The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Obama to plead U.S. case at global warming summitWASHINGTON
©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.
Login to comment
"He will “put on the table” a U.S. commitment to cut emissions by 17% over the next decade, on the way to reducing heat-trapping pollution by 80% by mid-century, the White House said."
Wonderful. Good luck. Gosh what great news.
I want to believe.
But realistically, considering that this is like an elephant promising to lose a few pounds in a train car full of peanuts, I have to be skeptical. It should be easy to realize that goal through higher gas taxes and serious efforts at conservation, but this is the US we are talking about. If three dollar gas did not wake them up then warm fuzzies are not going to do it. Having some sense of the will of the American people, I am just guessing that if they meet that goal, it will be because of extremely high future gas prices and recession. Which is to say that Americans are much happier having hardship forced upon them than trying to take active measures years in advance.
President Obama is merely grandstanding at this point. He loves being the center of attention and to go around telling everyone how much better he is than former President Bush. The problem is he will be as successful as Bush and former Presaident Clinton before him in getting the American public to commit economic suicide.
Given the recent ClimateGate e-mails and rigged computer code along with the fact that the planet has not warmed at all in over ten years (even though the experts with the secret and made up 'settled science' told the world that it would) there isn't any reason to try to cut carbon emissions. The Left does not want to let the science speak for itself because it doesn't say what they want it to say - and that is there is no man-made global warming crisis. The only thing that is man-made in the global warming debate is the made up science by the environmentalist/socialists that seek to micromanage peoples lives and force them to live the way they want people to live.
For the record, I am not a believer in the Global Warming as what is being put out there, but it sure helps my business and that's all that matters to me. The more of you that do believe in it and believe in it so deep the better things will be for me.
The Left does not want to let the science speak for itself because it doesn't say what they want it to say - and that is there is no man-made global warming crisis." Hey, shhhh! Do you mind if I cash in on this for a bit before it falls down. I'm finally getting some things done. My biz has been real boring up until now.
Just when the ClimateGate bubble has been popped and the festering pus inside has been allowed to pour out... this timing can not be good.
Sure we need to consider the planet and cut back on pollution, but the hysteria was not really so necessary.
PS I wanted to say the bubble has been not "popped", but the more natural English prxxxed, but the swear filter is too sensitive! hahaha...
Uh, no that isn't what science says. "There is no man-made global warning crisis" is a scientifically unprovable statement, as there is no way to measure what the climate would be if there had been no human activity. So science doesn't say it. People who call global warming a religion that other people want to believe in, they are who says it. Even though they have no way to prove their statement, and it is just something they want to believe. Nothing wrong with being skeptical, the problem is when you make stuff up.
Anyways, if you look at climate change as a risk management issue, it doesn't really matter if it is happening or not. But if you don't care about the possibility of returning to a life of subsistence agriculture don't worry about it. You can stand out in the cotton fields and continue your ridiculous "Left"/"Right" arguments there.
Another Obama article? This will surely upset the repub backers here.
But the warmening is all a hoax. Read about it in The Mail.
Let us provide a comparison for you then. I'll be chicken Little, running around telling you the sky is falling. In order to prop it up, you have to burn down your farm. Its ok right. You have to destroy your livelihood for the good of everyone. The fact that there is no solid, basis for the idea that the sky is falling shouldn't stop us from taking preventative measures right now. This, is about where the climate "scientists" are at right now. As they talk about "global warming" and "greenhouse gasses", and try to scare the world into destroying itself.
I've suspected for years that the "scientists" were manipulating the data to get the results they wanted. With the latest news, their fraud has been exposed to the world. However even with their manipulation, they still couldn't make their climate models work.
Could you please establish this fact by providing accessible and reliable references?
I believe most scientists on both sides of the argument recognize that it is 15 years now.
Until I see accessible and reliable references, I cannot believe to this American claim. By the way, stolen e-mails cannot qualify as reliable references.
I think the Climate Change Deniers may actually be right - it's all to do with "sunspots" and the Earth is actually "cooling."
But hold on - that claim completely flies in the face of the long accepted laws of physics.
According to the Climate Change Deniers the Earth is cooling. That must be why the polar ice cap is melting at the fastest rate ever.
Something doesn't jive here.....
I need to listen to Rush Limpbaugh some more. He always has a handle on the tRuTh.
News flash for you Sushi. The climate, changes. I know, shocking. The world, for lots and lots of reasons, is always changing. Thats why today its a sunny day, while tomorrow it might rain. Its not raining everywhere oddly enough, but somewhere its raining. So, is it really so surprising that there could be a warming trend in one place, and a cooling trend in another, and yet if anything the overall temperature is remaining about the same, or as is the case here, despite all the alleged scientists could do to hide it, found to be cooling.
The problem here is not whether or not the planet is warming or cooling, but rather with those who want to claim its all OUR fault. We can and do affect our planet, however what the alleged scientists want us to believe, is that unless we act now, then it will turn into a death spiral, and the planet will become unlivable, all because we put out too much plant food. Sorry, but that, that is nonsense. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis at all, and quite a bit to refute it.
Molenir, if the deniers of the global warming can break into an e-mail server then they can surely use lies and deception. Those whom you cheekily call "alleged scientists" are qualified professional scientific researchers
According to the Climate Change Deniers, when the temperature cools, ice melts faster.
You can't get much more whacked than that.
Who needs the laws of physics when you believe trash like that?? :-)
The global warmening is all a hoax, biggest scandal ever. Read about it in The Mail I did.
You see, it depends upon what data you choose to see.
If you are unbiased, you have to admit that Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away. The British Antarctic Survey will be publishing a paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters that confirms that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded. However, if you have an agenda, you cherry pick your data and look at ice melt in the Western section, where it has shrunk.
If you are not biased, you admit a correlation between sunspots and global temperature. If you are not biased, you admit that temperature tends to lead CO2, not the other way around. If you have an agenda, you declare solar changes to be minimal and adjust the data to fit your expectations.
If you are unbiased, you admit that tree ring data is not exactly dependable. If you have an agenda, you toss out ring data that does not fit.
If you are unbiased, you admit that the urban heat island effect (and poor locating of temperature measurement locations) skews the data. If you have an agenda, you don't admit that any such thing poses any significant effect.
If you are unbiased, you welcome healthy academic debate and contrary publishing. If you have an agenda, you expel any 'unbeliever' from peer and professional groups and seek to suppress the publishing of any contrary papers.
... Climate science has become less about science and more about politics. Receiving tens of millions of dollars in grant money for further CAGW/CAGCC research is further incentive for some, apparently.
BTW, the CRU has admitted that the data and e-mails are genuine, just "taken out of context".