26 Jun 13
Will people choose science over right-wing ideology?
Obama Climate Change 2013 Policy Speech Outlines Executive Orders
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Tuesday invoked his executive authority to undertake a slew of measures aimed at curbing climate change and preparing America for its costly impacts. . . .
"The question is not whether we need to act," Obama said in a speech at Georgetown University. "The question is whether we will have the courage to act before it's too late." . . .
Obama's strategy in the second-term rests on three pillars: cutting carbon pollution in America, preparing the U.S. for the impacts of climate change, and leading international efforts to cut global emissions. Among the top-billed items are imposing the first carbon limits on existing power plants and requiring all federal projects to be able to withstand the heightened storms and sea level rise associated with climate change.
Obama also made a point to dismiss those who don't acknowledge the science behind man-made global
warming. . .
My favorite line from the speech:
"We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society," the President quipped.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/obama-climate-change-2013_n_3497151.html
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by moon1969Don't worry, the multinationals will kill all such efforts, watering them down so much as to not make a whit of difference 100 years from now. It all just goes to show there is no intelligent life on Earth after all.
Will people choose science over right-wing ideology?
[quote][b]Obama Climate Change 2013 Policy Speech Outlines Executive Orders
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Tuesday invoked his executive authority to undertake a slew of measures aimed at curbing climate change and preparing America for its costly impacts. . . .
"The question is no ...[text shortened]... te]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/obama-climate-change-2013_n_3497151.html[/b]
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI won't be here 100 years from now, and that is the problem. Although many of us talk about caring about he future of our planet, most of us don't actually put a whole lot of effort into doing so. Add to this the fact that most governments are based around a 5 year election cycle and thus they "won't be here" 5 years from now.
Don't worry, the multinationals will kill all such efforts, watering them down so much as to not make a whit of difference 100 years from now. It all just goes to show there is no intelligent life on Earth after all.
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by moon1969"We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society," the President quipped.
Will people choose science over right-wing ideology?
[quote][b]Obama Climate Change 2013 Policy Speech Outlines Executive Orders
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Tuesday invoked his executive authority to undertake a slew of measures aimed at curbing climate change and preparing America for its costly impacts. . . .
"The question is no ...[text shortened]... te]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/obama-climate-change-2013_n_3497151.html[/b]
Now that fits the definition of googlefuge's favorite term "Ad Hominem"!
Scientists can't explain everything about climate change. It really isn't something to alarm people about so soon. CO2 is a plant nutrient. It has it's upside too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainAnd your point is? Are you saying that scientists do not know whether global warming is taking place or will continue to take place, or are you saying nobody should believe anyone unless they have absolute knowledge?
Scientists can't explain everything about climate change.
It really isn't something to alarm people about so soon.
Funny how you have a completely different view of GMOs despite you not knowing everything about genetics.
CO2 is a plant nutrient. It has it's upside too.
I am sure it does have its upsides, but it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the upsides are outweighed by the downside of rising ocean levels. The fact is that we have made enormous investments in seaside cities and they will either have to be evacuated or walled in.
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsActually it has already caused a number of problems world wide. Or don't you watch the news?
I think a little global warming will be good in some areas of the Earth. The only problem I can think it could cause is the melting of all the ice from Noah's flood that would raise the sea levels.
The Instructor
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have never disputed that global warming is taking place, just that scientists are not sure that CO2 is the only factor and the link I posted shows that scientists don't understand why the warming is slowing down.
And your point is? Are you saying that scientists do not know whether global warming is taking place or will continue to take place, or are you saying nobody should believe anyone unless they have absolute knowledge?
[b]It really isn't something to alarm people about so soon.
Funny how you have a completely different view of GMOs despite you not k ...[text shortened]... enormous investments in seaside cities and they will either have to be evacuated or walled in.[/b]
Since you agree that genetic engineering is the way of the future we can GM people, plants and animals to adapt to the climate change. I'm being a bit sarcastic here but not completely.
"The fact is that we have made enormous investments in seaside cities and they will either have to be evacuated or walled in."
We allow people to keep investing (rebuilding) in flood areas again and again. How about changing that policy first? Maybe don't allow flood insurance in those flood prone areas.
We can also GM people to become mermaids. Problem solved.
Now I am being completely sarcastic.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainThere is no scientific uncertainty as to whether or not climate change is happening.
I have never disputed that global warming is taking place, just that scientists are not sure that CO2 is the only factor and the link I posted shows that scientists don't understand why the warming is slowing down.
Since you agree that genetic engineering is the way of the future we can GM people, plants and animals to adapt to the climate change. I'm ...[text shortened]... n also GM people to become mermaids. Problem solved.
Now I am being completely sarcastic.
There is no scientific uncertainty as to whether or not CO2 emissions are to blame.
And the warming is not, and has not, slowed down.
Claiming otherwise is a lie.
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI have never denied climate change is happening. Read well?
There is no scientific uncertainty as to whether or not climate change is happening.
There is no scientific uncertainty as to whether or not CO2 emissions are to blame.
And the warming is not, and has not, slowed down.
Claiming otherwise is a lie.
There are factors other than CO2 emissions.
The warming has slowed down according to the link I posted earlier in this thread. I'll post it again.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainScientists know a good deal about what is a greenhouse gas and what is an anti greenhouse gas, for instance, water vapor cools by blocking sunlight. But CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, since light, say green color, ~500 Nm, converts to say 1500 Nm after striking dirt or rocks, re-emitting at a lower wavelenth which then CO2 blocks.
I have never denied climate change is happening. Read well?
There are factors other than CO2 emissions.
The warming has slowed down according to the link I posted earlier in this thread. I'll post it again.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416
One huge potential problem is a run away effect when the CO2 goes up high enough to start melting the tundra which then will give off a gas 20 times higher on the greenhouse totem pole, Methane. If that happens we can have a burst of high temperatures not seen in millions of years.
That is the potential killer in all this. There are literally trillions of tons of CH4 buried in tundra and ice now sequestered. When that heats up, all bets are off.
There are also hydro methane ice on the bottom of oceans and the same thing, higher temperature, can reach the bottom of the ocean and there is another source of methane.
The trick is to keep us away from the tipping point, the point at which
the temperatures spike to numbers not seen before and within 5 years the shyte will hit the fan and all the ice melts, we lose a LOT of coastal cities and the world will never be the same again. When the tipping point is past it could fall apart in less than 5 years or faster.
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainAnd I ask again, what is your actual point? Are you saying that because scientists don't have absolute knowledge they cannot be trusted on anything, or are you saying they could be wrong that CO2 is causing it? Or are you simply trying to shed doubt on the matter so that you don't have to do anything?
I have never disputed that global warming is taking place, just that scientists are not sure that CO2 is the only factor and the link I posted shows that scientists don't understand why the warming is slowing down.
We allow people to keep investing (rebuilding) in flood areas again and again. How about changing that policy first? Maybe don't allow flood insurance in those flood prone areas.
Do you realize that with global warming, 'flood areas' includes much of the worlds cities? So your solution is to stop building in Miami, New York, San Francisco, should I go on?
We can also GM people to become mermaids. Problem solved.
Now I am being completely sarcastic.
Thats because you have no argument, so sarcasm is all you have left.
The real question is what is your problem? Why do you not want to do anything? Are you afraid it will cost you money?
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadDid you even read the link I provided? Warming is slowing down and scientists cannot explain it based on their assertion that it is rising CO2 levels that is causing the warming. Isn't my point obvious?
And I ask again, what is your actual point? Are you saying that because scientists don't have absolute knowledge they cannot be trusted on anything, or are you saying they could be wrong that CO2 is causing it? Or are you simply trying to shed doubt on the matter so that you don't have to do anything?
[b]We allow people to keep investing (rebuilding) i ...[text shortened]... is your problem? Why do you not want to do anything? Are you afraid it will cost you money?
"Thats because you have no argument, so sarcasm is all you have left."
Read the link. It is from Reuters so the source should not be a problem with you. That is my argument. Sometimes I just like to be humorous. Get a sense of humor sometime.
"The real question is what is your problem? Why do you not want to do anything? Are you afraid it will cost you money?"
What is your problem? Do you just like wasting money?
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseDid you read the link I posted? Global warming has been slowing down lately and they can't explain it. Can you?
Scientists know a good deal about what is a greenhouse gas and what is an anti greenhouse gas, for instance, water vapor cools by blocking sunlight. But CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, since light, say green color, ~500 Nm, converts to say 1500 Nm after striking dirt or rocks, re-emitting at a lower wavelenth which then CO2 blocks.
One huge potential ...[text shortened]... e same again. When the tipping point is past it could fall apart in less than 5 years or faster.