S
SamH
Guest
That’s the thing - he has proposed nothing that with take on climate change - even if you accept the claims made by the fear mongers. LV himself has admitted that.
- Status
L
Lapey
Guest
There in lies the problem. His method of taking on climate change is taking on the American ability to sustain life. He is transforming our nation, as he said he would. Transforming it into a country where her people will not be able to support their selves, and then will be reliant on the government. This is not God’s plan.
By the way, do you really think we are affecting climate change? How many cold or warm periods have been estimated by scientists before man discovered carbon based fuel?
As another poster mentioned, BO is doing nothing but fighting a war on industry to prop up the industry he likes. I call it hypocrisy, what do you call it?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The billionaires like Soros, Buffett, Gates and Gore, have a $200 billion investment in “alternative energy”. The political hacks like Obama get lots of money from environmental radical groups. Their motivation is power. Neither cares a thing about how much suffering they are causing and will cause.
The environmental groups make big money by scaring people into donating to their coffers. With it, they can contribute to people like Obama, who also siphons tax money to them so it can be donated back to their campaigns. So far, the government has given MMGW promoters $100 billion of taxpayer money to perpetrate the fraud. It would have been much more merciful and cheaper had they simply stolen as many gold bars from Fort Knox as they could get on a tractor trailer.
At the bottom are the “true believers” who have been persuaded by falsified trash like “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Gaslands”, IPCC frauds and all the other propaganda $100 million and more can buy. They support the environmental groups, thinking they’re saving the earth, and support the corrupt politicians who keep the money exchanges going. Some “true believers”, however, are “Gaia worshippers”, New Age pagans, who think humans are a blight on the earth. They too support with money and time the environmental groups and the politicians who no more really believe in MMGW than they believe in Martians.
While some of the “true believers” are victims to a degree, the bigger victims are those who are going to lose their jobs, those who could have new jobs, the poor, the elderly. Those latter people are blameless in this.
But you’re right in saying a meaningful conversation about it is impossible. $100 billion buys a lot of propaganda “source material”. “True believers” are often the sort of people who will believe anything as long as it’s alarming and allows them to feel superior to their fellow human beings. And the truth of it is, people are only coming to a slow awakening of what the above coterie is beginning to visit on them, on the poor, on the elderly and on the jobless. That’s why, no doubt, the believers in MMGW disaster are now below 50% of the population and dropping.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Obama is impervious to the needs of the populace, and particularly those of the truly needy. Despite having had total control of the government for a year and a half, and plenty of opportunities after that, he has done absolutely nothing for the neediest of all.
Rather, he has massively increased the already overcrowded ranks of those seeking treatment under Medicaid. He has reduced medical reimbursement for those with “chronic” conditions, which automatically includes the disabled, the challenged.
He has put these sisters into the crosshairs of fines they can’t afford because they won’t provide abortifacient and contraceptive coverage for THEMSELVES. www.sistersoflife.org
What do they do in their ministry? Well, they work in the South Bronx, one of the poorest places in this country, helping pregnant women decide against aborting their (mostly black, by the way) babies and aiding them in getting care, shelter, training and jobs. But never mind. Fine them out of existence for the sake of the Culture of Death.
He destroyed, in “Cash for Cllunkers” the “clunkers” poor people depend on to get to the doctor, to jobs, to the store, making them less available and more expensive. And all for that ridiculous MMGW of his that he doesn’t even believe in himself.
People are going to suffer because of Obama’s war on energy, and some will even die, and for the MMGW movement he doesn’t even believe in himself.
But never mind that, because the radical environmentalists and the billionaires who seek to make billions from Obama’s policies will contribute all the more to his and his party’s coffers. He truly does believe in that.
S
StudentMI
Guest
I just have to say, this is an excellent post.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
J
JimG
Guest
When Obama said that energy costs would necessarily skyrocket, I took it as hyperbole, but he wasn’t kidding. He’ll kill off all the cheap energy, and cause people on fixed incomes to pay through the nose while their standard of living plummets. In the meantime China continues to build several new coal fired generating plants every week. He and the EPA seem intent on destroying our economy and making us all poorer except for his billionaire backers.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
That just goes without saying.
Ridgerunner makes logical and thoughtful responses rather than “link slinging.”
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Here is my opinion, FWIW. In the 1970’s, the world was getting colder. Supposedly the growing days in England were getting one day shorter each year, which would devastate our food supply. We were going to run out of finite gas within 10 years. Food and commodities were going to become scarce and expense. Everybody was going to starve and freeze to death. Gas prices shot up and the pumps had to be replaced in order to calculate price per gallon >.99.The gas lines at the gas stations snaked for blocks.
Then we discovered elephant fields in the Gulf and elsewhere. We discovered fracking. We have plenty of energy now. So another crisis had to be manufactured.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Consider this for a moment.
What advantages does, e.g., China have over American production of goods and services? Well, it has miserably paid laborers, and billions of them. As Solzhenitzyn prosaically put it in referring to the deadly development projects of the Stalinist era, they have plenty of inexpensive “f–t (um, human flatulence) power”.
What does our own country have? Well, we do pay workers a lot more despite the ever-increasing burdens and penalties this administration is putting on them and their employers, so low wages can’t be an advantage for us, or at least until this government so stifles earning power that we’re on a par with the Chinas and Indias of this world in terms of payment to labor.
Our advantages are several, but chief among them are a continental economy, well-served by excellent transportation systems, and good natural resources.
One of those resources is precisely the thing that reduces the need for “f–t power”. That resource is an abundance of fossil and nuclear fuel. Indeed, the use of inexpensive energy (combined with technology at which we also excel) greatly magnifies the productive capabilities of the human arm and back. It’s like Popeye’s spinach on a broad scale.
But we have an administration currently, that is willing to sell this country’s “spinach” for political contributions from groups that simply despise humans and their aspirations, as well as mega-wealthy people who wish to sell otherwise useless and unsaleable products by placing better alternatives out of reach.
And so, instead of strengthening the human arms and backs with our inexpensive energy capacity, we are insisting on reducing American workers (and the economy with which they must live) to increased reliance on “f–t power”.
They can say all they want about how Ozzie can heat his home with solar (sometimes) or Harriet can cook her meals with electricity ginned up with her windmill when it’s windy outside now and then. That’s all a bunch of cute images; a sort of “latter day hippie back to the land mystique”. But the greater problem isn’t that. The central problem is this administration’s (and its supporters’) resolve to deprive American producers of that extra strength of arm and back that inexpensive energy and good transportation provide. And, of course, suppressing energy production and increasing its costs will have many other effects, e.g., more expensive production of food, medicines and other needed products that depend very greatly on energy for their production.
And all in promotion of a MMGW theory in which none of its big money or big power promoters demonstrate the slightest personal belief.
Undoubtedly, Soros, Gates, Buffett, Gore, Obama and their like-minded cohorts will stop well short of throwing American workers out into some latter-day “made in USA Belomor Canal”. But the spirit of the thing is different only in quantity, not quality, and the evil of it is of like kind.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Great analysis.
The greed for Personal Power is quite a motivator. One of the things I like about former President W is his humility.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Was going to post this on another just closed thread; wanted to counteract wrong ideas that all Republicans are against mitigating climate change (or Obama’s Climate Plan), and this just came out in the news yesterday:
"A Republican Case for Climate Action"
By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?_r=0
EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.
There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”
A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obama’s June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate.
The president also plans to use his regulatory power to limit the powerful warming chemicals known as hydrofluorocarbons and encourage the United States to join with other nations to amend the Montreal Protocol to phase out these chemicals. The landmark international treaty, which took effect in 1989, already has been hugely successful in solving the ozone problem.
Rather than argue against his proposals, our leaders in Congress should endorse them and start the overdue debate about what bigger steps are needed and how to achieve them — domestically and internationally…
Created another thread to supersede the earlier closed one – this new one being a more positive note: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=812843
"A Republican Case for Climate Action"
By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?_r=0
EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.
There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”
A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obama’s June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate.
The president also plans to use his regulatory power to limit the powerful warming chemicals known as hydrofluorocarbons and encourage the United States to join with other nations to amend the Montreal Protocol to phase out these chemicals. The landmark international treaty, which took effect in 1989, already has been hugely successful in solving the ozone problem.
Rather than argue against his proposals, our leaders in Congress should endorse them and start the overdue debate about what bigger steps are needed and how to achieve them — domestically and internationally…
Created another thread to supersede the earlier closed one – this new one being a more positive note: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=812843
J
JimG
Guest
So, in order to save the globe, the U.S. must be destroyed and its people thrown into misery and poverty. Trouble is, doing that won’t save the globe anyway. But it will provide a further excuse for more governmental control.
S
SamH
Guest
That would be the plan.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
My goodness! Because these people are liberal Repubs, I’m supposed to be impressed? I’m not, and wouldn’t be even if they were conservatives. Every single “fact” asserted in their foundational paragraph above is very strongly denied by many scientists.
One segment is particularly preposterous. “…the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere”. First of all, it’s factually incorrect, because the ocean is cooling. (authority was previously cited by me, but it was, of course, ignored) Second, think this through. If CO2 in the atmosphere is causing MMGW with the greenhouse effect and all, then that’s atmospheric heating, right? Discounting sea floor vulcanism and friction from subduction, ocean warming is a secondary result of atmospheric warming, right? In that case, the oceans could not possibly warm faster than the atmosphere that’s heating them. Put a pan of water on the stove, light the burner, and see which heats up faster; the pan or the burner.
Now completely aside from the fact that surface temperatures are NOT increasing, it takes about 3300 years for temperatures in the ocean to “turn over” that is, to equalize, considering differences in depth, distance from the Equator and so on. That’s because the oceans store vastly more energy (or lack thereof) than does the atmosphere; consequently atmospheric temperatures have almost no effect on deep ocean currents in the short or even intermediate terms. The reverse, of course, is not true. Ocean temperatures have a profound effect on air temperatures. But for that, Western Europe would be an extremely cold place. It’s interesting to look at the climatic zones in Europe, and I encourage you to do so. Unlike the U.S. where the zones run from south to north, in Western Europe they run from west to east. That’s because of the Atlantic currents warming up what would otherwise be an intensely frigid Europe.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I almost blew coffee through my nose when I read this one. A conduct-forcing tax is a “market based approach”? I realize these people were once famous and all, but did they ever go to school?
I can think of an even more effective “market based approach”. If the administration sent out goons to whip the tar out of everybody who turned on the heat in his house, the victim would spend a lot of money going to the ER to get stitched up, shot full of antibiotics, and then later the plastic surgery. The victim couldn’t afford that, so he will not heat his home. There’s your “market based approach” in spades!
L
lynnvinc
Guest
In the climate news (some with links to the studies):
- “Prolonged Heat Waves - Russian Arctic Vulnerable to Wildfires” - e360.yale.edu/digest/prolonged_heat_wave_leaves_russian_arctic_vulnerable_to_wildfires/3907/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+YaleEnvironment360+%28Yale+Environment+360%29
- “Arctic methane catastrophe scenario is based on new empirical observations” – enn.com/climate/article/46269?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateChangeNews-Enn+%28Climate+Change+News±+ENN%29
- “Greenland soars to its highest temperature ever recorded, almost 80 degrees F” – washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/08/01/greenland-soars-to-highest-temperature-ever-recorded/
- “Climate Warming 10 Times Faster Than Historic Rate” – blogs.kqed.org/science/2013/08/01/climate-warming-10-times-faster-than-historic-rate/
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
How did these people get together to issue this joint statment? Were they paid by the billionaires who have invested billions in “alternative energy” (and taken taxpayer money too) or did they find themselves at the same table in the nursing home and discuss it over their oatmeal?
Obviously, they don’t know that a) Obama doesn’t have a “plan”. He has only issued talking points so far and instructed the EPA to shut down coal. b) Nothing the U.S. does will reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Even Obama knows that. c) Internationally, nobody follows the U.S. in this silliness, but does the exact opposite of it.
S
SamH
Guest
A single day high based on 50 years of data? That’s proof of global warming?
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I don’t know why you bother. None of your posts are addressed, just more link slinging on “projections,” “models,” and “historical data.” All of which you already addressed.
For the benefit of us lurkers, I’m glad you are, though.
- Status