Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[Michael_Mayo]

telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

Here’s a link to an interesting article. The increase in the Arctic Ice Pack is more than half the size of Europe. Almost twice the size of Alaska, one might add.~Bill

Funny how that article then links to:

Arctic ice cap on course to shrink to its lowest level

telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9492720/Arctic-ice-cap-on-course-to-shrink-to-its-lowest-level.html

 

[Michael_Mayo]

telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

Ok. But is the world warming or cooling?

If it is, what is causing it? Man caused or simply natural cycles.

The studies and research are so fundamentally flawed due to politics that no one really knows. The major studies used flawed temperature measurements and faulty statistical analysis. Their authors can’t even duplicate their own research much less adhere to the accepted scientific principle of being able to publish it in sufficient detail that it can be duplicated by others.

And, if it is cooling or warming-- are the proposed cures in fact more devastating to people than the actual changes themselves?

We **know **burning fossil fuel creates carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide.
We **know **carbon dioxide leads to the greenhouse effect and sulfure dioxide leads to acid rain.

It is simply poor stewardship. This is especially true with deforestation goin on. The one thing that can respire all that CO2 (trees) we are diminishing.

If we can restore more trees and if we can burn fuels cleaner and then dispose of the watse safely we might have a chance.

 

[estesbob]

We **know **burning fossil fuel creates carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide.
We **know **carbon dioxide leads to the greenhouse effect and sulfure dioxide leads to acid rain.

It is simply poor stewardship. This is especially true with deforestation goin on. The one thing that can respire all that CO2 (trees) we are diminishing.

If we can restore more trees and if we can burn fuels cleaner and then dispose of the watse safely we might have a chance.

A chance for what? Live in shacks and beg on the corner for enough carbon credits to boil water for dinner? There is no need for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

 

[Darryl1958]

People need to eat, and tractors need fossil fuels in order to supply the food.
Good Stewards who drive up the price of food by artificially driving up the cost of fossil fuels are saving the earth through emptying the stomachs of the most poor and needy.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Are you denying that burning fossil fuel creates carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide?

Are you denying that carbon dioxide leads to the greenhouse effect and sulfure dioxide leads to acid rain?

 

[styrgwillidar]

We **know **burning fossil fuel creates carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide.
We **know **carbon dioxide leads to the greenhouse effect and sulfure dioxide leads to acid rain.

Actually, what we know is that the models vastly overestimated the greenhouse effects of CO2, and can’t account for why temperatures of the earth were warmer in the past. That is, they do not even account for the natural effects on climate to establish the baseline the supposed AGW is a change from. When the models fail to reflect reality, it isn’t reality that’s wrong.

The sulfur dioxide issue can be solved by cleaner fossil fuels, they don’t have to be eliminated. What do you propose to shift to? Wind power can’t provide enough and kills thousands of birds, many of them endangered birds of prey. Solar? The process for creating the cells releases gases which are predicted to have a much more powerful greenhouse effect than CO2. Nuclear? Actually the effort towards mini reactors using thorium looks pretty promising.

It is simply poor stewardship. This is especially true with deforestation goin on. The one thing that can respire all that CO2 (trees) we are diminishing.

If we can restore more trees and if we can burn fuels cleaner and then dispose of the watse safely we might have a chance.

 

[casey_cates]

On a lighter note, I’m totally enjoying the heat here in Texas. Must be the heat of all of these oil refineries getting in the way of our major
cooling trend.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Shift to what? Right now fossil fuels are the cleanest forms of energy that man kind has devised.

Is this a trick statement? Water power is a far cleaner form of energy, but man has only devised how to harness it to turn turbines which in turn produce electricity, it didn’t devise the fuel itself. As far as shifting to it, I agree, it has already been pretty much maxed out. How do you see solar power as less clean than fossil fuel? How do you see wind power as less clean than fossil fuel? I didn’t think there was any argument about these things. only the economic viability of them and other practicalities.

 

[Darryl1958]

Are you denying that burning fossil fuel creates carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide?

Are you denying that carbon dioxide leads to the greenhouse effect and sulfure dioxide leads to acid rain?

All that I am doing is affirming that people who don’t eat die. One might hope that all the grand schemes and far-reaching plans of the Good Stewards of the Earth include that in their calculations, as they go about driving up the price of fossil fuels by enacting those new climate plans.

 

[lynnvinc]

Amazing that you would cite this society as your authority since you have repeatedly said Meteorologists don’t know what they’re talking about…

That’s easy. The meteorologists who say AGW is real know what they’re talking about. Those who say is it not real don’t.

As I mentioned before I know a NWS meteorologist who accepts AGW and is very knowledgeable about it. However, for the most part regular weathermen and meteorologists don’t really have to know about it, since they are only into understanding and projecting local, short-term weather. You wouldn’t expect the corner grocery store owner to know about or have a PhD in macro-economics…but if he/she did know, so much the better.

 

[lynnvinc]

People need to eat, and tractors need fossil fuels in order to supply the food.
Good Stewards who drive up the price of food by artificially driving up the cost of fossil fuels are saving the earth through emptying the stomachs of the most poor and needy.

That’s interesting, bec I know of a farmer in the UK who is much less concerned about AGW than about “peak food” – the decline in food due to the decline in oil. See peakfood.co.uk/ (another eye-opener docu is A CRUDE AWAKENING – see youtube.com/watch?v=_C36fM-ndxU

So it behooves us to reduce our oil consumption so as to allow our food supply to continue. So go to it, buy an EV and run it on solar & wind energy. Reduce, reuse, recycle. That’s what I’m doing to help…not only “peak food,” but also reduce my harms through local pollution, AGW, etc. And the good new is I’m saving lots of money doing so.

Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all things will be added unto you. And the good news it this is not just some fake saying. It’s true! Halleluia!

 

[lynnvinc]

“Oil is our God. I don’t care if they say they worship Jesus, Buddha, Allah, whoever. They actually worship petroleum.” 6:20 minute point of A CRUDE AWAKENING at youtube.com/watch?v=_C36fM-ndxU

 

[lynnvinc]

Of course they never subscribed to the radical solutions pushed by so called environmentalists

Like these radical things:

• inflate tires, keep engine tuned
• hypermile – gentle on the breaks and accelerator, stay below 60 mph on the freeway.
• run multiple errands
• mover close to work/schools on next move
• turn out lights not in use
• don’t run water while brushing teeth, shaving
• use both side of paper
• reduce, reuse, recycle
• buy recycled paper
• buy used things – at garage sales, from classified ads, on Craig’s list, etc.
• reusable plates, cups, Xmas trees (have a “green Christmas”)
• go on alt energy when feasible
• carpool
• water garden in evening or early morning & not on windy days; xeriscape
• off engine in drive-thrus
• cycle, walk, bus when feasible
• insulate home
• build a passive solar home
• use a solar clothes dryer (clothes line or rack)
• buy energy efficient products such as LED & CF lights, appliances, EVs, PHEV, hybrids, fuel efficient vehicles
• low-flow showerhead, toilet
• reduce meat consumption, reduce impact on land & energy use, & improve health
• eat organic
• eat raw produce, good for health & earth.
• become a “locavore” & eat locally grown produce
• pray for ways to reduce one’s environmental and other harm to people and others of God’s creation
• spend more time in prayer, and less in profligate living
• return rubberbands to newspaper man at end of month (got that idea from Pope Francis).
• listen to Steve Silva’s “Brother Sun, Sister Moon” on YouTube – youtube.com/watch?v=CZZFO9F8FWU – and go around singing it in your heart all day

Totally rad!

 

[SweetieVietnam]

Obama Announces New Climate Plan

natureworldnews.com/articles/2677/20130626/obama-announces-new-climate-plan-prioritizes-limiting-carbon.htm

President Barack Obama has announced a broad plan to deal with the effects of the climate change, specially the rising sea level and severe weather. The plan also seeks to put in place regulation to control carbon dioxide emission at power plants…[T]he plan outlines a blueprint to expand production of solar and wind energy and include billion of dollars in loan to finance the development of cleaner fossil-fuel and other energy technologies…

The Plan:
whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf

A good Catholic response (the plan is good, but what about also saving the unborn from abortion):
catholicecology.blogspot.in/2013/06/president-obama-and-future-generations.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+CatholicEcology+(Catholic+Ecology

Sau m?t th?i gian bánh tráng bo Sweetie ra d?i, bên c?nh vi?c nh?n du?c r?t nhi?u s? ?ng h? t? m?i ngu?i, thì Sweetie cung dã vÃ* dang ti?p nh?n m?t s? góp ý c?a các b?n. VÃ* l?n nÃy, nh?m dáp ?ng nhu c?u c?a các anh ch? nhân viên van phòng, và các b?n h?c sinh, sinh viên b?n r?n, không có nhi?u th?i gian d? có th? thu?ng th?c món bánh tráng bo Sweetie cu?n. Nay Sweetie xin mang d?n cho m?i ngu?i m?t lo?i bánh tráng bo m?i - Bánh tráng bo tr?n.

NgoÃi uu di?m bánh tráng du?c tr?n s?n, phù h?p d? thu?ng th?c nhanh, trong th?i gian ng?n, bánh tráng bo tr?n Sweetie cung có m?t s? thay d?i v? thÃnh ph?n, dó lÃ* thay nu?c s?t me thÃnh hÃnh phi. Nhu v?y, thÃnh ph?n c?a m?t túi bánh tráng bo tr?n Sweetie s? bao g?m bánh tráng, bo, chà bông, hÃnh phi và mu?i.

Sweetie r?t hi v?ng s? ti?p t?c nh?n du?c s? ?ng h? c?a m?i ngu?i!

Giá:

• 25.000 VND /1 túi

Liên h?:
D?a ch?:

1. 66 Tân M? F. Tân Thu?n Tây Q.7
2. 2A/7 Nguy?n Th? Minh Khai F.Da Kao Q.1 (g?n c?u Th? Nghè, d?i di?n c?ng vÃo S? THÚ, k? bên ngân hÃng Quân D?i ( MB Bank))
   D?t tru?c 1 ngÃ*y d? luôn có s?n ph?m m?i.
   Trên 100k thì mình m?i giao nhé (có ship)
   Trên 250k thi mình s? free ship.
   Giao trong qu?n 1-3-4-7.

Liên l?c:
SDT: 01212.789.689
Website: sweetie.vn/shop/food/banh-trang-bo-tron/
Facebook: facebook.com/sweetievietnam

H?n s? d?ng:

• T? 3-4 ngÃ*y

Chú ý:

• B?o qu?n các thÃ*nh ph?n trong bao zipper.
• Bo ph?i b?o qu?n trong nhi?t d? phòng ( không d? bo trong t? l?nh)
• Nên dùng h?t t? 1-2 ngÃ*y sau khi dã m? bao.

V?i bánh tráng bo tr?n thì trên 4 túi Sweetie s? giao có tÃ*nh ship nha m?i ngu?i.
Trên 10 túi thi Sweetie s? free ship ^^.

 

[SamH]

Is this a trick statement? Water power is a far cleaner form of energy, but man has only devised how to harness it to turn turbines which in turn produce electricity, it didn’t devise the fuel itself. As far as shifting to it, I agree, it has already been pretty much maxed out. How do you see solar power as less clean than fossil fuel? How do you see wind power as less clean than fossil fuel? I didn’t think there was any argument about these things. only the economic viability of them and other practicalities.

How does water power run a tractor in a field?

Why do you think there is a question about the economic viability of solar and wind power? The main cost of production is energy - energy that is never recovered. Its takes more energy to produce solar panels and wind turbines than they will ever produce.

Wind power destroys thousands of acres of land. Then you have the massive amount of energy expanded in building then erecting wind turbines that is never recovered. Why do you think the government has to pay people to build them?

Solar power is another design that uses more energy in their construction and placement than they ever produce (on average). Then you have the small issue of their disposal:

motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/03/are-your-solar-panels-toxic

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s easy. The meteorologists who say AGW is real know what they’re talking about. Those who say is it not real don’t.

Nothing has ever better exemplified for me the subjectivity of the MMGW proponents.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Um, I’m pretty sure that dealing with climate change is the Catholic thing to do. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were very vocal about climate change…

To say that you don’t believe in climate change… it worries me that Catholics are appearing crazier and crazier to everyone else even on things that people SHOULDN’T think we’re crazy for.

I’ve been taught that climate change is very real and we need to work towards a sustainable solution. If you want to blame anyone for the way I think, then blame the Catholic schools and Jesuit education that taught me.

The MMGW debate (AGW…whatever the latest name for it is) perhaps makes people seem crazy only because there are interest that want opposition to “remedial measures” sound crazy, and have spent a lot of money promoting that point of view.

But the MMGW argument in this country is not followed by other nations. Russia’s scientific community, for example, is worried about global cooling, not warming.

One of the problems for an American considering the issue is that it’s not dissimilar to the argument over doing whatever Obama wants to do to Syria. Is he credible? Will the result justify the action? The rest of the world doesn’t seem to think so, so is there some compelling reason why we should?

I don’t think any rational person could give much house to his credibility anymore. So what’s going on with the MMGW measures then? Well, a lot of people with a lot of money have heavily invested in “remedial measures” and “alternative energy”; things that the market itself won’t support. Soros, Gates, Buffet, Gore and others have invested billions in it, but do they live it?

No they don’t. Nor does Obama himself. His recent trip to Africa involved dozens of ships, dozens of heavily-armored vehicles and round-the-clock overhead jet fighter protection, as well as the use of passenger aircraft that get approximately five gallons per mile of travel.

But he’s not only okay with making the utility bills of the rest of us “skyrocket”. His words.

We know everyone is going to suffer from Obama’s “remedial measures”. Worst off will be the poor and the elderly who will find heating, cooling, refrigeration and all of the products (particularly food) that depend on the use of energy; energy that Obama and his friends want to make massively more expensive.

And all of this while very significant MMGW predictions have not panned out.

And we’re supposed to think it’s “crazy” to question that whole scenario? It’s no “crazier” than questioning why Obama is going to throw some missiles at targets in Syria whose location we don’t even know. It’s no crazier than thinking his partisans deliberately thwarted conservative 501c4 organizations, or that they tapped James Rosen’s phone and his parents’ phones, or that they lied about the Benghazi attacks.

The majority of Americans now no longer believes in the disaster scenario, which is undoubtedly a healthy thing.

 

[Darryl1958]

That’s interesting, bec I know of a farmer in the UK who is much less concerned about AGW than about “peak food” – the decline in food due to the decline in oil. See peakfood.co.uk/ (another eye-opener docu is A CRUDE AWAKENING – see youtube.com/watch?v=_C36fM-ndxU

So it behooves us to reduce our oil consumption so as to allow our food supply to continue. So go to it, buy an EV and run it on solar & wind energy. Reduce, reuse, recycle. That’s what I’m doing to help…not only “peak food,” but also reduce my harms through local pollution, AGW, etc. And the good new is I’m saving lots of money doing so.

Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all things will be added unto you. And the good news it this is not just some fake saying. It’s true! Halleluia!

What my post addressed were plans and advocates of driving up the price of fossil fuels as a method of being Good Stewards.

 

[estesbob]

That’s interesting, bec I know of a farmer in the UK who is much less concerned about AGW than about “peak food” – the decline in food due to the decline in oil. See peakfood.co.uk/ (another eye-opener docu is A CRUDE AWAKENING – see youtube.com/watch?v=_C36fM-ndxU

So it behooves us to reduce our oil consumption so as to allow our food supply to continue. So go to it, buy an EV and run it on solar & wind energy. Reduce, reuse, recycle. That’s what I’m doing to help…not only “peak food,” but also reduce my harms through local pollution, AGW, etc. And the good new is I’m saving lots of money doing so.

Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all things will be added unto you. And the good news it this is not just some fake saying. It’s true! Halleluia!

We have an energy boom in the US. The only thing stopping us from being self reliant on energy is environmentalist spreading misinformation about fracking. Good stewards don’t starve people to death in third world countries while trading carbon credits like monopoly meony

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Actually, what we know is that the models vastly overestimated the greenhouse effects of CO2, and can’t account for why temperatures of the earth were warmer in the past. That is, they do not even account for the natural effects on climate to establish the baseline the supposed AGW is a change from. When the models fail to reflect reality, it isn’t reality that’s wrong.

The sulfur dioxide issue can be solved by cleaner fossil fuels, they don’t have to be eliminated. What do you propose to shift to? Wind power can’t provide enough and kills thousands of birds, many of them endangered birds of prey. Solar? The process for creating the cells releases gases which are predicted to have a much more powerful greenhouse effect than CO2. Nuclear? Actually the effort towards mini reactors using thorium looks pretty promising.

We do not need a model to tell us right from wrong. We know we are contaminating the environment. Or is there denial there also?

An accurate model will only tell us about the consequenses.

Is it thought that if the consequences are not bad enough then the act is not wrong?

If anyone has read the Plan in the title of the thread they would see a very gradual implimentation (ex, 17% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020).