Obama Administration Takes Action on Climate Change--Big Time

[ChrisOlson]

And then you have to explain what other mechanism has created the observed warming over the past 100 years.

Ummm.... there is no data, except what's been fabricated to push an agenda. This planet has been changing since the word "go". The whole thing is a closed-loop cycle. Methane is 30x more potent than CO2 as a so-called "greenhouse gas" and yet the methane cycle of the planet is not understood at all. Everything that lives and dies decays and gives off methane. You can set the planet on fire and burn every deposit of fossil fuel it has and it will recycle it back to fossil fuel.

The lifespan of a human is too short to be able to see the big picture. The biggest problem is that humans are vain so they think they got control over it. Believe me - they don't. Not even close.

[Ian S]

The human race cannot even change or control one tiny little weather event, like a hurricane, thunderstorm or tornado much less the climate on the whole freaking planet. And for anybody who THINKS they can, they have reached the point of loony-toons ludicrous.

I like the terminology used by these climate change aficionados like "denier". ROTFLMAO!! Get 'em backed into the corner far enough and that's the one they all revert to. Do you idiots go to some kind of school to learn this sh!t?

Gee, I dunno, "denier" seems appropriate. What else would you call someone who DENIES that the human race could be responsible for climate change? Loony-toon or idiot perhaps?

[ChrisOlson]

Gee, I dunno, "denier" seems appropriate.

No, that is religious zeal. Just like "sinners" to the Christians. Your Human-caused Climate Change is a religion that is not based on any facts, anything tangible, or even based on common sense - much like any other religion.

[Sunking]

.....and yet the overwhelming majority of people who study this for a living say it's happening.

Beg your pardon but that is just plain false. Fact is overwhelming majority do not think the recent warming has anything to do with man, nor do they think it will do any harm to man. Global Warming Activist have one motive and one motive only . To take money from you.

[ChrisOlson]

Global Warming Activist have one motive and one motive only . To take money from you.

Hmmm..... even that smells of religion and the church. Not one "prediction" the members of the Church of AGW has ever made has been accurate. Here is a detailed analysis of just how bad the record of the IPCC is:

http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_TemperatureProjections.htm

Pastor Gore of the Church of AGW is the worst one of them all.

Things like this, along with all the dire predictions of scenarios in the latest IPCC report don't lend much credibility to the Church of AGW. As the parishioners become more desperate they increasingly sound like, "the debate is over - either believe or you're a 'denier' and you're going to hell". Sorry bud, that don't work with me.

[Ward L]

Lot of experts here...

The NASA website says Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. Check it out at http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Where do you guys get your "facts"? Hope your ideas about solar are better than angry beliefs about climate change. Look, our politicians are paid to say climate change is a farce. What is your excuse?

Very likely?

[russ]

Hmmm..... even that smells of religion and the church. Not one "prediction" the members of the Church of AGW has ever made has been accurate. Agreed - 100% agreed

As the parishioners become more desperate they increasingly sound like, "the debate is over - either believe or you're a 'denier' and you're going to hell". Sorry bud, that don't work with me. Amen brother!

While we can't say the climate is not changing and we can not say man has no part in it we can say the "science" used is pure hokum - maybe used in a well meaning manner by some who simply do not understand the game they are in to.

We do need to take better care of our old world - sure enough!

We do need to take better care of the resources of the old world - sure enough!

We do need to be aggressive in bringing new technologies on line for fossil fuel replacement - new nuclear being the main component.

[russ]

The NASA website says Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. Check it out at http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Where do you guys get your "facts"? Hope your ideas about solar are better than angry beliefs about climate change. Look, our politicians are paid to say climate change is a farce. What is your excuse?

Very likely?

You just brought up the religion side of it again - the 97% number is really a joke. The term "climate scientist" is a bigger joke.

The science they are using to make their WAGs (wild assed guesses) is not tested science - the assumptions used, adjustments made and fudge factors out number the real knowledge - aerosol effect for one very big point.

[ChrisOlson]

We do need to be aggressive in bringing new technologies on line for fossil fuel replacement - new nuclear being the main component.

That's what I've always said. The US Navy has used nuclear power for over 35 years with a 100% clean safety record. It is the only viable option - solar panels and wind turbines sure as hell ain't gonna get the job done.

[SunEagle]

The NASA website says Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. Check it out at http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Where do you guys get your "facts"? Hope your ideas about solar are better than angry beliefs about climate change. Look, our politicians are paid to say climate change is a farce. What is your excuse?

Very likely?

I believe that the 97% percentage is misleading. It really relates to the percentage of scientists that responded to the climate survey. From what I have read the percent that responded was lower than 30%. So 97% of 30% is much smaller at less than a third.

While I agree humans has contributed to the climate change, I do not believe it to be anywhere near the amount that is being claimed by the alarmists. Sure we need to reduce pollution but do it with some thought not a knee jerk reaction. Look into ways to capture carbon or increase the use of Nuclear generation. Stopping coal here in the US only means it will be burned in other countries because they won't stop using it.

When I hear someone who insists we need to reduce our carbon output by shutting down the coal industry, I ask them how about running your car less or using less electricity. I get a lot of push-back because they don't want to. If everyone reduced just 10% that would make a big difference. But even if we reduced it by 90% it would not make any difference to climate change. There are bigger factors in why the earth is heating up. We just add a small part to it.

[Sunking]

The NASA website says Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. Check it out at http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Are you that stupid and ingnorant. If so you deserve to loose your money.

That 97 to 98% figure is bogus based on a 2 minute 2 question survey sent out by Illinois University to 10,257 Earth Scientist. Only 3146 scientist responded. 84% of the respondents agree there has been a slight warming in the past 100 years. Only 77 respondents of the 3146 were used in which 75 of the 77 said it was man made. The other 3071 respondents say yes the earth has warmed, but man has nothing to do with it, and no harm to man would become of it. That means it is complete FRAUD and you went for it you fool. The real numbers from the survey is 97% of scientist do not believe man has caused it and back it up from arctic ice sample going back 10,000 years when CO2 were higher than they are now.

[billvon]

I believe that the 97% percentage is misleading. It really relates to the percentage of scientists that responded to the climate survey.

The 97.1% result was a review of all the papers published on the topic of climate from 1991-2011.

While I agree humans has contributed to the climate change, I do not believe it to be anywhere near the amount that is being claimed by the alarmists. Sure we need to reduce pollution but do it with some thought not a knee jerk reaction. Look into ways to capture carbon or increase the use of Nuclear generation.

Agreed. We need a plan to gradually transition from coal based power to nuclear and renewables (including hydro, solar and wind) with natural gas used as peaking power.

Stopping coal here in the US only means it will be burned in other countries because they won't stop using it.

Also agreed we cannot (and should not) "stop" coal here. The transition needs to be gradual.

When I hear someone who insists we need to reduce our carbon output by shutting down the coal industry, I ask them how about running your car less or using less electricity. I get a lot of push-back because they don't want to. If everyone reduced just 10% that would make a big difference. But even if we reduced it by 90% it would not make any difference to climate change.

Not tomorrow or next week, but in 10 years a reduction of 90% _would_ make a difference.

That's one of the biggest problems in dealing with climate change - we can't fix it now. At most we can help reduce the effects that our children see, but people have a poor track record of making those kind of long term plans, especially when it means being inconvenienced now.

[JCP]

While we can't say the climate is not changing and we can not say man has no part in it we can say the "science" used is pure hokum - maybe used in a well meaning manner by some who simply do not understand the game they are in to.

We do need to take better care of our old world - sure enough!

We do need to take better care of the resources of the old world - sure enough!

We do need to be aggressive in bringing new technologies on line for fossil fuel replacement - new nuclear being the main component.

While I think that nuclear power is great, unless you put your plant on a fault line or near a tsunami prone area, the proven reserves of uranium don't make nuclear a long term viable solution based on current technology.

Side note: bolding your thoughts doesn't make sounds any less vacuous.

[billvon]

While I think that nuclear power is great, unless you put your plant on a fault line or near a tsunami prone area, the proven reserves of uranium don't make nuclear a long term viable solution based on current technology.

Well, with current technology (light water reactors) we can easily use MOX (reprocessed/blended fuel) and extend our fuel supplies a pretty long way. CANDU reactors can burn fuel that other plants can no longer use.

In the longer term, thorium reactors would give us almost unlimited power - but with additional problems with waste disposal and safety.

[Sunking]

In the longer term, thorium reactors would give us almost unlimited power - but with additional problems with waste disposal and safety.

Not true, half life from Thorium is 30 years. Just keep the waste on site and when the reactor life ends in 30 to 50 years, just bury the waste under the new reactor built on top of it at the existing site. Easy Peasy.