Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[estesbob]

Did you have all the same contamination & oil spill issues back then?

My sister didn’t fair badly – her home is in an unincorporated area far from the rivers and she has her own well water, so she thinks it’s okay and plans to move back soon. Her main loss was living in hotels and traveling (which she could not afford) because the road was washed away and she couldn’t get back home. However, some of her friends’ homes were washed away. It’s not good to make light of others’ tragedies, as if they are just normal. And we, for our part, should be doing all we can to reduce our GHGs so as to reduce our contributions to even more extreme events in the future.

One needs to understand that global warming increases the probability of more intense and frequent “natural” disasters. Warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor (which is also a GHG), and under certain weather conditions this could spell severe drought and dessication of flora, leading to greater wildfire potential. Under other conditions it can lead to extreme deluges.

I do understand that people who have suffered extreme weather events are actually less likely to accept AGW science. I did a survey and found that flood victims, for instance, were less like to accept the reality of AGW, controlling for education, gender, etc. It’s counter-intuitive, I know, but I figured it is because they cannot face the idea that the once in 100 years or 500 years disasters may be coming much more frequently. Perhaps they cannot face the idea of what horrible harms they may be foisting on their children and grandchildren.

You may resent me – I can take your scorn for the sake of the kingdom of God – but the future generations are surely going to be spitting on our graves. However, depending on where they are located, they might be spitting in the ocean.

Absolute utter nonsense. Chortling over the misfortune of others to try and bolster up a hoax.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

No

You might want to rethink it:

1. Responsibility for the environment, the common heritage of mankind, extends not only to present needs but also to those of the future. “We have inherited from past generations, and we have benefited from the work of our contemporaries: for this reason we have obligations towards all, and we cannot refuse to interest ourselves in those who will come after us, to enlarge the human family”.[984] This is a responsibility that present generations have towards those of the future,[985] a responsibility that also concerns individual States and the international community.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#II. MAN AND THE UNIVERSE OF CREATED THINGS

 

[JimG]

You might want to rethink it:

1. Responsibility for the environment, the common heritage of mankind, extends not only to present needs but also to those of the future. “We have inherited from past generations, and we have benefited from the work of our contemporaries: for this reason we have obligations towards all, and we cannot refuse to interest ourselves in those who will come after us, to enlarge the human family”.[984] This is a responsibility that present generations have towards those of the future,[985] a responsibility that also concerns individual States and the international community.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#II. MAN AND THE UNIVERSE OF CREATED THINGS

This is a good point. It is a matter of injustice to leave future generations with a debt of 17 or 20 or 25 trillion dollars which will suppress their ability to earn an income for their entire lives.

 

[estesbob]

You might want to rethink it:

1. Responsibility for the environment, the common heritage of mankind, extends not only to present needs but also to those of the future. “We have inherited from past generations, and we have benefited from the work of our contemporaries: for this reason we have obligations towards all, and we cannot refuse to interest ourselves in those who will come after us, to enlarge the human family”.[984] This is a responsibility that present generations have towards those of the future,[985] a responsibility that also concerns individual States and the international community.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#II. MAN AND THE UNIVERSE OF CREATED THINGS

So we should starve people to death in the present to make it better for those in the future? i think not.

 

[Bill1940]

Before getting into a bigger picture, let me vent my spleen against the canard that we who doubt the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming do not believe in climate change. Some may be fooled but no one at least half-way informed should use such a subterfuge. Okay, that said I’ll go on. It is difficult to react effectively to powerful and almost subterranean interests that are well funded and organized to accomplish their part in a global movement to dominate and govern everything and everyone. Jacque Chirac let the cat out of the bag, when he straightforwardly said, “It’s about global governance”. This “One World Government” movement has many parts. The UN arms treaty is certainly one, Agenda 21 is another, the Law of the Sea Treaty is yet another and the top down control of all forms of energy is a crucial component of global governance. There are some who claim that a “sustainable” world population would not exceed one third of the people already alive. The United Nations was formed in 1949 with the ostensible goal of preventing another world war but within its bosom were those with even more far-reaching utopian goals. I do not make a rash judgment concerning the sincerity of those who push these programs but as Catholics, we know the need to discern the spirits that move us. There are some, usually highly educated, people who would like to see about two or three billion people eliminated from the face of the earth. If this is their end in mind, shudder at the means they may be willing to take to accomplish it. As I am not in a position to thoroughly investigate such people, I mention no names but call to mind a number of strange but influential academics who appear to espouse weird ideas. I am not a conspiracy theorist. So I present no finely crafted exposé. Nor do I think anyone on this thread is weird or nefarious in intent. There is nonetheless the ubiquitous conspiracy of the likeminded birds of a feather that flock together. So study these birds and observe the direction they are traveling. Discern the spirits and see whether they are good or evil.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

So we should starve people to death in the present to make it better for those in the future? i think not.

Is that how you read it?

 

[estesbob]

Is that how you read it?

Without a doubt.Yesterday Obama issued unneeded regulations that will put thousands out of work.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Without a doubt.Yesterday Obama issued unneeded regulations that will put thousands out of work.

Then you are fixated on your political view to the point of being contrary to Catholic teaching because I quoted from the Compendium refuting your “No.”

Let me recap:

I asked,
“Do we “have a moral obligation to future generations to leave them a planet that is not polluted and damaged” or at least not more polluted and damageed than it already is?”

You responded,
“No.”

I quoted The Catholic Church:
“Responsibility for the environment, the common heritage of mankind, extends not only to present needs but also to those of the future. “We have inherited from past generations, and we have benefited from the work of our contemporaries: for this reason we have obligations towards all, and we cannot refuse to interest ourselves in those who will come after us, to enlarge the human family”. This is a responsibility that present generations have towards those of the future, a responsibility that also concerns individual States and the international community.”

You say,
“So we should starve people to death in the present to make it better for those in the future? i think not.”

Neither I nor the Church advocate starving people but that is the only way you can read into this simple question."

Sorry but I have had enough of this. :sad_bye:

 

[estesbob]

Then you are fixated on your political view to the point of being contrary to Catholic teaching because I quoted from the Compendium refuting your “No.”

Let me recap:

I asked,
“Do we “have a moral obligation to future generations to leave them a planet that is not polluted and damaged” or at least not more polluted and damageed than it already is?”

You responded,
“No.”

I quoted The Catholic Church:
“Responsibility for the environment, the common heritage of mankind, extends not only to present needs but also to those of the future. “We have inherited from past generations, and we have benefited from the work of our contemporaries: for this reason we have obligations towards all, and we cannot refuse to interest ourselves in those who will come after us, to enlarge the human family”. This is a responsibility that present generations have towards those of the future, a responsibility that also concerns individual States and the international community.”

You say,
“So we should starve people to death in the present to make it better for those in the future? i think not.”

Neither I nor the Church advocate starving people but that is the only way you can read into this simple question."

Sorry but I have had enough of this. :sad_bye:

You have not even begun to think about the consequences of what you are advocating

 

[lynnvinc]

Absolute utter nonsense. Chortling over the misfortune of others to try and bolster up a hoax.

I’ve been mitigating AGW for over 23 years, have reduce our GHG emissions to 60%+ below our 1990 emission levels, saving many $1000s & without lowering our living standard. And this does not count that for the 44 years of our marriage we have lived within 1 to 2 miles of work/school…to save resources for future generations (the issue that inspired me to action back then was peak oil and peak finite resouces).

I would give my life for the AGW issue, to help people do their best to reduce their GHGs so that others may live, and for the sake of helping souls do right instead of wrong.

It seems a lot of people here would give their lives or at least a tremendous amount of their time and energy to keep on harming people willy nilly and convincing others to do likewise, while denying such harm with their dying breath. It is really a very sorrowful state of affairs that human life has so little value or respect. Pierces my soul.

If one does not like the solutions, there are 1000s of solutions from which to pick, the vast majority saving people money. There is really no excuse whatsoever to persist in this harmful path. If a person doesn’t like Obama’s plan, then let them come up with other plans. I’ll be for that, as long as they are effective. I pray that you all relent and do the needful, rather than working so hard against solving this problem.

 

[styrgwillidar]

So we should starve people to death in the present to make it better for those in the future? i think not.

Estebob,

You have to understand, that like any religion, AGW/MMWG demands sacrifices - it’s just little tough on those sacrificed.

The issue really isn’t whether we should be good stewards of resources. That’s a given. The issue is whether there is a threat so severe and disastrous in its consequences that it demands actions which will also have severe and disastrous consequence- killing people, reducing their standard of living, thrust millions into poverty.

Given that there isn’t such a threat, there is sufficient times for companies/industry to develop workable and economical alternative energy sources. We do not have to starve millions as those sources are developed and come on line.

As I said earlier, the problem with the government plans is they really are just get rich schemes for those friendly with the politicians. Cap and trade- creating a tradeable commodity for investors is its primary goal, not reducing carbon emissions. Money is tossed at green companies not based on their potential to address the issue, but based on how well connected their owners are. Hence we waste billions in resources that could have gone into efforts which could have borne fruit.

 

[JimG]

Speaking of sacrifices. Our most important renewable resource is babies–the next generation, and we keep throwing them away.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I do understand that people who have suffered extreme weather events are actually less likely to accept AGW science. I did a survey and found that flood victims, for instance, were less like to accept the reality of AGW, controlling for education, gender, etc. It’s counter-intuitive, I know, but I figured it is because they cannot face the idea that the once in 100 years or 500 years disasters may be coming much more frequently. Perhaps they cannot face the idea of what horrible harms they may be foisting on their children and grandchildren.

.

It might not be counter-intuitive at all. People who have gone through natural disasters tend to look at the history of where they live and if they do, they find that the one they lived through was not at all unique.

Interesting that you mentioned 100 years or 500 years. Did you ever look to see where the “500 year flood” marks are in your town or in any other? It’s pretty sobering, as you will find that a lot of people live in the potential disaster zone. And they figure those out based on the soil effects from those old floods. Never in my lifetime have any floods here come anywhere remotely near the 100 year flood level, let alone the 500 year level. However, all it takes is a particular confluence of events. I can see how we could get either the 100 or 500 year flood, but either requires certain phenomena in combination. No one element is all that rare, but the combination contains sufficient elements that the statistical probabilities in any one year are quite low.

However, one could have “500 year floods” two years in a row. It’s just that its a statistical improbability.

I sincerely doubt the Colorado floods are unprecedented. Not so very far from where you are located, Hurricane Ike damaged Galveston severely, but nothing like the 1900 hurricane did. For one thing, of course, Galveston in 1900 was not as well thought out as it was in 2009 and not as well protected. But also, the 1900 hurricane was more powerful.

Hurricanes will again visit Galveston, sometime or other in the future. The level of devastation will depend on how well people prepare, not on MMGW.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Whether he does or doesn’t, the many, many, many contradictory articles on the subject tell you one thing loud and clear: MMGW isn’t a certitude, it’s a dispute.

And for the sake of a disputed theory, (more likely to enrich his super-wealthy supporters and his own coffers) Obama wants to make energy more expensive in America while the rest of the world either isn’t buying it at all or is retreating from it. Everyone knows what this nation does won’t affect MMGW globally. Even Obama admits that, which is why he falls back on that utterly lame rationale that by freezing in the dark we will show a “good example” to the world; one that the world will follow.

But there is no reason at all to believe that fallback rationale, and every reason to disbelieve it. European countries are ditching out on “alternative energies”. Russia is worried about global cooling, not warming. India has rejected IPCC data root and branch, believing it tainted. China builds a coal fired plant every ten days.

Even Obama doesn’t really believe in it. He took dozens of heavily armored vehicles and dozens of ships with him on his Africa toot as well as a number of big passenger jets, and had fighter jets flying overhead day and night the whole time he was there and enroute. A person alarmed about CO2 emissions would never do that.

Well, it’s refreshing to hear you call it a dispute. I thought for a while that you were saying the falseness of MMGW was a slam dunk. I am one of those apparent dunces who cannot decide which side is correct. I certainly don’t want to further impoverish the poor and unfairly enrich the wealthy as your take on it is, and I certainly don’t want to ignore what may be a timely warning to take corrective action, as the other side insists. But unless some very new information comes out, I doubt I will be convinced by either side even though I would like to be very much. Being in the middle means I could not support a policy to send electric rates through the ceiling, simply because the proof of need is not sufficiently demonstrated. OTOH, I could not support doing nothing at all, if in fact, some measures could be taken that would not produce more harm than good.

I see why you “suspect” Obama is only trying to enrich himself and his wealthy friends, but I have never been able to understand the rhetoric that says this with certitude (not you). There is certainly “evidence” of this, but I am not prepared to call him a thief.

The same Ignatian principle that causes me to see the best intent and meaning in whatever you post, makes me try to see the things that Obama says and does in the best possible light. What I mean is that, absent proof to the contrary, I look at him as a hopeless ideologue who believes in certain intellectual positions on equality, discrimination, human rights, energy, foreign relations, MMGW, and the like. I am willing to see his apparent penchant for lying as a certain Machiavelian idealism, if there is such a thing, that allows him to lie with the conviction that it is necessary to bring about the greater good (the end justifies the means). To that extent I do see him, and many politicians, as evil, even if well meaning. (Does that make sense?)

I don’t know his motives. I do believe that his plans are a blueprint for ruining the country. Also, I do find it hard to believe that anything good and wholesome can come out of Chicago (politics), which I consider quite the opposite of Nazareth. So I’m not totally naive, but until proven otherwise, I will always give him the benefit of the doubt as to his motives, but never as to his plans to which I remain wholeheartedly opposed.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Before getting into a bigger picture, let me vent my spleen against the canard that we who doubt the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming do not believe in climate change. Some may be fooled but no one at least half-way informed should use such a subterfuge. Okay, that said I’ll go on. It is difficult to react effectively to powerful and almost subterranean interests that are well funded and organized to accomplish their part in a global movement to dominate and govern everything and everyone. Jacque Chirac let the cat out of the bag, when he straightforwardly said, “It’s about global governance”. This “One World Government” movement has many parts. The UN arms treaty is certainly one, Agenda 21 is another, the Law of the Sea Treaty is yet another and the top down control of all forms of energy is a crucial component of global governance. There are some who claim that a “sustainable” world population would not exceed one third of the people already alive. The United Nations was formed in 1949 with the ostensible goal of preventing another world war but within its bosom were those with even more far-reaching utopian goals. I do not make a rash judgment concerning the sincerity of those who push these programs but as Catholics, we know the need to discern the spirits that move us. There are some, usually highly educated, people who would like to see about two or three billion people eliminated from the face of the earth. If this is their end in mind, shudder at the means they may be willing to take to accomplish it. As I am not in a position to thoroughly investigate such people, I mention no names but call to mind a number of strange but influential academics who appear to espouse weird ideas. I am not a conspiracy theorist. So I present no finely crafted exposé. Nor do I think anyone on this thread is weird or nefarious in intent. There is nonetheless the ubiquitous conspiracy of the likeminded birds of a feather that flock together. So study these birds and observe the direction they are traveling. Discern the spirits and see whether they are good or evil.

I don’t know that there is any solution to the mess the world finds itself in in terms of poverty, war, economic disaster, etc.other than a worldwide return to faith in God. But that being so unlikely at the present time, I see only two things I can do. One, I can pray. Two, I can oppose those godless plans and policies of our government that would seem to accelerate the evils visited on mankind.

 

[Lapey]

Speaking of sacrifices. Our most important renewable resource is babies–the next generation, and we keep throwing them away.

THIS^^^^^^

AMEN Jim!

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t know his motives. I do believe that his plans are a blueprint for ruining the country. Also, I do find it hard to believe that anything good and wholesome can come out of Chicago (politics), which I consider quite the opposite of Nazareth. So I’m not totally naive, but until proven otherwise, I will always give him the benefit of the doubt as to his motives, but never as to his plans to which I remain wholeheartedly opposed.

I don’t think it matters whether we know his motives or not. He might not actually have any beyond a shallow self-aggrandizement.

Perhaps more important is the fact that he is surrounded by, has aided to power, and is aided to power by people of tremendously questionable goals and motivations. His group has come to utterly dominate his political party, so totally that now and then one sees them vote against the clear will of their constituents and against their own political interests. Can one really believe all Democrats are as totally supportive of the “Obama agenda” (whoever formulated it) as they vote? It’s hard to imagine that, because there have always been dissidents in political parties. And yet, they really do march like lemmings. I once held office in that party, and it was not that way before. That, in itself, is mightily troubling to me.

 

[estesbob]

It might not be counter-intuitive at all. People who have gone through natural disasters tend to look at the history of where they live and if they do, they find that the one they lived through was not at all unique.

Interesting that you mentioned 100 years or 500 years. Did you ever look to see where the “500 year flood” marks are in your town or in any other? It’s pretty sobering, as you will find that a lot of people live in the potential disaster zone. And they figure those out based on the soil effects from those old floods. Never in my lifetime have any floods here come anywhere remotely near the 100 year flood level, let alone the 500 year level. However, all it takes is a particular confluence of events. I can see how we could get either the 100 or 500 year flood, but either requires certain phenomena in combination. No one element is all that rare, but the combination contains sufficient elements that the statistical probabilities in any one year are quite low.

However, one could have “500 year floods” two years in a row. It’s just that its a statistical improbability.

I sincerely doubt the Colorado floods are unprecedented. Not so very far from where you are located, Hurricane Ike damaged Galveston severely, but nothing like the 1900 hurricane did. For one thing, of course, Galveston in 1900 was not as well thought out as it was in 2009 and not as well protected. But also, the 1900 hurricane was more powerful.

Hurricanes will again visit Galveston, sometime or other in the future. The level of devastation will depend on how well people prepare, not on MMGW.

Extreme environmentalism is a religion. natural disasters are, in their opinion, the wrath of God unleashed on the unbelievers. Mitigating ones carbon footprint is akin to buying indulgences. In all the town hall meetings i attended, all the people i talked to not one confided that

they cannot face the idea of what horrible harms they may be foisting on their children and grandchildren.

What utter nonsense

 

[lynnvinc]

Speaking of sacrifices. Our most important renewable resource is babies–the next generation, and we keep throwing them away.

So why are the climate skeptics so intent in throwing babies overboard. I’ll never understand that. It is precisely my concern for babies, future generations, as well as the poor around the world suffering today from the harms of AGW that makes me seek whatever measures I can to reduce my GHG emissions.

I just pray to God that people would actually become concerned about the babies and the poor, not just pay them lipservice.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So why are the climate skeptics so intent in throwing babies overboard. I’ll never understand that. It is precisely my concern for babies, future generations, as well as the poor around the world suffering today from the harms of AGW that makes me seek whatever measures I can to reduce my GHG emissions.

I just pray to God that people would actually become concerned about the babies and the poor, not just pay them lipservice.

How is making utility bills “skyrocket” (per Obama) going to help babies and the poor?