Comments on: Obama, World Leaders Announce Climate Change Deal

[zonkzilla]

It is good to see that while many don't agree with global warming, they are not attacking President Obama for trying to deal with the issue along with our neighbors on the planet.
Of course there are some racist hypocrites who attack Obama but we know they are fools because McCain also said he would deal with global warming (McCain was the Republican golden boy if you remember.)
McCain is a good man, and I think he said it best when as presidential candidate he said " I don't know if global warming is real or not or manmade but reducing pollution in the air we breathe is always a good thing". I don't believe in global warming but McCain's statement is my policy on the issue. Reducing pollution is always a good thing.
So when Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck (fascists) attack Obama just remember they are attacking their ex Republican candidate also and spewing lies, but then again that is what hypocrites do isn't it?
Well said Senator.

[u-r-right]

Michael Jackson has DIED people!!! Who has time to care about this climate change business?

[ubrew12]

Thanks for posting gulliberal.
We all hate Social Security and would rather live without it (LOL).

[ubrew12]

What cooling? The last 10 years have been the hottest on record. Now that we're heading back up in the sun-cycle and we're entering another El Nino, expect the upward trend to return.

But, of course, by then there'll be another set of arguments about how it ain't true, by people who flunked out of climatology, if they even gave it a moments thought. Some people get an electrical engineering degree, and suddenly they're an expert on the climate. Kinda like asking your plumber to fix your car.

[ubrew12]

I'm not going to say where you pulled your '18 years of data' out of, but its original, if nothing else. BTW, how is planting trees going to 'dramatically change our economy'? (speaking of alarmist)

[erasmus111]

Some Americans live in the state of paranoia. They think everyone is out to get them. They think that Al Gore has made this all up so that he can make money. I heard about "global warming" from a scientist in Canada, LONG before I heard it from Gore.

I don't think they realize that there are many other countries out there with very smart scientists. HUNDREDS of scientists that are sure that there IS man-made global warming. Of course that just makes it a "global conspiracy", doesn't it?

[schotzy81]

"If "neocons" who hate "liberals" think it's a "commie plot", AIN'T NOTHIN' GONNA CHANGE THEIR MINDS. "

Ditto, right back at you. Despite the fact that the global temperatures have been steady or cooling over the past decade, this still doesn't faze the alarmists. As you said, "AIN'T NOTHIN' GONNA CHANGE THEIR MINDS".

[earl21048]

Fine, let's say there is man made global warming. How much should we invest for how long? If scientist are convinced that the cooling we are experiencing now is also related to man made global warming then I suspect they would want us to sacrifice indefinitely.Personally, if China and India won't participate, then no matter how much we pay, it would be for not. I would rather have incentives for people to invest in green than to penalize us in cap and trade and businesses being forced out and sent to China and India. But i'm sure you'll feel good, won't you.

[ubrew12]

What cooling? The last 10 years have been the hottest on record. Now that we're heading back up in the sun-cycle and we're entering another El Nino, expect the upward trend to return.

But, of course, by then there'll be another set of arguments about how it ain't true, by people who flunked out of climatology, if they even gave it a moments thought. Some people get an electrical engineering degree, and suddenly they're an expert on the climate. Kinda like asking your plumber to fix your car.

[daffy64]

I guess it really doesn't matter how much scientific data can be presented, how many scientists support the theory, even pictures of the polar caps melting...

If "neocons" who hate "liberals" think it's a "commie plot", AIN'T NOTHIN' GONNA CHANGE THEIR MINDS.

BTW the world is flat and they never landed on the moon either.

[schotzy81]

"If "neocons" who hate "liberals" think it's a "commie plot", AIN'T NOTHIN' GONNA CHANGE THEIR MINDS. "

Ditto, right back at you. Despite the fact that the global temperatures have been steady or cooling over the past decade, this still doesn't faze the alarmists. As you said, "AIN'T NOTHIN' GONNA CHANGE THEIR MINDS".

[erasmus111]

Some Americans live in the state of paranoia. They think everyone is out to get them. They think that Al Gore has made this all up so that he can make money. I heard about "global warming" from a scientist in Canada, LONG before I heard it from Gore.

I don't think they realize that there are many other countries out there with very smart scientists. HUNDREDS of scientists that are sure that there IS man-made global warming. Of course that just makes it a "global conspiracy", doesn't it?

[ubrew12]

gulliberal said: "JUNK SCIENCE!"

You are either passing judgment on thousands of climatologists, over the last 30 years, with peer-reviewed articles in magazines like 'Journal of Climatology', 'Science Magazine', and 'Nature'

or you're passing judgment on yourself. My take is you're an idiot with a anti-communist ego that colors everything you read. America is full of sh*t like you, and it won't get better until you die off or leave.

[nazdackster]

Actually it does matter, see my post above. Real scientists use real data. That's evidently fine until it interferes with a social agenda, then facts don't matter. The fact is, there are only a few so-called "climatologists" in the world, less than 100, others study the rest of the physical sciences which make up climate, of which there are thousands who contribute to climate science. How many authored the IPCC reports? 52. Many of them are now (and were then) very vocal opposing the fact that the approved scientific documents (which found NO attribution to CO2) were changed in a back room by Ben Santer to say that there was a link. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Ben_Santer.pdf Many will no longer even deal with the corrupt UN IPCC over this huge transgression of science. There has never been any evidence of a link of CO2 to temperature as measured in the real world (even though theoretically, there should be an influence). Well, if the facts don't matter even at the IPCC, I would suggest that the process is broken and unreliable. Even the climate here on earth won't listen to the IPCC, but I presume it knows better.

So we have 52 lead authors who know different subjects, but thousands of peer reviewed papers used. How many scientists signed a petition to congress to not be swayed by alarmist projections? More than 700. How many signed the petition project? 31478, of whom 9029 have PHd's. So, yes, I suggest you listen carefully to the scientists, especially those with the majority position. There IS NO climate crisis, never was, never will be. There is a very good new paper out by Spencer and Idso, 880 pages, with thousands of peer reviewed references, which takes the IPCC reports apart, point by point, and leaves not a single alarmist conclusion left standing. I suggest you read it (downloadable): http://nipccreport.org

Let me ask you this... With climate scientists seeming to come out of the woodwork almost daily now against Cap & Trade, climate alarmism (even if they are warmists), and moving to the climate realist position, can you name ONE, JUST ONE scientist that was in the realist camp, and suddenly changed to a position of alarm over CO2? I really need to find one such person, but I've searched for years and can't find one. Please let me know. Thanks.

Even Jim Hansen thinks Cap & Trade is a joke: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/07/09/nasas-hansen-obamas-cap-trade-bill-less-worthless

[ubrew12]

nazdackster: that is a true and heartfelt critique. All I can say is I will forward your statement to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and see what they say in response.

For the record I, like James Hansen, no longer support cap n trade. Its too subject to the gambling pressures of the Wall Street banksters to be employed. I favor a straight carbon tax (with tax cuts elsewhere so the tax effect is neutral). This is much more direct and difficult to 'game' by the well-connected.

[nazdackster]

Thanks ubrew12, I appreciate a reasonable response this time, I remember discussing things with you before. As for the NOAA, "we've met". I get much of my data there, and for the most part have no major complaints. As far as their policy pronouncements, they seem a little cheesy and over branded, given that their responsibility is to maintain good data and measurement systems, which is no small task and of utmost importance. I don't think "they" as a government agency would have any opinion on my conclusions, they keep the data, they do a decent job of interpreting it, and the conclusions are obvious. Now, is there controversy on any given measurement system NOAA or anyone else uses? You bet. It's not easy, but the controversy is what keeps the process aligned.

[Joe_NY_15]

Horray !!!! The socialists all got together to come up with a plan to rape the people again, all in the name of Environmentalism

[ubrew12]

Thanks for posting gulliberal.
We all hate Social Security and would rather live without it (LOL).

[nazdackster]

Reveal5, if you refuse to look at facts, there is nothing I or anyone else can do, you will continue to base your decisions on faith. I will not. If you care to refute anything I have to say, please do so, with evidence. Until then, it is you who are blowing smoke, not I. If you don't know what the LIA is, frankly you have no business discussing climate. Buck up reveal5, let's see what evidence you have of causality... Still waiting.

And yes, I am quite well qualified to make estimates of recovery from our cooling phase, based on facts, as possibly even you could be if you studied the science. If you had any inkling of the actual mechanisms of climate, the terms I use would seem anything but obtuse, they would have a very specific and crystal clear meaning to you. But since you haven't studied climate and get your information from National Geographic and Nova, I can understand why you are very confused. You can start by reading the links I posted, then you can follow the references in the articles, and then the references in those papers, and in less than a year, if you study every day for several hours and follow the literature where it leads (or just start analyzing the data yourself - it's public you know), you will begin to get a handle on it. After 2 or 3 more years of that, check back with me and let's see if you are still an alarmist. I predict zero chance.

But until you are willing to look at facts, I see exactly where you are coming from.

[nazdackster]

Dear reveal5, thank you for demonstrating the typical alarmist argument. Witness is unresponsive. All previous questions remain. Do you care to address the questions at hand? Do you have a cogent argument to refute my points? In science, the burden of proof is on the one proposing the hypothesis. Do you have ANYTHING? Still waiting. I would have given up, but I have a love of science and I think based on our conversation that you have the capacity to be a good student, perhaps even a scientist one day. Make your argument and prove it. I've given you ample evidence. Refute it, good scientist! And have a good night.

[schotzy81]

Actually, ubrew, I would suggest the alarmists are the mindless clones since very few can really explain why they believe in MMGW other than resorting to the mindless mantra of "The debate is over. There is a consensus". Can you explain why we should dramatically change our economy based on a theory from 18-years of data that has failed to explain the period both before and after the cherry-picked data?

[ubrew12]

There you go making sense again.
Also, cutting down trees is OK as long as its not for fuel but for construction. But definitely, we should be out planting like screaming banshees. But, to plant we would have to admit that we needed to do something, and if you read the posters here you see why there's no sense of urgency in America on this issue. Many are trained by Limbaugh to think that being critical of this issue means they are 'independent thinkers'. I just think they are mindless clones.

[MissMaryJoyce]

If what I learned in science hasn't changed, trees take in CO2 and give off Oxygen. Would it not be easier, quicker and less expensive if we just planted trees to replace the ones cut down by all the roads, parking lots, etc that are being built?

[ubrew12]

There you go making sense again.
Also, cutting down trees is OK as long as its not for fuel but for construction. But definitely, we should be out planting like screaming banshees. But, to plant we would have to admit that we needed to do something, and if you read the posters here you see why there's no sense of urgency in America on this issue. Many are trained by Limbaugh to think that being critical of this issue means they are 'independent thinkers'. I just think they are mindless clones.

[schotzy81]

Actually, ubrew, I would suggest the alarmists are the mindless clones since very few can really explain why they believe in MMGW other than resorting to the mindless mantra of "The debate is over. There is a consensus". Can you explain why we should dramatically change our economy based on a theory from 18-years of data that has failed to explain the period both before and after the cherry-picked data?

[ubrew12]

I'm not going to say where you pulled your '18 years of data' out of, but its original, if nothing else. BTW, how is planting trees going to 'dramatically change our economy'? (speaking of alarmist)

[schotzy81]

If PETA got mad about Obama slapping a fly, what are they going to say to this???

[schotzy81]

The whole man-made global warming theory is based on the global warming from around 1980-1998 (18 years) but was unable to explain the stable/declining temperatures in the 30 years preceding them and failed to predict the stable/cooling temperatures that the world has seen since 1998.

My question is, since the MMGW theory is based on only 18 years of history and we've since had 11 years of climate data that disputes that theory, how many more years of stable/cooling temperatures do we need before the alarmists question their beliefs and fix the damage they are doing to the global economy?

[xinunus]

OBAMA EATS ENDANGERED BELUGA STURGEON WITH PUTIN

Quote:
Russian agencies, quoting the government's press service, said Putin treated Obama to black caviar with sour cream, smoked beluga with pancakes and tea made in the traditional Russian samovar, a big coal-fired kettle.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE56657E20090707

http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSTRE5661Q520090707

WIKIPEDIA:
--------------
IUCN classifies the beluga as Endangered. It is a protected species listed in appendix III of the Bern Convention and its trade is restricted under CITES appendix II. The Mediterranean population is strongly protected under appendix II of the Bern Convention, prohibiting any intentional killing of these fish.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has banned imports of Beluga Caviar and other beluga products from the Caspian Sea since October 6, 2005.

[schotzy81]

If PETA got mad about Obama slapping a fly, what are they going to say to this???