going to add to the cost of all Americans. We have so much debt and we can't continue to feed ourselves. Poverty is rising in the country and Obama wants to let in EVERY illegal alien? The guy is insane!

@zurc

But the republicans, heavily financed by the oil and coal industries, make up stuff to convince others that yes gravity is an unproven theory, or that the earth was created in six days, or that there is a place in the republican party for black people. All lies.

Right back at you, Dems have the unions, George Soros and the Liberal Hollywood financing and pushing all of us to shove spinach in our gas tanks, eat gluten free saltless broccoli and telling us that we will be invaded by Penguins if we don't change our ways ASAP. Oh, and by the way, the majority of Blacks have NOT been doing well under this president, NOT at all.

This is why voting republican is voting for disaster.

But this president is just doing sooooo well. The entire country just loves him and his party to death. How's that Hope and Change working out so far?

For failed wars, for climate change to be worse, for the government to be in your bedroom, for an all old white guy leadership of the USA.

Obama is half White, don't forget that.

No one wants the bush disaster years back except the tea party republicans. The republican party as can be clearly seen on this issue as anti-science, anti-future, anti-fact and both tired and angry.

Ok, so then NOW we have to suffer through the Obama years? What a tradeoff, that's like saying, you want a hamburger and a cheeseburger, virtually the same thing. In that case, there is really no difference is what you are saying, Zurc. On the contrary, Republicans and conservatives want a better future, one where the government stops sticking its nose in everyone else's business!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The borders will never be sealed.

What 90,000?

"Ok, so then NOW we have to suffer through the Obama years? " But Obama was not at watch at the 2008 crash.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

f the data actually supported the theory(using the term loosely as it hasn't risen to the theory level), then I would support taking reasonable actions, but the fact is the data doesn't support.

My of my. This is typical of the WMD in Iraq crowd. You buy the lie and then you simply repeat it over and over again in the hope you will convince yourself you are not being duped.

Although its republicans who hate democracy with their Voter ID laws but opinions like the one above from I presume a voting american is a strong case that democracy is suspect.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@nishikat

The borders will never be sealed.

After what happened, pressure is mounting for the government to do something.

What 90,000?

Roughly give or take a few, but that's about the number of kids that have came to into the country of the last two weeks. Delusion strikes again.

"Ok, so then NOW we have to suffer through the Obama years? " But Obama was not at watch at the 2008 crash.

No, but we are suffering now after 2008 and now 2014, which makes it worse.

@zurc

My of my. This is typical of the WMD in Iraq crowd. You buy the lie and then you simply repeat it over and over again in the hope you will convince yourself you are not being duped.

Like when Obama said, you could keep your healthcare? That kind of lie you mean? The lie that if we don't do something, we will all die because of the Ozone layer disappearing. Global warming is a multi-billion $$$ industry. Look if you want to believe in all that crap, I could care less, but I would like our president to focus on jobs, more in the private sector, I want him to drill for oil, gas and other natural energy resources we have and desperately need. Then we don't need to depend on ME oil. Because of you libs and the EPA we have to go to these countries and bend over to get some of these oil resources. If Obama were smart, Sorry...if he were wise...sorry, if...he would use his head, that's it, we would and should have had the Keystone pipeline built a long time ago. But he won't, because he is beholden to these environmental groups and unions.

Although its republicans who hate democracy with their Voter ID laws but opinions like the one above from I presume a voting american is a strong case that democracy is suspect

We hate Democracy? Why? Because we like smaller government, less intrusion from the government, better wages, growth in the private sector and the right to choose our own destiny, more disposable income. Voter fraud??? Are you kidding Zurc? Do you remember the New Black Panther party standing outside the voter booth stations intimidating people that they should vote for Obama. Don't spew that garbage.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I wonder how many of the "climate change skeptics" here are skeptical about the following:

our planet being 4.5 billion years old; we are evolved primates; the effectiveness of inoculations and fluoridated water

Inquiring minds want to know.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"After what happened, pressure is mounting for the government to do something." What, exactly

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These scientists then measured atmospheric carbon levels and confirmed that they have soared several hundred percent over the past 100 years. They also isolated this increase to human activities. They did so so accurately that their resulting predictions are rather spot-on.

Well in the past 100 years CO2 levels haven't even doubled much less soared by several hundred percent.

And the predictions have been rather far off the mark.

Reality: Going the way of the dinosaur.

The people who hunted the American bison to near extinction constantly told others that the supply was nearly limitless.

No they didn't. And my quote was in response to a claim that the 17 year pause was not long enough. Well the Arctic sea ice data isn't long enough either. Sorry but the same rules apply to both sides of the discussion.

I also come from the Great Lakes area

Would that be the Great Lakes that have been setting records for amount and duration of ice cover lately?

One thing my years in industry have taught me,

Has it also taught you that a problem misdiagnosed wastes far more money and cause far more disruption?

Inquiring minds want to know.

And that has what to do with you?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

No they didn't.

As early as the 1830s, George Catlin predicted that the bison would be extinct within a man's lifetime and the rate they were being hunted. He was treated the way the climate-change deniers great the science about the impact of increased levels of greenhouse gases.

Well the Arctic sea ice data isn't long enough either. Sorry but the same rules apply to both sides of the discussion.

Sometimes, basic common sense has to apply: With millions of tons of carbon and oil burned each year -- amounts that took nature many hundreds of thousands of years to sequester -- one wonders how the deniers explain how atmospheric CO2 levels can do anything but rise.

Would that be the Great Lakes that have been setting records for amount and duration of ice cover lately?

The past winter was an aberration. Temperatures around Lake Superior were hitting record highs earlier than ever before while ice was still in the lake. "The long-term trend in recent decades is sharply downward; Great Lakes ice cover declined 71% between 1973 – 2010. A 2012 study published in the Journal of Climate by researchers at NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory found that the biggest loser of ice during the 1973 – 2010 time period was Lake Ontario, which saw an 88% decline in ice cover. During the same time period, Superior lost 79% of its ice, Michigan lost 77%, Huron lost 62%, and Erie lost 50%. The loss of ice is due to warming of the lake waters. Winter air temperatures over the lower Great Lake increased by about 2.7°F (1.5°C) from 1973 – 2010, and by 4 – 5°F (2.3 – 2.7°C) over the northern Lakes, including Lake Superior."

Has it also taught you that a problem misdiagnosed wastes far more money and cause far more disruption?

OK, just to take one metric, what would you say atmospheric levels of CO2 would have to reach to present a problem?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You cannot plug the border like a leaky roof anyway. Immigration is reversing anyway as GDP growth in Mexico is increasing.

Really? Texas is seeing about 35000 incursions a month, and crossings are increasing in other states as well. The "Dream" act was intended to let the children of illegals become citizens, and was meant to apply only to those which were brought in by their parents. But now we have a flood of child immigrants arriving ex post facto who are technically illegible, but who are not deported, and are even being transported at taxpayer expense to their illegal family members residing across America.

One would think that a president who was once a constitutional law professor would not be so reluctant to enforce the law. But hopefully in two more years we will get a president who respects the law, though I won't hold my breath.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

That number with Texas if you add it up is more than the entire nation with other estimates. Are there any extra zeroes? Most illegals overstay visas after coming legitimately. We would have to seal the airports. Yes, it's reversing as more Mexican's want to stay (in Mexico) or return (to Mexico). GDP growth in Mexico is faster than that in the USA. Which party has the best solution? Don't forget Reagan inked 3M for amnesty. Some say it was a deal to seal the borders (decades ago). If they are determined they will come but less are. Have faith in the global economy. Someday Americans might want to cross south and work there. Perhaps if it's a Republican president we can see how inking amnesty for millions can work again in the future. That was the Republican plan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That number with Texas if you add it up is more than the entire nation with other estimates. Are there any extra zeroes? Most illegals overstay visas after coming legitimately. We would have to seal the airports. Yes, it's reversing as more Mexican's want to stay (in Mexico) or return (to Mexico). GDP growth in Mexico is faster than that in the USA. Which party has the best solution? Don't forget Reagan inked 3M for amnesty. Some say it was a deal to seal the borders (decades ago). If they are determined they will come but less are. Have faith in the global economy. Someday Americans might want to cross south and work there. Perhaps if it's a Republican president we can see how inking amnesty for millions can work again in the future. That was the Republican plan.

You keep saying that! That is an absolute lie, as a matter of fact, it is NOT reversing that is an out right lie of all lies, if that were true, they wouldn't be coming to the states or are you saying all those kids coming are for some exchange program. Why do you think Cantor lost his job, the people were sending a very strong message, shut the border down now!

And stop talking about what Reagan did 25 years ago, in hindsight looking back, it was a mistake and Conservatives realize it. If these people want to come in, do it legally, take a number and wait in line like everyone else. Bottom line, you have No border and you have No country! If I were to try and immigrate into Mexico, good luck because Mexico is very strict when it comes to immigration and visas and yet, if they have problems with people being discontent, they often tell them to go North of the border, basically shoving the problems on us and the cost and burden to the tax payers.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Luis-Gutierrez-immigration-Arizona-children/2014/06/10/id/576134/

This is what can be expected should any illegals get caught.

http://immigration.lawyers.com/deportation/immigrants-prepare-for-worse-case-deportation.html

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/08/6464441/editorial-the-international-crisis.html

Stop telling the lie that things are reversing, they are NOT, not even close. 90, 000 is not a sign of decrease.That's the same lie as when Obama told the American people the borders are closed. This is an absolute outrage. The Republicans are probably not going to even start having the discussion on immigration reform until next year after the election. For some reason, you are saying something completely different from the WH and the media. If you want more illegals to come in, just say it, but don't spout that the borders are secure and that illegals are just packing up and leaving.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"it is NOT reversing" Yes it is.

Also, the Republicans invented ObamaCare.

Did you know that Nixon wanted a handgun ban. Also, Reagan passed laws for gun control as Cal. Gov.

Probably if the Reps. take over the WH they will probably just make another deal like Reagan did.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"it is NOT reversing" Yes it is.

So you are not willing to admit that the 90, 000 plus entering the U.S. Is a problem. Everyone in Washington is making it up and you know more than the border patrol, police, ICE, the WH. OK, if it makes you more relaxed, think the way you want. ROFLMAO. I prefer to stick with reality.

Also, the Republicans invented ObamaCare.

Again, beating around that same mulberry bush. So what's your point. Just because the U.S. Invented the car, doesn't mean it makes THE best cars in the world.

Did you know that Nixon wanted a handgun ban. Also, Reagan passed laws for gun control as Cal. Gov.

Did you know 25 million liberal and a huge part that are registered Democrats and progressives are gun owners?

Probably if the Reps. take over the WH they will probably just make another deal like Reagan did.

That will never happen at least not in the same way Reagan did, we learned a big lesson from that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Net immigration is reversing.

You are right. Single payer is better than RomneyCare.

"That will never happen at least not in the same way Reagan did, we learned a big lesson from that." But it might if things really start boiling. History repeats itself.

So then who do gun owners hate Obama? He's black?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Net immigration is reversing.

Where is the proof of that? Show me ANY detailed stats proving that.

You are right. Single payer is better than RomneyCare.

Not going to happen

"That will never happen at least not in the same way Reagan did, we learned a big lesson from that." But it might if things really start boiling. History repeats itself.

God, let's hope not!

So then who do gun owners hate Obama? He's black?

Obama has nothing to do with this, nor does his color. His crappy policies, Yes! He can't rewrite the laws unless he wants to take out that pen of his or only the people can go and vote for stricter gun laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where is the proof of that? Show me ANY detailed stats proving that.

Net immigration from Mexico -- the main source -- reached zero in 2012 and actually has been on a reversed trend. The Pew organization -- financed by Sun Oil -- is one among a number who have published stats on this.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/

Quite detailed too. Although that won't make a bit of difference to the Obama-haters.

In mentioning the conservative ideas that became part of Obamacare, I'm surprised no one mentioned cap and trade -- which was also first proposed by conservative economic organizations as a way to combat acid-rain. Which brings up a totally new political term: Black-tracking -- the act of a conservative switching his position when he discovers that Obama agrees with it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Net immigration is reversing.

Single payer is actually conservative compared to ObamaCare. It's transitioning to that.

What crappy Obama policies? the health reform that Nixon invented?

Black-tracking. Yes, it seems there is a lot of bitterness from a black guy in the WH. It's one thing to think Obama was born in Kenya but some of these people are actually elected officials on the Republican side. Old white guys that are jealous they could not become president but a black man could.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama and the warming alarmists are in denial because their science has been inconclusive at best and plain wrong at worst. The Hockey Stick was proven false. The Arctic ice is still there. All of the models in which all of the alarmist science are based upon have failed to predict the warming that was supposed to occur.

If the models had been correct over the last 17 years the warming alarmists would have rightly been able to crow and say I told you so. However, since the models have been wrong one can only conclude that the skeptics are more likely to be right.

Forced consensus is not science. The Progressives used to push the Eugenics consensus. Eugenics was junk science based more on the Lefts desire to assert control over society rather than true science. Global warming alarmism is no different. To this point it is junk science based on a heard mentality - rushing to a premature conclusion based on self interest and ideology. Instead of questioning why the science used to construct their models has failed to come close to real observed temperatures, they are calling those that point out the failures anti-science. I guess the are hoping that if they demean skeptics their models will miraculously be right.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Obama and the warming alarmists are in denial because their science has been inconclusive at best and plain wrong at worst. The Hockey Stick was proven false

I'll ask you the same question: At what level (ppm) does CO2 in our atmosphere start to present a serious concern?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"The Arctic ice is still there."

Do you know about the military activity there? Especially Russia? Why are they there now like they haven't before? It is a fact they are there. Also, oil companies are acknowledging how ice is melting and they are basing their future drilling ventures on where the ice is melting or will melt. OK, don't listen to the scientists. That's fine. But watch what world militaries are doing up in the North Pole. Also are oil companies making wrong bets? Are their Scientists wrong too? If you are right then executives will lose their jobs.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Net immigration is reversing.

Ok, if you are talking about Mexico, to a small point, however if you are talking about El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala predominantly, then NO, it's not. As a matter of fact, the US is almost at a Humanitarian crisis as what to do with these illegals.

it seems there is a lot of bitterness from a black guy in the WH. It's one thing to think Obama was born in Kenya but some of these people are actually elected officials on the Republican side. Old white guys that are jealous they could not become president but a black man could.

Only you keep bringing the Kenyan issue up. No one else is talking about it. No one cares about Obama's color. NO one cared that Bush was White either. Everyone just hates his polices.

Nishikat, you always never give us a dull moment.

@wolfpack

You are looking at a 2 billion dollar industry. These progressive scientists cannot afford to back down because it would undermine their credibility and people would in big part reject many of their out of the stratosphere inconclusive science, which when every time you do a background check is some left wing looney nut job.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Net immigration is reversing.

No there are some bitter old white Republican birther politicians. Check on Youtube. I remember Anderson Cooper really slamming them. I'm fine with the fundamental values of Republicans but if they believe the president was born in Kenya they should be voted out. They still exist.

The big oil companies believe in these studies because they are directing their exploration according to the same Scientific studies you doubt. Are the Fortune 500 companies wrong?

ObamaCare is a Conservative idea.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@nishi

Well it's not, not even close to reversing from central America, but believe as you like. If you can prove these kids are here just to visit Disneyland and return home all 50, 80,000 of them, I will hold my tongue, if you can't then you are just ranting.

Who cares what, where if Obamacare is a Conservative or Democrat idea, the problem is how it was implanted by this president and it was done poorly.

@mike

The last few years have shown reduced melting. And just as your claim above, with known natural climate cycles of 60 year length, the 30 years of Arctic sea ice data is not long enough to make statistically valid claims, or does that only work for one side?

I was wondering why there was so much ice when I was up in Alaska last year for a week. There have been many recorded times when the world went through these cycles of ice melting or too much ice accumulating. It's all cyclical.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You would need to argue with petroleum companies since they are counting on changes for how they are directing their business.

I'm find if ObamaCare is implemented by a Republican idea since it was their idea anyway. I don't care. People don't like Obamacare since Obama is black.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You would need to argue with petroleum companies since they are counting on changes for how they are directing their business.

I highly doubt that.

I'm find if ObamaCare is implemented by a Republican idea since it was their idea anyway. I don't care. People don't like Obamacare since Obama is black.

His color has nothing to do with it, but you do know he's half white, so that means the hate equally his white side. You guys also hated Bush because he's White.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Thus far, no answer to the question: At what level (ppm) does CO2 in our atmosphere start to present a serious concern?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"Well it's not, not even close to reversing from central America" So Mexicans are no longer parasites to America but the rest of the countries down there are.

What's the difference with ObamaCare and RomneyCare?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@yabits

Thus far, no answer to the question: At what level (ppm) does CO2 in our atmosphere start to present a serious concern?

Sorry for my late response; work has been hectic.

Given that models based on the belief that CO2 levels that were reached as far back as the 1980's have all been unable to predict actual observations I would say that no one really knows at this point. Atmospheric CO2 levels worldwide have gone up dramatically over the last 15 to 20 years yet world temperatures have remained essentially static. All that can truthfully be said at this point is that those that have predicted current levels would cause warming have been proven to be in error.

During the 1930's there were also very high world temperatures. Atmospheric CO2 back then were much lower than they are now. There is also scientific proof that there was substantial warming about 1000 years ago - this was obviously well before industrialization. Even at current levels, CO2 gas makes up just a minuscule portion of all atmospheric gases.

So knowing all this I should ask you the same question. Do you know what level of CO2 (ppm) presents a serious concern? Since all models using data from the worlds leading climate scientists have failed to answer this question I seriously doubt that you have any clue either.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So Mexicans are no longer parasites to America but the rest of the countries down there are.

Anyone that illegally breaks the law is, YES, of course. These kids weren't invited, they came to the via through Mexico and why on Earth didn't the Mexican government stop them or turn them back since they themselves have very strict immigration policy? So we should just keep letting them in? This is madness! No other country would stand for this and neither should we!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even at current levels, CO2 gas makes up just a minuscule portion of all atmospheric gases.

The percentage of CO2 of all atmospheric gases may not be as significant as the heat-trapping capability of what does exist.

Current CO2 levels have risen to 400 ppm. Do you know how many years it has been since Earth's atmosphere reached that level?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Current CO2 levels have risen to 400 ppm. Do you know how many years it has been since Earth's atmosphere reached that level?

Do you know that life on the planet has survived just fine with levels greater than 1000 ppm? And do you know that the atmospheric response to increased CO2 is a decreasing logarithmic function?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Do you know that life on the planet has survived just fine with levels greater than 1000 ppm?

I recognize your voice, Mikey. It's the same one that claimed that 9 out of 10 doctors prefer Chesterfields.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@yabits

Current CO2 levels have risen to 400 ppm. Do you know how many years it has been since Earth's atmosphere reached that level?

800,000 years?

But CO2 levels are only one of many variables that go into temperature. Alarmist's are putting all of their eggs in one basket and ignoring all of the rest. That makes no logical sense given that all models rely heavily on increasing CO2 levels and all have failed to predict increases in real temperatures.

Aren't you even a little bit curious about the failure of climate science to prove a direct link to increased CO2 levels and observed temperatures? Why do Alarmists consider only CO2 and willfully exclude every other variables that affect climate?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@yabits

Current CO2 levels have risen to 400 ppm. Do you know how many years it has been since Earth's atmosphere reached that level?

800,000 years?

But CO2 levels are only one of many variables that go into temperature. Alarmist's are putting all of their eggs in one basket and ignoring all of the rest. That makes no logical sense given that all models rely heavily on increasing CO2 levels and all have failed to predict increases in real temperatures.

Aren't you even a little bit curious about the failure of climate science to prove a direct link to increased CO2 levels and observed temperatures? Why do Alarmists consider only CO2 and willfully exclude every other variables that affect climate?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I recognize your voice, Mikey. It's the same one that claimed that 9 out of 10 doctors prefer Chesterfields.

No yabits, my voice is one of the ones giving facts. Even the most rabid supporter of CO2 causing all the recent warming has to admit that the science shows the Earth has far exceeded 1000 ppm CO2 in the past. And being as we exist it is also undeniable that life survived those levels.

I realize attacking the person rather than the facts is easier but it really reflects poorly on those that practice it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Even the most rabid supporter of CO2 causing all the recent warming has to admit that the science shows the Earth has far exceeded 1000 ppm CO2 in the past.

In the past? Wolfpack has accurately pointed out that it's been around 800,000 years since CO2 levels reached 400ppm. And so how far back in the past did it exceed 1000 ppm? Care to relate that fact?

Sorry, Mikey, I'll prefer to err on the side of caution. If there's a way for human beings to be incented to limit CO2 emissions, I am all for it. I am not for the kind of disruption to human life that can occur with a once-in-a-million-years event. Just like the people who disputed the dangers of cigarette smoking, your type won't be around when the stuff hits the fan. I never took up smoking and am glad I don't have to deal with second-hand smoke. Please find another sucker.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Wolfpack has accurately pointed out that it's been around 800,000 years since CO2 levels reached 400ppm.

And I accurately pointed out that it has exceeded 1000 ppm. In fact the atmospheric level of CO2 has exceeded 1000 ppm for more of the Earth's history than it has been below 1000 ppm.

Sorry, yabitsey, but you are scared of predictions made by people who have been proven to be wrong.

They have claimed the CO2 level is reaching a tipping point. Well since it has been higher than present for most of the Earth's existence, we can be pretty sure if there is a CO2 tipping point it is well above 1000 ppm.

They have claimed storms will increase in number and intensity. Yet actual real world data shows if anything levels have decreased.

They claim sea level rise is unprecedented. Yet actual real world data shows the rate of rise has been pretty constant since the end of the last glaciation.

So belief in predictions from a group of people who haven't gotten a prediction right yet isn't erring on the side of caution. It is a religious belief devoid of facts or science.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So belief in predictions from a group of people who haven't gotten a prediction right yet isn't erring on the side of caution. It is a religious belief devoid of facts or science.

Of course O'Brien is correct. The almost two decade record of erroneous climate models does not inspire confidence in the predictive abilities of those involved in the climate alarmism business. The fanatical belief in manmade global warming is not backed by sound science at this point. Climate scientists have no idea how an increase in the volume of a gas that makes up a very small fraction of Earth's atmosphere will impact future global temperatures. They just do not as yet have a solid understanding of our planets complex climate. If they did, their models would not continue to incorrectly predict global temperatures. Wasn't it the global warming evangelist himself Al Gore that predicted that by 2013 all Artic ice will have melted? Do you want to base your future on Gore's scientific knowledge?

At this point mankind would be better off planning on how to deal with a large space rock striking the planet. I believe that another large impact will certainly occur again; we just do not know when. Oh, and I also believe that the Earth's climate will change. It will get hotter and it will get colder just as it always has. The problem is our scientists do not yet have any idea when.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Climate Change/Global Warming/Climate Disruption" and whatever Gore and Obama are calling it today is the greatest fraud ever imposed on mankind. No "warming" for 18 years, and counting. Ice at the Poles at record levels. Polar bear numbers increasing. Glaciers not melting. Large hurricanes at all time low in America, yet we are continually fed this garbage by Obama and his Marxist Environmentalist buddies, plus Prince Charles, that the activities of mankind (industrial production, jet travel, use of cars, etc. ) is "destroying" the planet? What a load of cobblers. Someone on this thread referred to a "scientist in England" and his "findings." Was that the same guy made infamous by the Climategate scandal a few years ago? Probably. Junk science, produced by junk scientists who suppress the truth, manipulate data and also subject dissenters to bullying and intimidation for daring to disagree with their "theory," proves nothing other than they are undemocratic and anti human, driven by political motivation and not science. Wake up, folks, you are being conned, big time. Watch out for more of this as the great UN Climate Jamboree in Paris, 2015, approaches, when they will attempt once again to subjugate the entire human race to their One World government, under the evil Agenda 21. Pure Science Fiction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites