Obama, World Leaders Announce Climate Change Deal
(AP Photo/Haraz Ghanbari)
"We've made a good start, but I'm the first one to acknowledge progress on this issue will not be easy," Mr. Obama said from L’Aquila, Italy. "It is no small task for 17 leaders to bridge thier differences on climate change."
The countries represented at the forum agreed to recognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels should not to exceed two degrees Celsius. With that objective in mind, the nations agreed to what President Obama called a "historic consensus on concrete goals for reducing carbon emissions," with developed nations agreeing to reduce them by 80 percent by 2050 -- a goal the climate change bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives aims for. Developing nations agreed between now and the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen to negotaitie concrete goals to reduce their own emissions by 2050.
"As I wrestle with these issues politically in my own country, I have come to see it is absolutely critical all of us go beyond what is expected of us if we are to achieve our goals," Mr. Obama said.
The nations in attendance also agreed to consider proposals for establishing international funding arrangements to assist developing countries.
World leaders will have to "fight the tempation towards cynicism," Mr. Obama said, even though he acknowledged that "it's even more difficult in the context of a global recession."
He said, though, "there is no contradiction between environmentally sustainable growth and robust economic growth."
Economic concerns, however, are already slowing down the progress of climate change legislation in the United States.
"Each of our nations comes to the table with different needs, different priorities, different levels of devlopment," Mr. Obama said. Developed nations like the United States, he said, "have a responsiblity to take the lead."
The leaders who participated in today's forum represented Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Watch a report from CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid about the G8 conference below.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 36 CommentsWhich of the following two extreme climate situations causes more deaths?
(A) a hot summer
(B) a cold winter
The answer is (B) by a huge margin.
Are you sure?
I have always heard that people can tolerate cold more than heat.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf
Piers Corbyn is predicting 100 years of cooling... No doubt due to the current extended solar minimum (looking perilously like a Maunder or Dalton type event) I hope he's not right, cooling is always detrimental to human prosperity.
(A) a hot summer
(B) a cold winter
The answer is (B) by a huge margin.
So, why aren`t we doing everything we can to promote and accelerate global warming until the figures for hot and cold weather deaths are comparable?
That`s when our planet will have its ideal, optimum temperature.
At the present time, it`s too cold.
by slownewsday_05 July 9, 2009 3:09 PM PDT
I don't know if global warming is man-made or not
---------
That's the whole point. Nobody does. Surely humans make some difference. But there is no scientific way to sort out how much is man-made and how much is natural.
The point is that if you don't know for sure, it's much better to do something than nothing. What if you are wrong? Do you want your children and grandchildren to suffer? If there is even the slightest doubt, how can you ignore it? If everyone just does what they can afford, that is better than nothing at all. Some things can be done, and it costs nothing.
Scientist letter to Congress
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of ?almost certain? thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.
The facts are:
The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.
The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact
THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.
The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not just computer projections, and not false claims about the state of the science.
SCIENCE IS GUIDED BY PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS
Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Alarmists are rolling in wealth from the billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken. It is always instructive to follow the money.
Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences
Obama is the worst president in 100 years.
Twenty years ago, I did a year at the PhD level in Atmospheric Science. Even though I was studying mesoscale meteorology, Global Warming was the talk, and it was clear to everyone in that department: AGW is a no-brainer. Clearly, this would have been of some concern, but you know, Americans would get it right, as they always had in the past. They would understand the danger, and LEAD (not follow) the world toward a solution. So, tired of the math, and the fact that the atmosphere is a system you can't actually DESIGN, I returned to engineering, and settled for a Masters. Its been like watching someone you love sink into QUICKSAND to watch this great nation deny itself into the quagmire that is Global Warming. What was obvious to the PhD's in atmospheric science 20 years ago has only slowly recommended itself to the general population, who seem completely unaware of the many positive reinforcement mechanisms by which EARTH can turn our minuscule 'forcing function' into a black-hole from which the human race might not return. THIS COULD VERY WELL HAPPEN. I'm simply ASTONISHED at the 'cowboy' cavalierness with which many Americans are trotting alongside this event horizon. They talk about how their grandchildren could be impacted negatively by the cost of remedial efforts, blissfully unaware of the potential impact to their grandchildren of DOING NOTHING. Hey, earth is just another planet. If you want to know what planets think about the conditions that lead to biology, including humankind, take a look at Venus or Mars. Hot enough to melt LEAD, and cold enough to freeze CO2. The anthropomorphic EGO displayed in these pages is disheartening, to say the least. We should display a BIT more humility, I think, toward God's creation. Which, by the way, includes A LOT OF EARTH-LIKE planets that would suck the life out of a man in a heartbeat.
Meanwhile, here in America we're still waiting for sh*t-for-brains gorilla's like yourself to FIGURE IT OUT. (the rest of the world figured it out a long time ago). Step past your considerable EGO, imagine a world in which you're just another part of it, and see the direction EVERYONE ELSE IS SAYING WE NEED TO TAKE. Fvck, you people are stupid!!!
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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.
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
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.
We all hate Social Security and would rather live without it (LOL).
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.
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.
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?
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.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 36 Comments