@ScottWesterfeld
"Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies."
"Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies."
1
For countries like India , it is very difficult to decide if they want to spend on climate change mitigation or adaptation given that they still lag behind in development. It will be very hard for it wean itself off coal when many nooks and crannies of India still do not have running water or electricity. To top it, I just realized that it just takes one event to show how vulnerable we are! My home town Chennai, in South India is taking a battering from incessant rains- something it has not seen in 100 years. Some parts of the city has received over 10 inches of rain in under 10 hours. The schools have remained closed for over 2 weeks now. The city of over 4 million people has come to a standstill with unprecedented flooding. Roads are caving in. There is no power. People are marooned with their essentials running out. More rain is in the forecast It is very very sad that this news hasn't made the headlines nationally even in India! I wish I could share some pictures here to show how bad the situation is. The bottom line is that Climate change is real and it could hit you right in your face anytime and leave you helpless! We need to act upon it as one global community doing what it takes to preserve what we have of the world that we have occupied taking pretty much everything for granted!
1
Obama is finally waking up to the Empire -- the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire which is gaming the system in all respects including expanding foreign wars and domestic scam economics of oppression and tyranny, as he finally noted today:
Obama: ‘Econ 101 Book’ Will Show Global Warming Is a ‘Market Externality’.
Now if Nobel Economist Krugman would just throw his weight behind the fair and balanced econominc measure of GDNEC (Gross Domestic Negative Externality Costs) to off-set the absurd and 'positive only' measure of GDP!
Obama: ‘Econ 101 Book’ Will Show Global Warming Is a ‘Market Externality’.
Now if Nobel Economist Krugman would just throw his weight behind the fair and balanced econominc measure of GDNEC (Gross Domestic Negative Externality Costs) to off-set the absurd and 'positive only' measure of GDP!
1
All my Congratulaion for you leadership Mr President Obama Sustainability is the global context planet earth its ecosystems as a unit with humanity as part of it Happy Sustainability 2015
1
The future is open for more difficult it is to tear a reasonable hope of brush The strungle for sustainability is any of the various names it has been taking in recent decades on any of the fronts where she plays the policies in companies in the domestic space remained as one priviliged terrain of strunggle for all those who do not give up what is just and necessary Happy Sustainability 2015
The most certain way to ensure that climate change results in a real catastrophe is to get the US federal government involved...
2
Obama, et al, suggests that this is our last chance to save the World from ending due to climate change.
Sir Thomas Malthus, thru science was convinced and had followers that knew that that human populations were growing at a rate that we would outstrip food supply and we would all soon starve.
Many Christian sects have asserted the the end of the World is nye.
And last but not least, Chicken Little said that, the sky was falling.
I suggest that all of these prognostications are false.
Sir Thomas Malthus, thru science was convinced and had followers that knew that that human populations were growing at a rate that we would outstrip food supply and we would all soon starve.
Many Christian sects have asserted the the end of the World is nye.
And last but not least, Chicken Little said that, the sky was falling.
I suggest that all of these prognostications are false.
1
In the beginning, there was but one master of the universe . . . later to be usurped by spiritual beings and various gods upon the existence of man. . . . And, yet, in a blink of universal time, it is now politicians who proclaim they should be worshipped and respected for having all the answers to the universe.
2
With Obama viewing Paris as a venue to cement his legacy and Modi demanding exceptionalism for India's right to generate extra CO2 to make up for lost time, planet earth's future rests on their egos. The only opportunity to save it would be Obama's embracing this challenge by offering Modi something like 'we will reduce our annual CO2 increase to zero if you reduce your annual population growth to zero.' The latter's population growth rate equivalent to one Australia per year can no longer be ignored.
1
If the US so badly wants India's cooperation, why did the US fight India at the WTO over India's subsidies to Indian solar panel makers? This is not about India being obstructionist, but access to the Indian market for Obama's buddies in the US Solar industry.Forcing Indians to buy expensive American or foreign made solar panels. Once again, profits come before people.
2
It is strange to hear India calling for an exception in CO2 quotas and for foreign investment while it has a multi billion nuclear arms program.
Why not solving problems at home first?
Just because the US does not do it, other nations do not need to follow this kind of stupidity.
China, while being the largest problem in these matters, at least tries to address the issue and spends billions of it's own money on attempt solve the problem.
Something that you cannot say of others.
At least not of the same size in regards to the GDP.
Why not solving problems at home first?
Just because the US does not do it, other nations do not need to follow this kind of stupidity.
China, while being the largest problem in these matters, at least tries to address the issue and spends billions of it's own money on attempt solve the problem.
Something that you cannot say of others.
At least not of the same size in regards to the GDP.
This president (small "p" as he has made the office small) is totally Un-American and should be removed.
2
agree, but then you'd have pres Biden.
1
What's worse: Obama making his office small or Cheney making his office big? What's more totally Un-American than getting five draft deferments?
1
Obama never served.
Clinton never served.
Clinton lied to get out of service during VietNam.
Cheney fit the requirement for deferment.
Clinton never served.
Clinton lied to get out of service during VietNam.
Cheney fit the requirement for deferment.
In their private planes with their limos on board! Look if they were really serious they'd do it by google hangout and save the emissions and save the planet. It's about photo ops and champagne receptions and how much they can squeeze out of Obama to "save his legacy". Sorry to be so cynical but that's reality!
3
Here's a real "alarmist" summary.
http://iccinet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ICCI_thresholds_v5_151128_...
"Thresholds and Closing Windows:
Risks of Irreversible Cryosphere Climate Change"
Shallow and reality-challenged arguments are distressing to people who follow evidence-based news and analysis; the above pulls no punches about polar possibilities
--
“The contrarian efforts have been so effective for the fact that they have made it difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to trust,” said Justin Farrell, a Yale University sociologist and author of the study, released on Monday in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science."
"[A] study analyzed the articles, policy papers and transcripts produced by these groups over a 20-year period. Then it separated the groups that received corporate funding from those that did not."
"The results, Farrell said, revealed an “ecosystem of influence” within the corporate-backed groups. Those that received donations consistently promoted the same contrarian themes—casting doubt, for example, on whether higher levels of man-made carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere were harmful to the planet. There was no evidence of such coordination among the non-funded groups."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/23/why...
http://iccinet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ICCI_thresholds_v5_151128_...
"Thresholds and Closing Windows:
Risks of Irreversible Cryosphere Climate Change"
Shallow and reality-challenged arguments are distressing to people who follow evidence-based news and analysis; the above pulls no punches about polar possibilities
--
“The contrarian efforts have been so effective for the fact that they have made it difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to trust,” said Justin Farrell, a Yale University sociologist and author of the study, released on Monday in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science."
"[A] study analyzed the articles, policy papers and transcripts produced by these groups over a 20-year period. Then it separated the groups that received corporate funding from those that did not."
"The results, Farrell said, revealed an “ecosystem of influence” within the corporate-backed groups. Those that received donations consistently promoted the same contrarian themes—casting doubt, for example, on whether higher levels of man-made carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere were harmful to the planet. There was no evidence of such coordination among the non-funded groups."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/23/why...
1
To any climate change deniers out there, the scientific evidence is clear. Do yourselves a favor and watch Michael Degrasse Tyson's series: Odyssey, which was recently telecast. It convinced me. It might might convince Justice Scalia if he was willing to watch it. Those who think that what we tiny humans do can never affect the planet are just in denial themselves. We sacrifice the health and happiness of future generations, our own descendants, by sticking our heads in the sand. What baffles me is that oil executives don't even think about the future of their own children and grandchildren. They will not be able to hide from the consequences. But the corrupting pull of profit NOW, TODAY is too strong for them. Basic human decency, morality and ethics don't exist in their world.
2
whole lotta denial going on (unapologetic for using plain English to described it). Here's what's being denied:
These impacts will continue to intensify, grow ever more costly and damaging, and increasingly affect the entire planet — including you, your community, and your family.
* Accelerating sea level rise and increased coastal flooding
* Longer and more damaging wildfire seasons
* More frequent and intense heat waves
* National landmarks at risk
* Widespread forest death in the Rocky Mountains
* Costly and growing health impacts
* An increase in extreme weather events
* Heavier precipitation and flooding
* More severe droughts in some areas
* Increased pressure on groundwater supplies
* Growing risks to our electricity supply
* Destabilization of seasons
* Melting ice
* Disruptions to food supplies
These impacts will continue to intensify, grow ever more costly and damaging, and increasingly affect the entire planet — including you, your community, and your family.
* Accelerating sea level rise and increased coastal flooding
* Longer and more damaging wildfire seasons
* More frequent and intense heat waves
* National landmarks at risk
* Widespread forest death in the Rocky Mountains
* Costly and growing health impacts
* An increase in extreme weather events
* Heavier precipitation and flooding
* More severe droughts in some areas
* Increased pressure on groundwater supplies
* Growing risks to our electricity supply
* Destabilization of seasons
* Melting ice
* Disruptions to food supplies
3
Many of the events in your list occurred long ago--billions of years ago.
Petrified palm tree seedlings have been found in rock formations in the Grand Canyon.
Let me assure you Florida has always experienced heavy precip and flooding.
Just come down and experience our monsoons between May and October.
I do believe Miami Beach might be doomed, however, both from an antiquated storm water system and the sell out to condo developers. Miami needs more condos like Carters needs pills.
Petrified palm tree seedlings have been found in rock formations in the Grand Canyon.
Let me assure you Florida has always experienced heavy precip and flooding.
Just come down and experience our monsoons between May and October.
I do believe Miami Beach might be doomed, however, both from an antiquated storm water system and the sell out to condo developers. Miami needs more condos like Carters needs pills.
Larry:
Nope. Sadly, we will all (including you) be affected by the consequences of a massive push to keep people ignorant and incurious, while stoking their fear and dislike of people different from themselves, and their reliance on magic thinking. Sort of like: "don't let government mess with my Medicare"
http://climate.nasa.gov/
All this is happening now, and there's plenty of evidence. Politics won't fix our planet, which we are using as a dump and exploiting at a scale never before seen. There is no Planet B.
http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/
Nope. Sadly, we will all (including you) be affected by the consequences of a massive push to keep people ignorant and incurious, while stoking their fear and dislike of people different from themselves, and their reliance on magic thinking. Sort of like: "don't let government mess with my Medicare"
http://climate.nasa.gov/
All this is happening now, and there's plenty of evidence. Politics won't fix our planet, which we are using as a dump and exploiting at a scale never before seen. There is no Planet B.
http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/
1
I just had a great idea to solve global warming. Scientists are using computer models to predict the future of the climate 100 years out. Climate is a complex system. Climate is much more complex than an NFL season. The scientists could use their computer models to predict the winner of the Super Bowl and then bet big in Vegas. They could use their computer models to predict who will win the World Series, the PGA Tour, the Grand Prix and the World Cup. They could make billions, probably a couple billion on Fantasy Football alone. No need to raise our taxes. They could then use all this money to build windmills and solar farms and buy everyone a Prius. Problem solved.
1
The earth’s climate has been changing for about 4 billion years or so, and I am thankful. 20,000 years ago Cincinnati was under an ice sheet that covered most of the northern portion of our continent. Now the ice is gone and we have warm summers and cool winters. Since there were no coal fired power plants or SUVs during the last glacial period our ancestors must have been burning a lot of buffalo chips and pine knots to make that climate change. Thank you, ancestors.
7
The arrogance of politicians and the hubris of the human race never ceases to astound. It's somehow ok to burn thousands of tons of carbon to transport just one man; our president, and his vast entourage to a useless conference which will solve nothing. A few thousand more will fly in on private jets. Its all so hypocritical its laughable. With all of the massive problems facing our planet this is the one that is most critical? We teter on the brink of spending Trillions based on a data set that doesn't even cover 1/1000 of the time needed to give us a margin of error that can even decidedly tell us the direction of global temps. A the headlines scream that 2015 is the warmest year on record - by a thousandth of a degree- with adjustments in the tenths of a degree and a margin of error equally large. This is the biggest scam ever packaged and sold to the masses, and the chief huckster is our president. How about just focusing on something concrete that will actually help the planet. Like ceasing the massive ongoing daily pollution of the worlds waters with raw sewage and industrial chemicals.
8
I don't know why the omnipotent Obama- who controls the levels of the oceans- doesn't just ban friction. Probably because the Koch brothers won't the the GOP Congress vote on Obama's plan!
4
I wish Hollande would put the correct emphasis in his statement about climate change having "the future of life" at stake...that is incorrect, life will most certainly continue. It's human civilization, and probably the couple 10's of thousands of other species we'll take down with us that is at stake if we don't deal with climate change, but life itself, even human life will survive no problem...deep sea bacteria, cockroaches, rats, lots of things will do fine in a warmer climate. And humans are very adaptable...we can eat rats and cockroaches...just don't expect your neighbor to share, so you better stock up on your guns and bullets...
Reality check wasn't the deals that got us in this problem ,investing in china usa is directly responsible for china become worlds largest polutor period.
The clean alternative to coal is nuclear. We can thank the rabid environmentalists for disrupting what was the answer to the worlds power needs. What we'll get is another Solyndra feasco from the political pin-heads and all those wacko scientists bought off by Federal grants. I think those thinking climate change isn't real are a small small minority. What most people don't believe is the half baked solutions to fix it. A starter would be to acknowledge we have an over-population problem.
1
The latest issue of the Economist addresses the issue comprehensively. What becomes clear is that while warming is taking place, the exact mechanics are fat from certain. Furthermore there is a very strong argument that we should be investing at least as much effort and money to adaptation and weather engineering. When people demand carbon reductions, I am not sure why they don't demand even louder control of methane. What it shows is that the current effort is more of a faith based and ideologically driven effort rather than a sober and scientific assessment of the ROI on our efforts. If you don' understand how the mechanism works, you must take actions which deal with that uncertainty not simply fall for carbon orthodoxy.
4
I don't believe human beings can be trusted to do anything constructive, intelligent, ethical or good. This planet is doomed as long as human beings exist.
1
v. in Bklyn, NY to Mark
I feel your raw anger and despair; good reasons, obviously. BUT, consider
Rachel Carson, Mohandas Gandhi, Gloria Steinem, John Muir, Jane Goodall, Vicky Downey of the Pueblos, Alice Walker. And to bring it closer to home, Bradley Klein, a wonderful guide and naturalist who taught me about monarch butterflies and their food, the milkweed plant. And my mom and late sis, who've hugged trees with me in the snow on New Year's Day.
Not all humans are bad. Some us can instill hope. Remember, you're in this too, so let's not give up just yet. I bid you peace and send you a warm hug.
Submitted 12/1/15@2:27 a.m. e.s.t.
I feel your raw anger and despair; good reasons, obviously. BUT, consider
Rachel Carson, Mohandas Gandhi, Gloria Steinem, John Muir, Jane Goodall, Vicky Downey of the Pueblos, Alice Walker. And to bring it closer to home, Bradley Klein, a wonderful guide and naturalist who taught me about monarch butterflies and their food, the milkweed plant. And my mom and late sis, who've hugged trees with me in the snow on New Year's Day.
Not all humans are bad. Some us can instill hope. Remember, you're in this too, so let's not give up just yet. I bid you peace and send you a warm hug.
Submitted 12/1/15@2:27 a.m. e.s.t.
All the hot air and nonsense from Paris has nothing to do with the climate. It has everything to do with making super-rich liberal billionaires like Soros and Tom Steyer even richer
6
President Obama shows up in Paris for climate change talks but not for the International Charlie Hebdo memorial service. His then Attorney General Eric Holder was already there and still did not attend. Obama may not be a climate change denier but he is an Islamic Terrorism denier.
5
Leaders of the world: Make my day and start taxing carbon.
3
These large-scale, multilateral meetings always fascinate me; they provide fascinating perspective on the sad state of our current Republican party. David Cameron is, by the standards of British politics, a conservative. Yet he says without hesitation or equivocation that climate change is the most significant problem we face. Would ANY Republican utter those words, let alone the GOP presidential candidates? Certainly anti-intellectualism and ideology plague both parties, but the fervent denial of the mere existence of climate change by Republicans stands as the chief reason why I cannot even fathom ever registering for that party.
4
He does talk a good game. But he's imitating us: follow the money ... withdrawing support for renewables and pushing fracking on people who don't want it. Osborne, Amber Rudd, and all.
1
These pious "leaders" are sooooooo concerned about "global warming" that thir conference will pour 300,000 tons of deadly CO2 into the environment!!
5
CO2 isn't deadly. Go ask a member of the plant kingdom.
or Congress...
1
World leaders have given themselves two weeks to reach a deal to save the world. We should all be so efficient!
More seriously, they've given themselves two weeks to reach 1/2 a deal to save the world, since it's admitted up front that any deal they could reach would, at best, only reduce global carbon emissions by 50% of what's actually needed to meaningfully address climate change. But, you know, kudos on all the leadership, I guess.
More seriously, they've given themselves two weeks to reach 1/2 a deal to save the world, since it's admitted up front that any deal they could reach would, at best, only reduce global carbon emissions by 50% of what's actually needed to meaningfully address climate change. But, you know, kudos on all the leadership, I guess.
1
Long term climate predictions seem so unscientifically overconfident. During the 1970s there was concern in the atmospheric research community that we were on the verge of another ice age.
"As scientists have recognized for a long time, carbon dioxide probably warms the Earth, by the 'greenhouse effect'. Like glass, it lets sunlight pass to the Earth's surface, but absorbs some of the heat rays, at infra-red wavelengths, emitted by the warm Earth. Water vapor acts in a similar way... for 95 percent of the past million years the world has been very much colder than it is today; on a shorter time-scale, the warm spell in the northern lands in 1920-1950 was a quite exceptional 30 years compared with the chilly centuries of the Little Ice Age, which may not yet have ended. Any natural change of the climate is far more likely to be for the worse than for the better.
For residual optimism we must look to the very human ability to rival nature, by generating heat and carbon dioxide and dust, which at present gives cause for concern because we do not know what we are doing to the climate. If nature does not act too quickly, and nothing very drastic happens during the next 100 years, we can reasonably expect to learn in that time how to ward off an ice age."
-Nigel Calder (1974). The Weather Machine, (pg. 76, 136)
"As scientists have recognized for a long time, carbon dioxide probably warms the Earth, by the 'greenhouse effect'. Like glass, it lets sunlight pass to the Earth's surface, but absorbs some of the heat rays, at infra-red wavelengths, emitted by the warm Earth. Water vapor acts in a similar way... for 95 percent of the past million years the world has been very much colder than it is today; on a shorter time-scale, the warm spell in the northern lands in 1920-1950 was a quite exceptional 30 years compared with the chilly centuries of the Little Ice Age, which may not yet have ended. Any natural change of the climate is far more likely to be for the worse than for the better.
For residual optimism we must look to the very human ability to rival nature, by generating heat and carbon dioxide and dust, which at present gives cause for concern because we do not know what we are doing to the climate. If nature does not act too quickly, and nothing very drastic happens during the next 100 years, we can reasonably expect to learn in that time how to ward off an ice age."
-Nigel Calder (1974). The Weather Machine, (pg. 76, 136)
5
I strongly support and respect President Obama's leadership on climate change and we all need to "turn up the heat" on Republicans to get onboard. But we are not helpless citizens waiting on our saviors. It is our overconsumption of manufactured products, waste, and overuse of energy for transportation, heating and cooling, and just plain laziness that create the demand that factories, oil refineries and coal miners work overtime to meet. Either we, the consumers, make a serious effort to cut back our consumption and energy use or start writing those letters of apology to our grandchildren and great-children who will be forced to live with the consequences of our selfishness.
4
Obama is good. Bernie will be better in continuing this fight for the future of all of us.
4
I admire Mr. Obama wholeheartedly. But, realistically, beyond the rhetoric of the circumstance, given the Congress that we have gotten at the present time, how can our president even say that the US will "embrace our responsibility to do something about it", let alone recognize "our role in creating this problem" totally eludes me!
Which makes me immensely sad and totally pessimistic about our and the world's future, because Mr/ Obama's words can only ne interpreted as further evidence that this Paris conference on climate change is just political posturing on a global scale... with little or no substance.
Which makes me immensely sad and totally pessimistic about our and the world's future, because Mr/ Obama's words can only ne interpreted as further evidence that this Paris conference on climate change is just political posturing on a global scale... with little or no substance.
1
India simply can't escape by blaming the west. India certainly has a responsibility to fulfill along with China and other countries since Indians are facing the music also.
This deal is very very important for the world. Whatever the agreements, all countries must realise their follies and must help in the reduction of the emission of greenhouse gases.
To start with, population control must be higher up in the order of the agreement. Keeping aside the religious faiths, all countries must implement family planning to a larger extent and India must play a bigger role in it.
Coal is one of the worst villains in the whole game. Coal plays a much bigger role in thermal generation, steel plants, heating homes, offices, schools, colleges, cooking, shopping malls, brick kilns etc. So quality of coal matters most. Coal is a huge health hazard also. Whichever country uses coal, is contributing too much to the emission. So proper brakes should certainly be applied in this case.
We see pollutants being diverted into rivers and lakes. The pollutants are extremely dangerous for the fish etc and they cause too much of a damage. All industries emit pollution and they have become a nuisance to the mankind. If proper measures are not taken in time, any calamity can happen in no time.
We have already seen rising temperatures, floods, cyclones, earth quakes and whatnot. We are the ones to blame and as such we must rectify our own faults doesn't matter in which country we live.
This deal is very very important for the world. Whatever the agreements, all countries must realise their follies and must help in the reduction of the emission of greenhouse gases.
To start with, population control must be higher up in the order of the agreement. Keeping aside the religious faiths, all countries must implement family planning to a larger extent and India must play a bigger role in it.
Coal is one of the worst villains in the whole game. Coal plays a much bigger role in thermal generation, steel plants, heating homes, offices, schools, colleges, cooking, shopping malls, brick kilns etc. So quality of coal matters most. Coal is a huge health hazard also. Whichever country uses coal, is contributing too much to the emission. So proper brakes should certainly be applied in this case.
We see pollutants being diverted into rivers and lakes. The pollutants are extremely dangerous for the fish etc and they cause too much of a damage. All industries emit pollution and they have become a nuisance to the mankind. If proper measures are not taken in time, any calamity can happen in no time.
We have already seen rising temperatures, floods, cyclones, earth quakes and whatnot. We are the ones to blame and as such we must rectify our own faults doesn't matter in which country we live.
1
An inconvenient truth: it has been more than 10 years since a major hurricane struck the US. We were promised the exact opposite- the science was settled!
7
There is too much of trash everywhere. So waste management plays a huge part also. Trash can be converted into generating electricity.
Vehicles are a huge nuisance. In the name of affluence, lack of effective public transport or no public transport and the reasons mostly due to individual ego and status, people are purchasing all kinds of vehicles in a very carefree manner. Are they not contributing to the disaster ? No pollution control measures are implemented in a number of countries, which should be condemned outright.
What to say about the people's lust, desire and greed in procuring all sorts of electronic gadgets thereby creating a mega electronic waste. How about thin plastic bags, which are found everywhere. Can't the people bring their own cloth bags ? These plastic bags are strewn everywhere in countries like India and have choked up the drains during floods thereby creating havoc.
Why can't people, who can afford, replace yellow filament lamps by the daylight energy efficient bulbs at least. Why can't people take effective measures in reducing the electricity consumption in their homes, offices etc. I have seen lights glowing outside the individual homes, societies and in streets during broad daylight in America and India.
How about guns and all sorts of weapons and wars ? Are they not contributing to the rising global temperatures ? How about forest fires ? How about the fires in homes, offices etc in countries like America where wood plays major role ?
Vehicles are a huge nuisance. In the name of affluence, lack of effective public transport or no public transport and the reasons mostly due to individual ego and status, people are purchasing all kinds of vehicles in a very carefree manner. Are they not contributing to the disaster ? No pollution control measures are implemented in a number of countries, which should be condemned outright.
What to say about the people's lust, desire and greed in procuring all sorts of electronic gadgets thereby creating a mega electronic waste. How about thin plastic bags, which are found everywhere. Can't the people bring their own cloth bags ? These plastic bags are strewn everywhere in countries like India and have choked up the drains during floods thereby creating havoc.
Why can't people, who can afford, replace yellow filament lamps by the daylight energy efficient bulbs at least. Why can't people take effective measures in reducing the electricity consumption in their homes, offices etc. I have seen lights glowing outside the individual homes, societies and in streets during broad daylight in America and India.
How about guns and all sorts of weapons and wars ? Are they not contributing to the rising global temperatures ? How about forest fires ? How about the fires in homes, offices etc in countries like America where wood plays major role ?
1
Larry : What do you call " Sandy " of 2012, some rainfall ?
2
Perhaps the most telling thing about this conference is that the new Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, the arrogant entitled son of a former Canadian PM is attempting to portray himself as a leader on the issue, and yet, just a few years ago, he was teaching snowboarding and allegedly doing other ...stuff...in whistler BC...famous for its slopes and partying.
Its truly amazing how pop culture and image have totally changed the way we analyze our leaders and what we now tolerate. As a Canadian, I am frankly embarrassed. To boot, one of the first things this twerp did was to tell the US and ever other nation, hey, despite the fact that Canada has a crack air force, we're leaving you to do the heavy lifting on ISIS...we'll just send a few men to "train" other fighters...as if the Americans were able to train what? 4 or 5 fighters to the cost of $500,000,000 dollars?
and he is now one of the leaders or voices for this conferences...what a FARCE.
Its truly amazing how pop culture and image have totally changed the way we analyze our leaders and what we now tolerate. As a Canadian, I am frankly embarrassed. To boot, one of the first things this twerp did was to tell the US and ever other nation, hey, despite the fact that Canada has a crack air force, we're leaving you to do the heavy lifting on ISIS...we'll just send a few men to "train" other fighters...as if the Americans were able to train what? 4 or 5 fighters to the cost of $500,000,000 dollars?
and he is now one of the leaders or voices for this conferences...what a FARCE.
6
Well, he is in the company of peers: average IQ in the five to 10 range. There are two reasons for political leaders to be attending: to attract the "green" vote in their next elections or, if they represent third- world countries, to scoop up some cash for their personal Swiss bank accounts. Our new Canadian Prime Minister just gave "developing" Commonwealth countries $2.6 billion of our taxpayers' money "to help them with climate change." He has much to learn. We just hope he is capable of learning.
At least he's not a book burner like Harper was. As for insults about IQ, so tempting, but better leave that one alone ...
1
Talk, talk, talk. Until the supposed "leaders" of the world understand that solar and wind power will NOT do the job to solve our energy needs, they will remain delusional and politically correct leftists. Nuclear power MUST be exploited if the world wants to get off the fossil fuel fix. But, of course, Democrats and liberals will reject that solution and stay convinced that the sun and wind can make a real difference.
2
Whether or not the US should do additional policies and goals to reduce climate change, this president will not be able to accomplish them.
He has been unable to play the typical game of politics, and now is looking towards leaving a "legacy" which should raise red flags everywhere. He'll say that something is achieved when it isn't.
It's a shame since there are LOTS of smaller initiatives that can help promote alternative and renewable energy and so on. In addition, he's managed to condescendingly lecture to anyone who disagrees with his policies, alienating the general public.
I don't see much happening here in the US anytime soon.
He has been unable to play the typical game of politics, and now is looking towards leaving a "legacy" which should raise red flags everywhere. He'll say that something is achieved when it isn't.
It's a shame since there are LOTS of smaller initiatives that can help promote alternative and renewable energy and so on. In addition, he's managed to condescendingly lecture to anyone who disagrees with his policies, alienating the general public.
I don't see much happening here in the US anytime soon.
2
The "typical game of politics" on the Republican side is to deny climate change or say there is nothing that can be done. They say it because they are beholding to fossil fuel contributors, such as the Koch Bros. They don't care a hoot about what is good for the country or the world. They planned right after the election results were in to stand in the way of anything the President proposed, and they have followed through since that day. They won't even support smaller initiatives that promote renewable energy. They deny there is a problem that can be solved.
Republicans are aided by the right-wing echo chamber, which spews hate and misinformation to the Republican base. The only way to make progress is for voters to elect Democratic majorities in the Congress (with 60 votes in the Senate) and a Democratic President.
Republicans are aided by the right-wing echo chamber, which spews hate and misinformation to the Republican base. The only way to make progress is for voters to elect Democratic majorities in the Congress (with 60 votes in the Senate) and a Democratic President.
3
The main problem facing us to have a cleaner planet, is the frantic effort on the part of influential people in just about any country to have continued rapid growth.
China is the largest polluter, with net minimal benefits to its people, while the large cities turning close to uninhabitable. GDP growth without improving the quality of life to most residents is counterproductive.
Per capita emission of greenhouse gases is quite low in India, but big cities, such as Delhi, Bangalore & Hyderabad are becoming uninhabitable, with little benefit to the respective residents. More than coal use, the cities are polluted because of rising carbon-based cars. Passenger car sales ought to be drastically reduced. Despite some downside to cell phone proliferation, it is the most cost-effective innovation, while cars are just a menace. But decision-makers there see the increase of both are equally good, which is unfortunate. India as well as China & the rest of the world should put prohibitive taxes on private cars, and promote especially electricity-based mass transit system.
Solar & wind power should be promoted with extreme vigor & urgency, anywhere in the world, while nuclear energy expansion also ought to be seriously considered - the fear of nuclear energy is good in that we would make all possible push to make it safe, as we've made air travel far safer than land travel.
China is the largest polluter, with net minimal benefits to its people, while the large cities turning close to uninhabitable. GDP growth without improving the quality of life to most residents is counterproductive.
Per capita emission of greenhouse gases is quite low in India, but big cities, such as Delhi, Bangalore & Hyderabad are becoming uninhabitable, with little benefit to the respective residents. More than coal use, the cities are polluted because of rising carbon-based cars. Passenger car sales ought to be drastically reduced. Despite some downside to cell phone proliferation, it is the most cost-effective innovation, while cars are just a menace. But decision-makers there see the increase of both are equally good, which is unfortunate. India as well as China & the rest of the world should put prohibitive taxes on private cars, and promote especially electricity-based mass transit system.
Solar & wind power should be promoted with extreme vigor & urgency, anywhere in the world, while nuclear energy expansion also ought to be seriously considered - the fear of nuclear energy is good in that we would make all possible push to make it safe, as we've made air travel far safer than land travel.
7
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-sum...
All smoke contains carbon, some smoke contains dangerous chemicals. If we are to regulate all smoke, then we will no longer be regulating smoke with dangerous chemicals. The main problem facing us, in terms of having a cleaner planet is cleptocrat's like Obama, Sanders, and Clinton who want to change the environmental movement to [even more or] a racket.
All smoke contains carbon, some smoke contains dangerous chemicals. If we are to regulate all smoke, then we will no longer be regulating smoke with dangerous chemicals. The main problem facing us, in terms of having a cleaner planet is cleptocrat's like Obama, Sanders, and Clinton who want to change the environmental movement to [even more or] a racket.
2
Ed, I suppose you can find evidence for just about anything especially if it's a nebulous theory, even if it is based on overwhelming evidence. You go for preponderance of evidence, or beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not beyond any shadow of doubt.
Just because we exhale CO2, which plants use to synthesize starch & other carbohydrates, which in turn we eat, doesn't mean that humungous CO2 emissions wouldn't cause global warming.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma denied global warming on a cold day in Washington by throwing a snowball! That's his evidence. When some glaciers are left in the arctic, even if much of it has been gone, you can say, "See, is this Global Warming? Where's the warmth?"
There is a "Flat Earth" society. Then the UFO group. The list goes on.
Just because we exhale CO2, which plants use to synthesize starch & other carbohydrates, which in turn we eat, doesn't mean that humungous CO2 emissions wouldn't cause global warming.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma denied global warming on a cold day in Washington by throwing a snowball! That's his evidence. When some glaciers are left in the arctic, even if much of it has been gone, you can say, "See, is this Global Warming? Where's the warmth?"
There is a "Flat Earth" society. Then the UFO group. The list goes on.
3
ClimateDepot is Marc Morano, who went from Rush Limbaugh to the Swiftboat campaign to Senator Inhofe's EPA under Bush 43, and is a clearinghouse for unskeptical "skeptic" resources and talking points.
1
That's what Climate Change wants - to make us afraid. We cannot allow this threat to interrupt our lives. It will mean we lose and Climate Change wins.
We must not give in to fear.
We must not give in to fear.
1
It's not fear. It's called common sense and deferring to scientists when we don't know any better.
2
Fear is all the warm-mongers have left. Not one of their apocalyptic predictions has come true. Science has proven there has been no change in the Earth's temp in the past 18 years, as predicted by exactly zero of their infallible computer models
2
If you were sick you would not seek out contrarian opinions and ignore 97 out of 100 skilled practitioners. You use experts all the time but in this case you think politics runs the planet? Not so.
1
I think the weight of the evidence (if acknowledged) is clear: way too little and way too late. From government(s) anyway. No surprise there. but the blame is on all of us. If you turned off all the carbon emissions tomorrow the line has been crossed. The ace in the hole, if there will be one, will come from the private sector, now sufficiently incentivized to go after it. I'm betting (hoping) on some thirty-something entrepreneurial genius types to save the day. Hope so anyway.
2
Well I agree there is way too little evidence that climate change is man-made. Don't worry, it's a scam anyway. The projections these scammers make are always wrong. Florida hasn't had a major hurricane in over 10 years yet there was all this doom and gloom over Florida constantly being flooded. Obama is an arrogant person using all this for his political agenda. He is arrogant to think man can overcome the affect of the sun and moon.
5
Does that mean you'll change your mind when Florida is under water?
1
They're not seeking climate change solutions,(that's IF the climate is in fact changing), they are seeking wealth redistribution and global government.
when china and india and africa and south america get serious about emissions targets, and when there are real economically viable solutions are in place that won't bankrupt entire industries and ruin economies the world over, then and only then should first world countries get involved. Until then, all that will happen is first world countries will see major economic upheavals, jobs will be lost en masse, and china russia and south america will all benefit by not really getting on board...
in short, this whole ruse stinks.
when china and india and africa and south america get serious about emissions targets, and when there are real economically viable solutions are in place that won't bankrupt entire industries and ruin economies the world over, then and only then should first world countries get involved. Until then, all that will happen is first world countries will see major economic upheavals, jobs will be lost en masse, and china russia and south america will all benefit by not really getting on board...
in short, this whole ruse stinks.
12
China got serious six months ago.
2
Only because they can't breathe....
One thing is for sure, no climate model to date has accurately predicted anything. Yet climate models are a key component of the house of cards called "climate change".
Climate change is nothing more than an attempt to take central control over economies, concentrating economic and political power into the hands of a few political elite.
Climate change is nothing more than an attempt to take central control over economies, concentrating economic and political power into the hands of a few political elite.
4
May one ask if you're aware that the idea of four seasons, and the esplanation of why they exist, is a climate model among other things?
Are you also not aware that the weather in the desert is pretty predictable, based on what we know about desert climates?
Are you also not aware that the weather in the desert is pretty predictable, based on what we know about desert climates?
1
For all the GOP's shouting about the sanctity of life, their dismissal of climate science is just another example of their true disregard for all life on this planet.
7
Except for the fact that not one person has died from, or even been inconvenienced by global warming.
5
And does that include the people who die each year from floods and drought???
1
Not one single flood or drought has ever been linked to "climate change". Not even one. Are you suggesting there were no floods or droughts before 1850?
well first of all Obama why don't u stop by hoping on your jet and riding all over to places u don't need to be..stay home for a bit & take care of America which is the job you were voted for......stop blaming everything that is going in the World on climate change & take real responsibility that not everything is relate to climate change......get real Obama!
4
I suspect you won't be happy until Obama starts travelling for his duties at the back of a Greyhound.
3
Duties= golf game. If Obama believes what he says, he's committing mass murder by flying to Paris
Please understand that India's point is not only that "they should not be asked to limit their economic growth as a way of fixing a problem that was largely created by the others", but also (and more so) "how else do we grow?" India is poor, has little (cleaner) gas/oil, and does not have the technology or the money to provide power to the millions of its citizens who still have no electricity. But, India has abundant coal. Should she not use what is available to bring herself into the modern age?
It is unfair to portray Indians as not caring for the environment. They suffer from the consequences daily and they are aware of it. So, many do what they can to help. Most Indians use public transport, are very conservative in electricity and fuel use (because it is expensive and money it tight), don't use blowers or lawn-mowers or dish-washers or washing machines or vacuum cleaners or gas-guzzling SUVs, don't leave their lights on, own at most one refrigerator, don't waste precious water, etc. etc.
Are Americans who are so concerned about the environment prepared to give up any of these amenities? Then, tell me, what should India do? What is America and the West prepared to do? Bring their "per capita" CO2 emissions down to India's levels? By 2030? Why is that not on the table?
It is unfair to portray Indians as not caring for the environment. They suffer from the consequences daily and they are aware of it. So, many do what they can to help. Most Indians use public transport, are very conservative in electricity and fuel use (because it is expensive and money it tight), don't use blowers or lawn-mowers or dish-washers or washing machines or vacuum cleaners or gas-guzzling SUVs, don't leave their lights on, own at most one refrigerator, don't waste precious water, etc. etc.
Are Americans who are so concerned about the environment prepared to give up any of these amenities? Then, tell me, what should India do? What is America and the West prepared to do? Bring their "per capita" CO2 emissions down to India's levels? By 2030? Why is that not on the table?
7
i can't give almost anything on that list up, because I never had it.
Guess why?
Guess why?
1
Until Obama calls China and India to account on pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, he has absolutely no credibility. In point of fact, he recently signed an agreement with China that allows them to pollute unabated until year 2026, while the U.S. must institute further industry strangling emission regulations immediately. Fair? You decide, if you can be the least bit impartial. By the way, Beiging is under a severe smog and pollution warning today.
3
Paul, that is nonsense. China knows more than you do how to get to a goal - and you don't just sit around till New Years Eve 2025.
So, from no wind power in 2000, the have doubled every year and last year they overtook Germany and then the US as now the world leader in wind capacity. And they plan to keep doubling it.
They have doubled solar installed every year for the last 5 years now. Next year one of every two solar farms in the world will be in China. And they already make 95% of the solar panels in the world.
They also plan more nuclear power than all the nuclear power installed globally. And they have long led the world in hydro, and plan more.
So, from no wind power in 2000, the have doubled every year and last year they overtook Germany and then the US as now the world leader in wind capacity. And they plan to keep doubling it.
They have doubled solar installed every year for the last 5 years now. Next year one of every two solar farms in the world will be in China. And they already make 95% of the solar panels in the world.
They also plan more nuclear power than all the nuclear power installed globally. And they have long led the world in hydro, and plan more.
2
Can someone please explain why there are no major political parties anywhere in any industrialized country other than the Republicans here in the US that deny climate change?
Are George W Bush, Mike Huckabee and Louie Gomert really that much smarter than everyone else?
Are George W Bush, Mike Huckabee and Louie Gomert really that much smarter than everyone else?
6
Don't forget all the scientists who have proven that the NOAA is cooking the books and falsifying data to prove what doesn't exist
3
Sometimes even not very stupid people may disagree with you:
Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who...
Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who...
2
Your basic premise is wrong. In other countries, global warming isn't an issue that stands to bilk citizens out of billions of dollars like Obama wants to do to the USA. If it was, there would be just as much opposition. Look at Russia for example. No one really cares. I think most people agree it is ridiculous and arrogant to believe man can overcome the influence of the sun and the moon.
2
The Paris Conference is a complete hoax.
http://www.politico.eu/article/paris-climate-deal-is-meaningless-cop21-e...
Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.
Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.” And lest pressure nevertheless build on the intransigent, no developing country except Mexico submitted an INDC by the initial deadline of March 31.
After all this, the final submissions are not enforceable, and carry no consequences beyond “shame” for noncompliance — a fact bizarrely taken for granted by all involved.
http://www.politico.eu/article/paris-climate-deal-is-meaningless-cop21-e...
Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.
Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.” And lest pressure nevertheless build on the intransigent, no developing country except Mexico submitted an INDC by the initial deadline of March 31.
After all this, the final submissions are not enforceable, and carry no consequences beyond “shame” for noncompliance — a fact bizarrely taken for granted by all involved.
3
Where will the energy come from if fossil fuels are drastically reduced? What other fuels are currently transportable? What other fuels have the capacity to maintain the needs of the industrialized world in addition to the needs of the impoverished third world who will need additional energy to feed starving populations?
The answer to the question is not solar or wind. Those sources are decades away, if ever. Nuclear can help tremendously with electricty but Obama has already ceded nuclear technology and production to the Chinese. Currently fossil fuels are the only answer.
The third world has poverty and starvation beyond what most Americans can even comprehend. These countries need more energy to grow and distribute food, provide minimal medical care, and provide shelter. Fossil fuels are the only foreseeable answer. Giving these countries money for solar and wind instead of providing oil/gas is not nearly enough to meet their energy needs and the money will just end up in the coffers of corrupt governments anyway. But elitist environmentalists, the AGW Industrial Complex and government entities that will gain wealth and power don't care about peoples suffering as long as their agendas are advavced.
The answer to the question is not solar or wind. Those sources are decades away, if ever. Nuclear can help tremendously with electricty but Obama has already ceded nuclear technology and production to the Chinese. Currently fossil fuels are the only answer.
The third world has poverty and starvation beyond what most Americans can even comprehend. These countries need more energy to grow and distribute food, provide minimal medical care, and provide shelter. Fossil fuels are the only foreseeable answer. Giving these countries money for solar and wind instead of providing oil/gas is not nearly enough to meet their energy needs and the money will just end up in the coffers of corrupt governments anyway. But elitist environmentalists, the AGW Industrial Complex and government entities that will gain wealth and power don't care about peoples suffering as long as their agendas are advavced.
3
1. The nice thing about solar and wind is that you do not need to transport them.
2. You are aware, yes, that renewables are the fastest-growing part of the US energy market?
2. You are aware, yes, that renewables are the fastest-growing part of the US energy market?
1
All very nice talk.
All very well said.
All very serious.
All very impressive words.
The Paris agreement will be a toothless and unenforceable set of voluntary "commitments" that may or may not have meaningful effect but the primary reason it will be toothless and unenforceable is the willful determination of the United States Senate to defeat any treaty that would be legally enforceable.
So smoke on, America, China, India and the rest of the world. You have nothing to lose but your long-term promises that you'll maybe, kinda-sorta do something to save the planet sometime during the next ten years if it's not to expensive or inconvenient.
All very well said.
All very serious.
All very impressive words.
The Paris agreement will be a toothless and unenforceable set of voluntary "commitments" that may or may not have meaningful effect but the primary reason it will be toothless and unenforceable is the willful determination of the United States Senate to defeat any treaty that would be legally enforceable.
So smoke on, America, China, India and the rest of the world. You have nothing to lose but your long-term promises that you'll maybe, kinda-sorta do something to save the planet sometime during the next ten years if it's not to expensive or inconvenient.
1
Right on!
If these people were really serious, they would have conducted this conference by video instead of all flying huge carbon-spewing jets from around the world.
"Do as I say, not as I do," is their mantra. Their hypocrisy is sickening.
"Do as I say, not as I do," is their mantra. Their hypocrisy is sickening.
3
Good luck on getting a consensus on global climate change - when the US has the likes of Exxon and the Koch brothers influencing the media and controlling the climate meme with swaths of cash to use in paid-for anti-climate change advertising and editorials. Doing something on climate change is like the past 50 or more years of blathering about getting the US off the teat of middle eastern oil. Not going to happen. Obama - as a corporatist tool (check out the anti-progressive details of the TPP, friends, that he and the Hillary Brand® are now suddenly "for") - is making his mouth move with populist-esque rhetoric a la Bernie Sanders - but will do nothing against the behemoths who control the purse strings. After all, if he actually wanted to do something, he has had 7 years to get it done. Combine the bully pulpit with arm twisting in Congress and you get the votes. Now, taking "some blame" is a clever move that implies some required responsibility, but let's see what actually transpires. No doubt, it will be one of those, "I was ready, but no one else was" moments of political backsliding. Renewable energy is doomed by the corporate industrial complex - who can't profit from the sun - unless they are like Dominion Power in Virginia, who got the state government to allow them to charge a rate-busting fee for anyone who puts panels on their house - making the cost of (potentially free) solar kilowatt hours more expensive than the federally subsidized nuclear industry.
1
Political candidates, be warned: If you refuse to acknowledge and enthusiastically address climate change, we will vote you out of office.
I ask all my peers to vote for candidates who commit, with clear and specific plans, to reduce carbon emissions. Whether that be Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, your local senator or representative, your vote has a direct impact. A majority of Americans, including a near-majority of Republicans, believe that humans contribute to climate change and that we have a responsibility to minimize the harm we cause.
Come out in 2016. Show up and do something for our species.
I ask all my peers to vote for candidates who commit, with clear and specific plans, to reduce carbon emissions. Whether that be Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, your local senator or representative, your vote has a direct impact. A majority of Americans, including a near-majority of Republicans, believe that humans contribute to climate change and that we have a responsibility to minimize the harm we cause.
Come out in 2016. Show up and do something for our species.
10
our species is not worth saving
I see a lot of people calling for solar and wind farms covering every inch of the earth. How about we all use less instead? It's not that hard to cut your carbon footprint by 50% or more. A more fuel efficient vehicle (or BICYCLE), smaller home, lower thermostat in winter, higher in summer, buy organic and local food, eat less meat, turn off the water when you brush, shorter showers...these are all things that can be done NOW and EVERYDAY for the rest of your life. Don't wait for politicians across the world to solve this problem for you so you can maintain your 75 degree thermostat in the dead of winter and be the only occupant of your car during your commute. The time is now. ACT NOW!
10
Agreed! I've been doing my own environmental and ecological work for years, making every place I have lived more energy efficient and even making my vehicles more energy efficient. With vehicles, you can follow a practice called hypermiling. It's a flexible program of many many steps one can take to increase the efficiency of your car or truck.
The politics in the US on this issue is pathetic. The Republican Party in the is the only party in the entire world to oppose climate change, the only Neanderthals to publicly denounce (with no peer reviewed evidence) the scientific proof that humans are responsible. And the GOP even enlisted their buddies, corrupt Big Oil and Big Coal, which fund mostly GOP campaigns, to try to enter and disrupt the Paris talks.
The next best thing you can do after making changes to your home and vehicle is to vote Democratic and progressive and liberal. And be sure to hammer your representatives with your message that climate change is vital to attack ASAP!
The politics in the US on this issue is pathetic. The Republican Party in the is the only party in the entire world to oppose climate change, the only Neanderthals to publicly denounce (with no peer reviewed evidence) the scientific proof that humans are responsible. And the GOP even enlisted their buddies, corrupt Big Oil and Big Coal, which fund mostly GOP campaigns, to try to enter and disrupt the Paris talks.
The next best thing you can do after making changes to your home and vehicle is to vote Democratic and progressive and liberal. And be sure to hammer your representatives with your message that climate change is vital to attack ASAP!
4
Given that air travel is one of the greatest contributors to climate changer, I wonder if which of our world's leaders are willing to forgo their private jets to demonstrate their commitment and set an example.
9
Equally to this point, I wonder why it was necessary to fly 3000 diplomats, their staffs, the media, and all the various supporters and protesters to Paris for this discussion. It could have been done entirely electronically, from each leader's home state, and a great deal of fuel not be burned.
If the prestige of being seen in person with the other great and powerful were not more important than the results, I would have a great deal more faith in the process.
If the prestige of being seen in person with the other great and powerful were not more important than the results, I would have a great deal more faith in the process.
3
Oh yes, that will make a big dent.
From the Guardian (George Monbiot)--"Livestock farming creates around 14% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions: slightly more than the output of the world’s cars, lorries, buses, trains, ships and planes." Are you a vegetarian?
3
With all the congratulations going to Prez Obama, I thought it would be useful to hear from him or his staff what spefically will be done with the money he plans to provide the international "green" effort. I suspect it will go down the rathole. If Bill Gates and his wealthy allies want to spend their own money to develop alternative, clean energy, more power to them. I have much more faith in new technology developed by the private sector than efforts by a bunch of bureacrats with widely differing talents and objectives. Technology will be the solution to climate warming to the extent a problem really exists. Improved technology has always been the answer.
6
Again, any agreement to be fair and just must be based on per capita use of energy and resources. This alone can provide an equitable and workable alternative to the existing system leading to the climate related dangers that we are talking about.
2
Yes, we should bend over and take it while the biggest polluters on the planet take a pass for the foreseeable future. Obama says we is partly to blame. Daa? Every sheep lamb and ram in New Zealand is partly to blame, as are all those darn rabbits in Australia, to say nothing about the hot air being expelled by all the politicians, lobbyists and contractors in DC...
While it's possible that this climate stuff may turn out to be a serious problem that we can actually have a significant impact on, say in 50-100 years, right now we have a much more serious kettle of fish to take care of. But, it's so much easier to say we'll do something that might show tangible results in future decades than deal with problems plaguing us in the right here and now, where results would be tangible and claim or blame is instant...Obama is good at lip service for the future, not so much for the here and now.
While it's possible that this climate stuff may turn out to be a serious problem that we can actually have a significant impact on, say in 50-100 years, right now we have a much more serious kettle of fish to take care of. But, it's so much easier to say we'll do something that might show tangible results in future decades than deal with problems plaguing us in the right here and now, where results would be tangible and claim or blame is instant...Obama is good at lip service for the future, not so much for the here and now.
6
Disagreed. Just because you don't see the results of climate change right now, in your backyard, does not mean it isn't happening. People are affected and hurt. Low-lying nations are definitely feeling the rise in sea levels and many nations have suffered huge economic and human and environmental setbacks because of rising ocean levels, ocean acidification and other climate change effects.
There are also unforeseen effects such as glaciers calving, meaning huge chunks--for one example, the size of part of Manhattan--suddenly, without warning, break up and fall into the sea. Few expected such huge events to occur so soon.
And the consequences are partly unknown because extra ice in the sea melts and creates unknown and unknowable changes in vital sea current pathways. Those currents in turn affect climate, weather, ocean life, crops and many other things.
Short-term tunnel vision is not the answer. Is that what you recommend? Larger and better and smarter minds than yours and mine disagree. Thank God some people are working on positive change!
There are also unforeseen effects such as glaciers calving, meaning huge chunks--for one example, the size of part of Manhattan--suddenly, without warning, break up and fall into the sea. Few expected such huge events to occur so soon.
And the consequences are partly unknown because extra ice in the sea melts and creates unknown and unknowable changes in vital sea current pathways. Those currents in turn affect climate, weather, ocean life, crops and many other things.
Short-term tunnel vision is not the answer. Is that what you recommend? Larger and better and smarter minds than yours and mine disagree. Thank God some people are working on positive change!
2
The average global temperature is on its periodic climb to a maximum of 70 degrees F. It has happened multiple times before, well before humans walked the earth, and it will happen multiple times more before our sun extinguishes. The next time it happens, perhaps in 1000 or 10,000 years, humans will no longer be able to walk the earth. It will be too hot. So the focus should be on creating a global thermostat to avoid such a catastrophe for mankind. Geo engineer temperature control. Task NASA
with initiating the experiments.
with initiating the experiments.
2
Your myth, that the current temperature rise is cyclical, has been debunked at http://skepticalscience.com.
This is a great website for checking every recycled myth, lie, wish and hope that keeps getting regurgitated and recycled in the right wing echo chamber of ignorance.
Basically, the science of global warming is established and settled. People are largely responsible. Not cycles, not sun spots, not anything else. Of course people grow the cattle and sheep which contribute methane, so basically people are responsible for that as well.
An unwarranted belief in anything else other than the established science is essentially a religion. Religious believers take as real things and events that are not supported or supportable by evidence, logic, science or facts. That's okay, we all have a right to our beliefs and our religion. But do not label disbelief in the science of global warming scientific.
This is a great website for checking every recycled myth, lie, wish and hope that keeps getting regurgitated and recycled in the right wing echo chamber of ignorance.
Basically, the science of global warming is established and settled. People are largely responsible. Not cycles, not sun spots, not anything else. Of course people grow the cattle and sheep which contribute methane, so basically people are responsible for that as well.
An unwarranted belief in anything else other than the established science is essentially a religion. Religious believers take as real things and events that are not supported or supportable by evidence, logic, science or facts. That's okay, we all have a right to our beliefs and our religion. But do not label disbelief in the science of global warming scientific.
Check out the logical fallacy of cherry-picking evidence, one reason why some believe the false "global/solar/whatever cycles caused AGW" arguments:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)
"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[3]"
To wit, so-called debate about anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW). Science says there is NO debate. It is political only, and is entertained only by conservatives, mostly in the U.S. GOP. This conservative party is alone in the entire world in denying the well-established science of global warming. I suspect collusion between big oil/energy companies and the GOP; those energy companies fund GOP and Tea Party campaigns, allowing for potentially a great deal of corruption.
The same kind of campaign by today's U.S. conservatives (and more in the past, by energy companies), against AGW science, was waged in the 60s and 70s by tobacco companies against government studies showing the very real dangers of tobacco use.
See Dr. Frederick Seitz.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)
"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[3]"
To wit, so-called debate about anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW). Science says there is NO debate. It is political only, and is entertained only by conservatives, mostly in the U.S. GOP. This conservative party is alone in the entire world in denying the well-established science of global warming. I suspect collusion between big oil/energy companies and the GOP; those energy companies fund GOP and Tea Party campaigns, allowing for potentially a great deal of corruption.
The same kind of campaign by today's U.S. conservatives (and more in the past, by energy companies), against AGW science, was waged in the 60s and 70s by tobacco companies against government studies showing the very real dangers of tobacco use.
See Dr. Frederick Seitz.
I appreciate President Obama taking responsibility but NO 2?? China may be No 1 overall but US has China beat per capita on CO2 emissions times 3. Let's be boldly honest--America has failed to grow the masses without killing the earth. The time for action is now or suffer a bystander view as the earth becomes inhabitable.
2
I think you meant *un*inhabitable. But even so, not even the worst predictions threaten that.
DM, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In fact, the worst predictions do include that.
You seem concerned about the detail, but in fact we need everyone and everything they can think up to solve these problems. The problems with toxic materials for renewable energy are dwarfed, for example by the respective toxicities of coal and, for example, tar sands. The infrastructure for emissions-free energy are not as toxic as you think, while the toxicity of emissions-intensive energy are worse than you think. Natural gas is not as clean as they claim, while solar and wind, with all their shortcomings, are far better than you appear to have understood.
In stead of nipping at the ankles of ideas that are in development to make progress, how about encouraging every kind of solution.
Circular firing squads are easy, because you want to discuss with the honest people in the room (of whom you are, mostly, one) but the truly culpable are the ones who embrace dishonesty as a guiding principle for profit.
You seem concerned about the detail, but in fact we need everyone and everything they can think up to solve these problems. The problems with toxic materials for renewable energy are dwarfed, for example by the respective toxicities of coal and, for example, tar sands. The infrastructure for emissions-free energy are not as toxic as you think, while the toxicity of emissions-intensive energy are worse than you think. Natural gas is not as clean as they claim, while solar and wind, with all their shortcomings, are far better than you appear to have understood.
In stead of nipping at the ankles of ideas that are in development to make progress, how about encouraging every kind of solution.
Circular firing squads are easy, because you want to discuss with the honest people in the room (of whom you are, mostly, one) but the truly culpable are the ones who embrace dishonesty as a guiding principle for profit.
3
Uninhabitable==thank you
If President Obama can put in motion firm commitments to help save our common home he will be remembered as a father of the modern environmental movement — as a man who worked selflessly against brutal and well-financed opposition on the most important challenge of out time.
7
Very sad. The U.S. position is unsatisfactory to two major groups. (1) Those who understand global warming also understand how weak our commitment is, that Obama has no sense of urgency about global warming (too busy with his drones and trying to provoke Russia and China with military threats); (2) Those who deny global warming is even a problem, which is the official position of the Republican party.
2
I'm not a Republican, and I deny that global warming is even a problem.
2
I am so proud to have President Obama representing the United States at this climate summit in Paris. While admitting that the U.S. Has a responsibility in creating the problem, he embraces the opportunity to do something about it.
That's what you call leadership and it's good to see that Americans have his back with 2/3 supporting a U.S. move to create this climate pact.
That's what you call leadership and it's good to see that Americans have his back with 2/3 supporting a U.S. move to create this climate pact.
7
JT FLORIDA,
You are probably also so proud of President Obama for taking responsibility for the bombing of MSF hospital.
You are probably also so proud of President Obama for taking responsibility for the bombing of MSF hospital.
1
We need to address climate change with care. We understand that climate change has occurred and will likely persist but we do not know how much change will occur, whether it will produce a lot of very unfortunate results or moderate ones, and we are not certain when these results will be known. However, we do know that if the big glaciers in Greenland or at the poles melt the sea level will rise so high as to become a world wide catastrophe, a catastrophe that may well submerge so much land and infrastructure as to force all to spend all the proceeds from all our sources of income for decades trying to restore it -- it will make everybody poor for a long time. We know that most plants and animals are not as adaptive as humans so the rate of species extinction will rise, too. We know that the disruptions will make many people desperate to save their lives and this will lead to anarchy and widespread predation that will require militaries that nobody can afford to field to arrest. The worst case scenario is not hotter summers and worse winter storms, it's the collapse of human societies. But we do not have the data to know if this will happen nor the probabilities of this happening.
1
There is no reason to think that sort of result will happen. Shoot, satellite data shows that Antarctica, overall, is actually *increasing* in both the ice cap and sea ice. There's only sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctica is gaining more sea ice than the Arctic is losing. As to Greenland, some parts are growing, some are losing and right now it's a net loss. However there was less glacier coverage in Greenland 1000 years ago than there is today, so I don't think that's too great a worry either.
1
Once again, DM, you demonstrate that you are not paying proper attention. The Antarctic information you present as fact is simply wrong. You have been promoted in my observation, since my last reading of one of your comments, to "concern troll". The Antarctic-Arctic arguments in simply an unskeptical "skeptic" talking point.
Try this:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/study-concludes-antarctica-is-gai...
Apart from the data not going past 2008, it contains other exaggerations and misstatements.
Meanwhile, you are not properly assessing the Arctic. This is a reliable place to check into that:
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/
RealClimate, who have been having some maintenance issues having to do with the fact that they all have "day jobs", have also evaluated the relative reliability of information from various sources in various articles. "Climate Science from Climate Scientists": it's very good. Other real science is being doner; meanwhile your assertion about polar melt and ice balancing reveals you as less than objective.
Try this:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/study-concludes-antarctica-is-gai...
Apart from the data not going past 2008, it contains other exaggerations and misstatements.
Meanwhile, you are not properly assessing the Arctic. This is a reliable place to check into that:
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/
RealClimate, who have been having some maintenance issues having to do with the fact that they all have "day jobs", have also evaluated the relative reliability of information from various sources in various articles. "Climate Science from Climate Scientists": it's very good. Other real science is being doner; meanwhile your assertion about polar melt and ice balancing reveals you as less than objective.
3
There are only a few actual, with current in use technology, ways to produce energy to power our world. Burning of fossil fuels. Natural as in wind, water (hydroelectric), harnessing wave power, geothermal and solar. And nuclear. All of them can have adverse effects and obviously some much worse then others. It is estimated that by 2030 the worlds population will increase by 2 billion people. While I think climate change from human caused activities is a very important subject I also think someone somewhere will have to address the definitely not PC concern of a population that the world might not be able to sustain. That will be the 200 pound gorilla in the room. Or the world will have to learn to live without all of the energy consuming modern conveniences we've come to hold so dear to get through our day to day existence!
2
Birth Control = Easiest Solution
2
@Steve,
Are we talking forced birth control or birth control by choice? Birth control is readily available world wide so it's not a easy solution!
Are we talking forced birth control or birth control by choice? Birth control is readily available world wide so it's not a easy solution!
“No nation — large or small, wealthy or poor — is immune,” he said. Not according to the GOP. America is immune by virtue of its ignorant politicians, specifically the GOP group who believe whatever their rich corporate donors tell them. The very rich in America are immune because they can move away from the pollution and rising waters to more desirable areas. The losers in this game will be, as always, the poor, the middle and working classes, and anyone who wasn't born into a rich family. But hey, that's what houseboats are for, living in the eye of the storm when all the other alternatives have been bought by the rich.
3
What I would like to see is impartial analysis -- to the extent that such is possible anymore -- of all the upstream and downstream environmental and financial costs involved in electric cars and other possibly desirable steps toward addressing climate change problems. I honestly do not know how it would all shake out, but to make good policies we need people pressuring policy makers, and we will only get a mass of people on board to make a change if we can answer the questions.
Thus, such seeming esoterica as how much pollution was produced in China to make most solar panels used here is relevant, as is the question of whether they are dumped at a loss here for Chinese policy considerations of their own.
I really would like to see a thorough environmental analysis of vehicle production and disposition yielding the stats so we can gauge whether buying a car that gets X number more MPGs will produce less pollution than hanging on to the old gas hog.
And then there is the question of using the tax code -- in this case, tax credits -- to make policy, to me a very destructive policy our politicians use primarily to dispense pork while not having to go on record as having done such.
Thus, such seeming esoterica as how much pollution was produced in China to make most solar panels used here is relevant, as is the question of whether they are dumped at a loss here for Chinese policy considerations of their own.
I really would like to see a thorough environmental analysis of vehicle production and disposition yielding the stats so we can gauge whether buying a car that gets X number more MPGs will produce less pollution than hanging on to the old gas hog.
And then there is the question of using the tax code -- in this case, tax credits -- to make policy, to me a very destructive policy our politicians use primarily to dispense pork while not having to go on record as having done such.
1
Instead of apologizing to the world for us being responsible for Climate Change (oh no, not that!!!) -- he should be giving the US credit for the huge hand we've had in creating the modern world, bringing people out of poverty, improving health care, improving the standard of living, increasing the life span and for making it possible for world leaders to gather together in a matter of hours.
7
I would not vote a second time for Arnold Schwarzenegger much less a first time for any candidate, for any office, who subscribes to the notion of man made climate change.
4
Global climate change isn't a problem. It's a symptom. The underlying problem is overpopulation.
When will we do something about that? Never. The Catholic Church and other extremist fundamentalist religious groups will make sure it never happens.
When will we do something about that? Never. The Catholic Church and other extremist fundamentalist religious groups will make sure it never happens.
5
It is easy to criticize India as not doing enough to fight climate change and using coal as fuel.
But it is important to note that per capita CO2 emissions in the US are 10 times that in India. That is because Americans live a life of vulgar excess and wastefulness. The omnipresent gas-guzzling SUVs and the practice of leaving all the lights on inside commercial establishments so that the skyline looks pretty are just a few examples.
Most Indians on the other hand cannot afford wasteful habits. Because of poverty, reusing things and not wasting is part of the values and culture in India. A lot of Indians don't even get electricity in their houses.
India has a plan to reduce carbon emissions as well. But it is only fair that the countries that are the most to blame and have built their fortunes already contribute a lot more towards this effort. President Obama has been fair enough to admit this at the Paris talks.
But it is important to note that per capita CO2 emissions in the US are 10 times that in India. That is because Americans live a life of vulgar excess and wastefulness. The omnipresent gas-guzzling SUVs and the practice of leaving all the lights on inside commercial establishments so that the skyline looks pretty are just a few examples.
Most Indians on the other hand cannot afford wasteful habits. Because of poverty, reusing things and not wasting is part of the values and culture in India. A lot of Indians don't even get electricity in their houses.
India has a plan to reduce carbon emissions as well. But it is only fair that the countries that are the most to blame and have built their fortunes already contribute a lot more towards this effort. President Obama has been fair enough to admit this at the Paris talks.
18
Whoa. Hold on before saying that the US has to contribute a lot more for the sake of India because it's "fair."
India made its choices over the last century which is how it got to it's current state and that includes a long romance with communism and a massive increase in population. Never mind the caste system which brought it's own inhibitors of innovation. That is India's burden to bear.
The US embraced capitalism, free markets, personal freedom, private ownership, commerce driven by innovators and entrepreneurs as well as massive investment in education. The results are very different and India has tried to emulate them over the past few decades with strong results.
The US should cut down on pollution and waste but it's not because it's fair but rather because it is good for the planet. Every other country needs to see it the same way and do what's right and not get lost in fairness debates which nobody wins.
India made its choices over the last century which is how it got to it's current state and that includes a long romance with communism and a massive increase in population. Never mind the caste system which brought it's own inhibitors of innovation. That is India's burden to bear.
The US embraced capitalism, free markets, personal freedom, private ownership, commerce driven by innovators and entrepreneurs as well as massive investment in education. The results are very different and India has tried to emulate them over the past few decades with strong results.
The US should cut down on pollution and waste but it's not because it's fair but rather because it is good for the planet. Every other country needs to see it the same way and do what's right and not get lost in fairness debates which nobody wins.
2
Naina, You are right on all points. One thing that I would like to add is that India's massive population is not the world's fault. India itself is responsible for its colossal failure is managing its population growth. As a result, India cannot follow the same trajectory as Western nations is bringing prosperity to its people. It has to find its own unique path. Perhaps, this crisis is an opportunity for India to innovate and lead the way to developing an alternative energy economy.
I totally side with Naina. The western world, practice what you preach.
1
My friend Richard Pauli shared these questions, with some ballpark answers, and a couple of personal revisions; they're a bit high end, but not far out. here's what's at stake:
How soon will it be over 3 degrees of C average warming? (... possibly by 2050 - likely by 2100)
How soon will sea levels rise just 3 feet more? (... likely sometime between 2070 and 2100)
How soon will sea levels rise hundreds of feet more? (... probably centuries from now)
How soon will the Arctic Ocean be totally ice free in the summer? (... likely in the next few decades)
How soon will methane start to make things worse? (... happening already, and worse as it gets hotter)
How soon will there be wildfires, killer heatwaves, famines, drought, millions of climate refugees ? (... hmm, it is unlikely that a scientist would dare address that kind of question with any specificity. But others are addressing that today in Paris)
On the final question, honest people would admit that it is already happening.
How soon will it be over 3 degrees of C average warming? (... possibly by 2050 - likely by 2100)
How soon will sea levels rise just 3 feet more? (... likely sometime between 2070 and 2100)
How soon will sea levels rise hundreds of feet more? (... probably centuries from now)
How soon will the Arctic Ocean be totally ice free in the summer? (... likely in the next few decades)
How soon will methane start to make things worse? (... happening already, and worse as it gets hotter)
How soon will there be wildfires, killer heatwaves, famines, drought, millions of climate refugees ? (... hmm, it is unlikely that a scientist would dare address that kind of question with any specificity. But others are addressing that today in Paris)
On the final question, honest people would admit that it is already happening.
7
I see that you conveniently moved your "ice free Arctic" prediction from 2015 (oops) to "the hnext few decades." The reality is that not a single one of the alarmist predictions made over the last 30 years has come true.
3
When will the leaders of the world address the real 200 gorilla in the world? By 2030 there will be a estimated 2 billion more people on this planet and the majority of them will be clamoring for all of the modern power consuming products and comforts of life we are accustomed to in the modernized world. We will need to take every bit of open space and cover it with wind turbines and solar farms. And most of the power will go to desalinizing the rising ocean for usable and drinkable water!
6
He always gives the same old speech blaming America and the Republicans for everything. He would be king, but he's only a President who cannot rule by fiat but must work with others which he's not very good at. Such a pity.
11
Yeah, the R's have tried so hard to work with him. Next.
2
Apparently it's now a Bad Thing to notice reality, though I am confused about whether you guys want our President (he is, you know) to lead or not.
I mean, you bellow a lot about him not leading, and now there the man is, leading the heck out of things, and you're all hot&bothered.
Which is it?
I mean, you bellow a lot about him not leading, and now there the man is, leading the heck out of things, and you're all hot&bothered.
Which is it?
2
"He always gives the same old speech blaming America and the Republicans for everything."
Please identify where in the speech he politicized this issue, which goes far beyond national or party affiliation.
Please identify where in the speech he politicized this issue, which goes far beyond national or party affiliation.
2
Not sure if man can change weather.
But surly we can clean up our home so that we have clean air, water and soil.
It would be incredible if this conference accomplishes some far reaching goals
to clean up our environment.
And far better to see the goals implemented.
Some of us have been waiting decades for much much greater environmental
awareness from the heads of state.
Thank you.
But surly we can clean up our home so that we have clean air, water and soil.
It would be incredible if this conference accomplishes some far reaching goals
to clean up our environment.
And far better to see the goals implemented.
Some of us have been waiting decades for much much greater environmental
awareness from the heads of state.
Thank you.
1
Your excellent point is lost on the pseudo-scientists here and in Paris.
2
It is true that the US (and W Europe) are the biggest historical contributors to CO2.
Ok, fine. So what? We are not down memory lane, we are trying (I assume, Mr. President) to solve an issue.
And all the cartwheels the US can do on energy are not going to alter the fact that without India, China, rest of Asia and Africa doing more NOW is not going to make one scintilla of difference. This is where the whole debate is dishonest.
And yes, it is not totally fair. We polluted the planet and now we are asking them to rein in. So what? Fair does not solve the issue.
Paris is either about feeling good and blowing gasses up people's .... (it rhymes), or it's about solutions. Seems like the former is in full bloom.
Ok, fine. So what? We are not down memory lane, we are trying (I assume, Mr. President) to solve an issue.
And all the cartwheels the US can do on energy are not going to alter the fact that without India, China, rest of Asia and Africa doing more NOW is not going to make one scintilla of difference. This is where the whole debate is dishonest.
And yes, it is not totally fair. We polluted the planet and now we are asking them to rein in. So what? Fair does not solve the issue.
Paris is either about feeling good and blowing gasses up people's .... (it rhymes), or it's about solutions. Seems like the former is in full bloom.
7
It is sad that large parts of this comment section are dominating by baiting and promotion of falsehood and ignorance about climate change. You would think readers of this paper would have absorbed the many excellent articles in the last year by Justin Gillis, Coral Davenport, and many others.
As for admitting that we have emitted more heat-trapping greenhouse gases than any other nation, that we have a stalemated political process that doesn't care about facts but only money and politics, and that we are now just second to China in total annual emissions, that's honesty. It's a good place to start.
As for the science, it is unbelievable that people can still think hating on reality, as we experience it worldwide, and as it is analyzed and understood by scientists in terms of the temperature record and how this is going to develop, will make a dent on the next drought, the next flood, the next Sandy, the next Patricia, the next Haiyan, the wildfires and worldwide pollution, and all the accelerating effects of increased energy on our planet.
Your backyard is not the world. This week is weather. Climate is weather over space (the whole planet and its atmosphere) and time (decades, as much of the record as is available).
What makes you think finding somebody to blame, exclude, or hate will solve a single thing?
As for admitting that we have emitted more heat-trapping greenhouse gases than any other nation, that we have a stalemated political process that doesn't care about facts but only money and politics, and that we are now just second to China in total annual emissions, that's honesty. It's a good place to start.
As for the science, it is unbelievable that people can still think hating on reality, as we experience it worldwide, and as it is analyzed and understood by scientists in terms of the temperature record and how this is going to develop, will make a dent on the next drought, the next flood, the next Sandy, the next Patricia, the next Haiyan, the wildfires and worldwide pollution, and all the accelerating effects of increased energy on our planet.
Your backyard is not the world. This week is weather. Climate is weather over space (the whole planet and its atmosphere) and time (decades, as much of the record as is available).
What makes you think finding somebody to blame, exclude, or hate will solve a single thing?
5
Nothing of significance will happen until the seas start to rise. Then all the deniers will blame everybody else.
3
The seas are not going to rise. The ice burgs arent going to melt by human hands if they do. The earth used to look like Pangea, and we had an ice age and we warmed up from that without driving our SUVs. The earth is going to do what its going to do and we are a mosquito on the back of a dog. You are all arrogant in your compassion for this planet. You've existed for a blink of an eye during its existence. You won't change anything.
1
When change occurs slowly (i.e over ten's of thousands of years )species can adapt but when it occurs suddenly over hundreds of years like from the dawn of the industrial age they can't. This unfortunately includes humans.
Obama doesn't know the first thing about Climate Change. His remarks over the years have been marked by gross exaggeration and outright falsehoods. He stated in 2012 that temperatures had been outrunning model projections for the past decade, an inversion of the true relationship. His statements on the relation between Climate Change and drought and extreme weather do not reflect the consensus and border on the hysterical. How is he to lead from a position of such extreme ignorance?
9
I wish I could just fire off insults and sit back smugly. Here's a challenge: name ONE peer-reviewed, publshed scientific paper you've read on any aspect of warming.
7
You can't be serious. It numbers in the dozens, which means dozens more than Obama and likely you. Here is one just to play your little game: Williams, Menne and Thorne, Benchmarking the performance of pairwise homogenization of surface temperatures in the United States, J. Geophysical Research. I read from the canon, including the report of WG1 from the IPCC. Do you?
Climate change, like other religions, are alike in that they are not knowable. Nevertheless adherents hold these views with a fervent dogmatism. The end of the World is near they both claim . The weather will always change, you can count on that. I may have to buy another Window unit to keep cool. And if obama is so worried about global warming maybe he should quit droning and bombing. That really does heat up the World as does his rhetoric.
7
I think it's hilarious that somebody would go straight from how we can't know anything about tempratures to air-conditioning.
It's all well-and-good for President Obama to lead on climate change, but will Congress and the courts follow. So far, most of Mr. Obama's initiatives are being blocked. Perhaps, the recently concluded TPP trade deal should have contained climate change language that would have coupled business growth with reducing heat-trapping gases from factories. This type of balance may be the only way to get Congressional support from both sides of the aisle for both trade and controlling fossil fuel emissions.
2
I'm curious as to why you want to cut fossil fuel emissions.
There's no evidence that reducing them would affect the global temperature one whit. America is broke. Every child born is awarded $50K of government debt. Any accord in Paris will only increase that.
German citizens pays 4 times per kWh that we pay due to their investment in solar.
Why do you wish to sell our children into debt slavery and decrease their standard of living by making necessary energy more expensive?
On the say-so of scientists that have been caught lying multiple times?
There's no evidence that reducing them would affect the global temperature one whit. America is broke. Every child born is awarded $50K of government debt. Any accord in Paris will only increase that.
German citizens pays 4 times per kWh that we pay due to their investment in solar.
Why do you wish to sell our children into debt slavery and decrease their standard of living by making necessary energy more expensive?
On the say-so of scientists that have been caught lying multiple times?
5
TPP is a jobs killer and will not be approved by congress. Both sides of the aisle recognize that any "benefit" of TPP is strictly smoke and mirrors. Legislators no longer want to play a role in exporting good paying jobs to third world countries.
3
Why do you want to leave your kids and grandkids stuck with he insane environmental debts we're running up?
3
Why did the US instigate the WTO to penalise India for wanting to subsidise the Indian solar industry and institute DCRs as part of its National Solar Mission (and the International Solar Alliance (the latter launched by Indian PM today at the Paris meeting) when the US subsidises its own renewables and protects them from competition?
How do actions like this "encourage" the developing world to reduce carbon-based emissions? Do US company profits supersede the rights of developing countries to develop more self-reliant renewable industries?
Also, for all the lecturing and berating of India and China here on coal: the US is one of the biggest exporters of coal, especially to China in recent years. How are you going to reconcile asking for reduced coal-based emissions and being a big exporter of the stuff? Shouldn't you be targeting your own coal exporters with some of this "advice"? Or do jobs matter more?
From the WSJ last year: "The New Future for American Coal: Export It
Consol Energy Shipped 10 Million Tons Through Baltimore Facility; The 'Million Dollar Mile' Train":
"As environmental restrictions and abundant natural gas reduce coal consumption at home, exports have become more important for U.S. mining companies. U.S. coal shipments outside the country in 2014 are expected to surpass 100 million tons for the third year, a record string. A high level of exports helps keep the domestic supply in line with demand and helps prevent U.S. prices from tanking."
How do actions like this "encourage" the developing world to reduce carbon-based emissions? Do US company profits supersede the rights of developing countries to develop more self-reliant renewable industries?
Also, for all the lecturing and berating of India and China here on coal: the US is one of the biggest exporters of coal, especially to China in recent years. How are you going to reconcile asking for reduced coal-based emissions and being a big exporter of the stuff? Shouldn't you be targeting your own coal exporters with some of this "advice"? Or do jobs matter more?
From the WSJ last year: "The New Future for American Coal: Export It
Consol Energy Shipped 10 Million Tons Through Baltimore Facility; The 'Million Dollar Mile' Train":
"As environmental restrictions and abundant natural gas reduce coal consumption at home, exports have become more important for U.S. mining companies. U.S. coal shipments outside the country in 2014 are expected to surpass 100 million tons for the third year, a record string. A high level of exports helps keep the domestic supply in line with demand and helps prevent U.S. prices from tanking."
1
The Republicans ought to get real that global warming is a result of climate change, which poses an imminent threat to the sustainability of our planet. Their stearing away from any agreement that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions is highly irresponsible.
China, which has the world's largest population is determined to tackle climate change. Narendra Modi insists that developing countries should be allowed to burn coal to fuel growth, and that India should obtain "free technology from other countries as well as significant financial aid." The problem is that Indian businesses, which don't invest a cent in R&D, would benefit from this "free technology" and create a monopoly at home, by keeping foreigners out of their domestic market. Why can't India's billionaires invest in environmental protection, like some in the West do?
China, which has the world's largest population is determined to tackle climate change. Narendra Modi insists that developing countries should be allowed to burn coal to fuel growth, and that India should obtain "free technology from other countries as well as significant financial aid." The problem is that Indian businesses, which don't invest a cent in R&D, would benefit from this "free technology" and create a monopoly at home, by keeping foreigners out of their domestic market. Why can't India's billionaires invest in environmental protection, like some in the West do?
2
Nah, they'll commission some of their friends to do a study and pay them many dollars to come up with something that says nothing.
1
What will happen is Trump arrive on 2016? Trump is thinking only on his ideas and not world situation. He is thinking that ISIS is the only issue that we have to pay attention, but there are many topics that we have to start work them for our future generation.
2
The choices these politicians "debate" are the false dichotomy of taking economy-stunting actions or to grow emissions among the world's poorest. These are not real choices - these are arguments made to look like you are debating a tough problem.
India doesn't need coal - it needs reliable power. There are multiple other ways to produce reliable power far cleaner than coal. Stunting India's economic growth - fueled largely by stronger countries importing Indian goods - is an unethical choice itself.
If we insist 350ppm atmospheric CO2 is to be our target, and we acknowledge that it will take 5 generations of drastic reductions to even get close to that, then these talks mean nothing. Our world will look vastly different in 2-4 generations, emitters will lie, and nothing will happen.
The ultimate choice will remain the same: technology must advance to solve the problem. We must sequester - or emit into space - and control atmospheric gasses in a way that is good for all people of Earth. Similarly, we must learn to manage our climate and local weather patterns.
But those are practical solutions that do not require the zealotry exhibited in these conferences.
India doesn't need coal - it needs reliable power. There are multiple other ways to produce reliable power far cleaner than coal. Stunting India's economic growth - fueled largely by stronger countries importing Indian goods - is an unethical choice itself.
If we insist 350ppm atmospheric CO2 is to be our target, and we acknowledge that it will take 5 generations of drastic reductions to even get close to that, then these talks mean nothing. Our world will look vastly different in 2-4 generations, emitters will lie, and nothing will happen.
The ultimate choice will remain the same: technology must advance to solve the problem. We must sequester - or emit into space - and control atmospheric gasses in a way that is good for all people of Earth. Similarly, we must learn to manage our climate and local weather patterns.
But those are practical solutions that do not require the zealotry exhibited in these conferences.
4
Hi Joe from Southeast PA: I am sure it comes as quite a relief to the billion Indians who didn't realise that all they had to do was take advice from a small cadre of white progressive elitists on how to power their economy to lift them all out of poverty. Is there anything white progressive elitists can't do? You guys, I mean wow, you seem to have all the answers!
7
You are both right. We can all do better. But that's not an excuse to let our comfortable earth become a whole lot less so.
The US has confused and silly, if not downright stupid and dangerous, politics.
It's a difficult problem, but remember, we can because we must.
The US has confused and silly, if not downright stupid and dangerous, politics.
It's a difficult problem, but remember, we can because we must.
3
We are partly to blame for climate change, but the Mother Earth will solve.
2
This has all been politicised. The data has been skewed and cherry picked to reflect a particular viewpoint. Politicians are involved in a great scare campaign to frighten people into whatever action this global elite wants to force us into. Billions of dollars are funneled to research and universities to produce studies with a pre-determined conclusion. Meanwhile, nothing on the table would make a actual difference in whatever warming may be on the horizon.
It just amazes me how these environmental extremists have somehow insinuated themselves into places of power, and that their only answer to this supposedly existential threat just happens to be exactly what leftists have been fighting for for the last 50 years: higher taxes and reduced standard of living.
It just amazes me how these environmental extremists have somehow insinuated themselves into places of power, and that their only answer to this supposedly existential threat just happens to be exactly what leftists have been fighting for for the last 50 years: higher taxes and reduced standard of living.
9
Actually environmental deniers have got the power these days. And where is your mind, your curiosity, that you can get your information from information manipulated with the assistance of money from big fossil, and ignore the many expert sources of information?
All you to do is go to one expert organization anywhere worldwide, and ignore Heartland, WattsUpWithThat, Marc Morano (who went from Limbaugh to Inhofe) and all the emphasis on a tiny group of experts who have basically gone rogue on real science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Starting with Tyndall and Arrhenius, and becoming quite clear by the 1980s. A still political operators continue to argue using scientific honesty and uncertainty, and the human behavior of frustrated scientists, who don't suffer fools gladly, to undermine science.
Or do you believe Lord Monckton, peculiar peer?
All you to do is go to one expert organization anywhere worldwide, and ignore Heartland, WattsUpWithThat, Marc Morano (who went from Limbaugh to Inhofe) and all the emphasis on a tiny group of experts who have basically gone rogue on real science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Starting with Tyndall and Arrhenius, and becoming quite clear by the 1980s. A still political operators continue to argue using scientific honesty and uncertainty, and the human behavior of frustrated scientists, who don't suffer fools gladly, to undermine science.
Or do you believe Lord Monckton, peculiar peer?
3
There is no viable motive for any scientist to do what you are describing. The rare instances we've found of falsified scientific results are those funded by industry. Most scientific investigation is very competitive. If someone is publishing false reports or slanted reports, another scientist is going to call them on it. I can't imagine any possible way that scientists all over the world could be convinced to reach the same results in order to help leftists in the US do anything. If you are one of the 1%, then I can see why you would think that there is a movement to raise your taxes and reduce your standard of living. If you are not, then your argument makes no sense at all.
There is a lot of fear mongering in politics, but most of it involves things like how we're all going to die of Ebola or have horrible terrorists attacks if we let immigrants or refugees into our country. Or how unsafe we will all be if there are any limits on gun ownership. Some of the biggest threats to life in America are 30,000 plus people a year dying from guns, and a large number, not accurately counted, of illness and death due to environmental factors. It helps if you do a little risk analysis and look at what is actually causing problems, like climate change, rather than fearing the unlikely sources of problems.
There is a lot of fear mongering in politics, but most of it involves things like how we're all going to die of Ebola or have horrible terrorists attacks if we let immigrants or refugees into our country. Or how unsafe we will all be if there are any limits on gun ownership. Some of the biggest threats to life in America are 30,000 plus people a year dying from guns, and a large number, not accurately counted, of illness and death due to environmental factors. It helps if you do a little risk analysis and look at what is actually causing problems, like climate change, rather than fearing the unlikely sources of problems.
It is simply amazing that Obama’s foreign grandstanding, America bashing, and empty promises passes for “leadership” as cited in so many posts here today! This can only be proof of the left’s acceptance of his 7 years of inaction and missteps as success. A sad spectacle.
There are so many constructive energy policy things he could do if he really wanted to accomplish something with Congress. For example, advancing a new nuclear power construction initiative – solar, wind and rainbow power aren’t going to get us anywhere soon. Only nuclear has the proven ability to economically replace some coal power today. Or he could craft a green house gas emission tax on Chinese made products. We all know that they are the major culprit here and that they have NO real intention of changing the way they operate. This would also immediately help remaining US manufacturers and job growth, who struggle under costly government environmental regulations.
But of course he doesn’t really want to accomplish anything substantive, because he would rather blame his political adversaries and predecessors, and he won’t because he cannot inspire or lead.
There are so many constructive energy policy things he could do if he really wanted to accomplish something with Congress. For example, advancing a new nuclear power construction initiative – solar, wind and rainbow power aren’t going to get us anywhere soon. Only nuclear has the proven ability to economically replace some coal power today. Or he could craft a green house gas emission tax on Chinese made products. We all know that they are the major culprit here and that they have NO real intention of changing the way they operate. This would also immediately help remaining US manufacturers and job growth, who struggle under costly government environmental regulations.
But of course he doesn’t really want to accomplish anything substantive, because he would rather blame his political adversaries and predecessors, and he won’t because he cannot inspire or lead.
16
Must be why we're building all the new nuke plants and planning more.
By the way, i am both inspird and led by what I take to be the best Prez of my lifetime.
I understand that you feel differently, but how 'bout lowering the decibel levl a little, maybe read a book now and then?
By the way, i am both inspird and led by what I take to be the best Prez of my lifetime.
I understand that you feel differently, but how 'bout lowering the decibel levl a little, maybe read a book now and then?
1
Reading some of the comments, particularly those coming from India (or purporting to do so in any event), it's really a remarkable global phenomenon - the same thing that keeps the poor voting for Republicans who only want to make their lives worse must keep people in developing nations from fighting against getting their power from clean sources rather than the sources that results in even more local pollution.
Here's the simple truth: ultimately climate change will engulf the entire world's population in misery that we can barely understand today, it will be the poor that suffer the most first. And the poor in developing nations, those in India, in Africa, in China, etc., they will all feel it the most and the earliest.
Let's act now - not as children would, but as adults. Let's work together, change the trajectory of our climate for the better, for the future. Humans can achieve so much, a future of space colonization, of disease eradication and of lifespans in centuries rather than decades. We're on the cusp of knowledge that can mean a bright future for all. At the same time, we're at the cusp of letting greed, apathy and ignorance shape our course for a life that is poor, nasty, brutish and short.
The choice is ours to make, not in decades, but now, today.
Here's the simple truth: ultimately climate change will engulf the entire world's population in misery that we can barely understand today, it will be the poor that suffer the most first. And the poor in developing nations, those in India, in Africa, in China, etc., they will all feel it the most and the earliest.
Let's act now - not as children would, but as adults. Let's work together, change the trajectory of our climate for the better, for the future. Humans can achieve so much, a future of space colonization, of disease eradication and of lifespans in centuries rather than decades. We're on the cusp of knowledge that can mean a bright future for all. At the same time, we're at the cusp of letting greed, apathy and ignorance shape our course for a life that is poor, nasty, brutish and short.
The choice is ours to make, not in decades, but now, today.
6
Why is it that Obama feels like this hoax is more important than the real life threat that is posed to the people he is sworn to protect than terrorism, jobs, racial tensions and protecting our borders? I am perplexed.
7
If America is seen to do nothing to resolve this issue, then foreign governments, not just ISIL, may seek to ameliorate the issue with a couple well placed EMPs over the continental US, which would drop the US's carbon emissions to zero. Then no one in the US would have to worry about terrorism, jobs, racial tensions or national borders.
1
You're perplexed because like so many other humans, you're incapable of perceiving a threat larger but longer term. Climate change is a monstrously huge threat, but it doesn't provoke an adrenaline response like being shot at. Use your logic and think bigger than your immediate timeframe. If you do, and you care about the future of our species, you'll see which is the larger existential threat.
6
And they are worried about the ocean rising and having a planet for their descendants to live on...and pay taxes on as a slave, apparently, because they dont seem overly concerned for the debt that their future generations will have to deal with.
Some folks here want humanity to act in concert on climate change, to "act as a species" as one poster hopefully puts it.
Please: fantasies and day-dreaming will not solve these issues. The last time we acted as a species was before Adam and Eve.
In other words, never.
Please: fantasies and day-dreaming will not solve these issues. The last time we acted as a species was before Adam and Eve.
In other words, never.
3
Yeah, I said it probably won't happen, but way to bum me out with reality.
2
Once again, President Obama proclaims to the world that the United States is to blame for something. He does it with such consistency, that he seems compelled to expose real, arguable or even imagined culpability at every opportunity. This is a laudable tactic when trying to mend a personal relationship, but it doesn't work in forums where hostile countries are eager to blame all the world's ills on the United states. This only feeds into their narrative and gets him nothing. If anything, it gives justification to those who would drop most of the problem in this country's lap while India , China and countless others deliberately spew poison into the atmosphere.
Moreover, regardless of whose fault it is, the train has left the station on climate change. It is happening, and will happen. Rather than spend futile billions/trillions on trying to stop the earth, money should be allocated to mitigating the inevitable effects.
Plans must be made to relocate people who may be displaced by rising sea levels. Barriers must be built to protect cities like new York, Miami or San Diego which are located near sea level. Agriculture science can plan for the effect climate change on crops, perhaps even to use to change for benefit. Longer growing seasons might produce more food to feed the world's population. These are the areas where monumental efforts should be made, and where a measurable difference can occur
Moreover, regardless of whose fault it is, the train has left the station on climate change. It is happening, and will happen. Rather than spend futile billions/trillions on trying to stop the earth, money should be allocated to mitigating the inevitable effects.
Plans must be made to relocate people who may be displaced by rising sea levels. Barriers must be built to protect cities like new York, Miami or San Diego which are located near sea level. Agriculture science can plan for the effect climate change on crops, perhaps even to use to change for benefit. Longer growing seasons might produce more food to feed the world's population. These are the areas where monumental efforts should be made, and where a measurable difference can occur
3
A simple question for you: How to you intend to produce more food without fresh water after the glaciers go? Desalinization plants cannot possible handle the world's demand.
4
I think that's his point... we'd better figure out how because it *is* going to happen. Spend money on mitigation, not on trying to stop something is is going to happen anyway.
And just a small point, but I don't think we get *any* fresh water from glaciers, not in any amounts to speak of. It mostly comes in liquid form from the sky.
And just a small point, but I don't think we get *any* fresh water from glaciers, not in any amounts to speak of. It mostly comes in liquid form from the sky.
Not a simple question, nor are any of the issues involved in combating the effects of climate change. That's why we must give serious attention to develop the means to survive climate change. Our efforts thus far seem to be concentrated on combating the causes of climate change. That's laudable, but most of the change is irreversible. If we fail to mitigate not only its causes, but its effects, we will be responsible for the calamities that may occur.
Anyone who does not understand China and India positions on climate change, and what those countries are likely to actually do (as opposed to posture), is delusional. Without those countries' real buy-in, backed-up by action, any conferences about reining in carbon emissions are pointless and a waste of time and tax-payers' money.
4
millions of people in th philippines cannot afford a gas stove, so they use charcoal derived from cutting down th rainforest, or they burn scrap wood they scrounged from someplace
and even more ion china, india, africa etc
how will this be stopped ?
it wont
and even more ion china, india, africa etc
how will this be stopped ?
it wont
2
The best thing President Obama could do to fight climate change is withdraw the Trans-Pacific Partnership from Congressional consideration & withdraw us from our so-called "Free Trade" Agreements. Globalization wastes more fossil fuels & created more pollution than any other activity in the lifetime of most reading this.
Globalization caused the exporting of our industrial base and the recreation of it in other countries, requiring massive construction of factories and supporting infrastructure. The carbon footprint of such activity swamps all the cumulative pledges of the various nations at the conference. The embodied energy and pollution from globalization is stupefying.
Then factor in the fuel wasted and pollution released by shipping stuff all over the world. A new iPhone ordered from Apple will be shipped to your home by aircraft and the components are shipped to China from sources all over the world- including the United States. Calculate the total carbon footprint of the clothes, gadgets, shoes, computers, phones, car parts and even food shipped to the US from elsewhere.
Recently President Obama signed off on allowing US meat being shipped frozen to China for processing and packing for return to the United States. How much carbon results from chopping up a cow or chicken in China to save a nickel over doing the same in Iowa or Arkansas.
Charity begins at home. We need to abandon Globalization and re-localize wherever possible.
Globalization caused the exporting of our industrial base and the recreation of it in other countries, requiring massive construction of factories and supporting infrastructure. The carbon footprint of such activity swamps all the cumulative pledges of the various nations at the conference. The embodied energy and pollution from globalization is stupefying.
Then factor in the fuel wasted and pollution released by shipping stuff all over the world. A new iPhone ordered from Apple will be shipped to your home by aircraft and the components are shipped to China from sources all over the world- including the United States. Calculate the total carbon footprint of the clothes, gadgets, shoes, computers, phones, car parts and even food shipped to the US from elsewhere.
Recently President Obama signed off on allowing US meat being shipped frozen to China for processing and packing for return to the United States. How much carbon results from chopping up a cow or chicken in China to save a nickel over doing the same in Iowa or Arkansas.
Charity begins at home. We need to abandon Globalization and re-localize wherever possible.
16
Not that's truly ironic: US-raised beef can't be sold in China because of concern over "mad-cow" disease, but they're more than happy to process it for us and send it back.
1
I'm thinking that if every car in the world was a Prius, it would not put a dent in the pollution caused by all of the jet airliners in the air 24 hours a day in the world. Raise your hand, world leaders, if you did not fly to this meeting.
Nobody mentions this source of pollution and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Nobody mentions this source of pollution and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
3
It is peculiarly ironic that Hollande and Obama are focusing all their attention on continuing the endless Wars which cost $1 Trillion per year for US taxpayers and $2 Trillion approximately for the world. The Pentagon is the world's biggest oil consumer and greenhouse emitter accounting for 6% of US oil consumption.
Compare the sums pledged versus $1 trillion every year for endless Wars creating death, destruction and breeding ever new terrorists.
This needs to be on the agenda!
Compare the sums pledged versus $1 trillion every year for endless Wars creating death, destruction and breeding ever new terrorists.
This needs to be on the agenda!
3
Today anyone that questions the "scientific community" and "experts" on man made C02 emissions warming the planet and causing catastrophic climate change are branded "deniers".
Well, back in the 1970s the "scientific community" and the "experts" told everyone to be worried about global cooling, they scared everyone, but it turned out it was a huge lie, the same is happening today!
The current climate change scare is based on a population reduction agenda, not on real science, the problem is the lie so huge just about everyone believes it.
Human C02 emissions have raised the planets temperature but it has NOT caused "catastrophic" changes. Years ago the "experts" were scaring everyone that by now Manhattan and other coastal cities would be under water.
The so called "scientists" in the scientific community who claim "human C02 emissions must be drastically reduced or we face a catastrophe" are not Jesus Christ, they are human, and they follow the money, that is they've been bought out by institutions such as the World Wildlife Fund which was founded by oligarchical and aristocratic people such as Prince Phillip, Sir Julian Huxley and Prince Bernhard, all three of them were founders of the modern "environmentalist movement" and known for their affiliations with the Nazi's and eugenics. They also shared the belief that the world has a limited carrying capacity and that billions of people need to be reduced, or eliminated.
Well, back in the 1970s the "scientific community" and the "experts" told everyone to be worried about global cooling, they scared everyone, but it turned out it was a huge lie, the same is happening today!
The current climate change scare is based on a population reduction agenda, not on real science, the problem is the lie so huge just about everyone believes it.
Human C02 emissions have raised the planets temperature but it has NOT caused "catastrophic" changes. Years ago the "experts" were scaring everyone that by now Manhattan and other coastal cities would be under water.
The so called "scientists" in the scientific community who claim "human C02 emissions must be drastically reduced or we face a catastrophe" are not Jesus Christ, they are human, and they follow the money, that is they've been bought out by institutions such as the World Wildlife Fund which was founded by oligarchical and aristocratic people such as Prince Phillip, Sir Julian Huxley and Prince Bernhard, all three of them were founders of the modern "environmentalist movement" and known for their affiliations with the Nazi's and eugenics. They also shared the belief that the world has a limited carrying capacity and that billions of people need to be reduced, or eliminated.
8
Look, everyone chooses which scientists to listen to. You can go with the 99% who say there's a problem or go with the 1% that denies there's a problem. Your choice.
3
There is no 99%. You just read that somewhere, and are parroting it.
And the number was 97%. But it is not 97%, the way that was created was basically fraudulent.
Having said that, climate change is real, and may be a threat. Wild nonsense peddled by ignorant people, some of whom are prominently at the Paris conference, does not help things.
Let's talk about real solutions. That is not what is happening in Paris. What is happening in Paris is posturing and preening. And our chief representative there is pretty good at that.
And the number was 97%. But it is not 97%, the way that was created was basically fraudulent.
Having said that, climate change is real, and may be a threat. Wild nonsense peddled by ignorant people, some of whom are prominently at the Paris conference, does not help things.
Let's talk about real solutions. That is not what is happening in Paris. What is happening in Paris is posturing and preening. And our chief representative there is pretty good at that.
6
brief publicity in the 1970s, mostly from the press, when scientists were figuring out what's what, and it still gets brought up in each and every conversation?
Yes, they are deniers of climate change, a perfectly good dictionary word that involves avoiding the truth about things.
Yes, they are deniers of climate change, a perfectly good dictionary word that involves avoiding the truth about things.
1
We are already doomed and in 500 years the Earth is finished. Nothing matters, and celebrating this fool's rehearsed lectures does nothing.
So just party.
So just party.
6
Five hundred years?
You go, girl! (Pollyanna.)
You go, girl! (Pollyanna.)
1
Obama's speech included enough gassy language to drive the global temperature up a full degree. The truth is, you could shut down the American economy entirely and you would not reduce global CO2 emissions by as much as the INCREASE China and India plan for the next half century.
If this were a serious matter, rather than a political one, Obama's deal with the Chinese last year to allow them unfettered increases in CO2 production to stratospheric levels before they consider maybe voluntarily capping them would have been seen as suicidal. Instead it was applauded by the New York Times and sundry other progressive house organs.
Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about whether this is really a crisis?
If this were a serious matter, rather than a political one, Obama's deal with the Chinese last year to allow them unfettered increases in CO2 production to stratospheric levels before they consider maybe voluntarily capping them would have been seen as suicidal. Instead it was applauded by the New York Times and sundry other progressive house organs.
Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about whether this is really a crisis?
16
I see that before the conference is even out of the starting gate, the Court Jester from Washington, DC is already apologizing profusely.
Could any Democrat please tell me what I am missing?
Thanks
Could any Democrat please tell me what I am missing?
Thanks
8
Not a thing JohnS, you are missing not a thing. Obama has been apologizing since he first stepped foot in the White House.
4
No, no, no, there he goes again--apologizing for our country. When are we going to get a leader who understands that the United States is an exceptional country, the greatest country in world history, and that we apologize to nobody for nothing? When are we going to get the strong leader that we deserve, one who recognizes that scientific and other kinds of reality are just obstacles to be kicked out of the way on our march toward national greatness--somebody like Vladimir Putin or Hosni Mubarak?
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
8
"Exceptional" in what respect? "Greatest" in what way? Just saying we are isn't worth squat. If we want to be regarded as a great nation, maybe we should start acting like one again.
4
These big meetings seem to be more about grandstanding and pontificating than getting anything done. What needs to be done is painful hence a lot of talk but not much action.
I really don't spend much time looking at the science behind global warming or getting uptight about who is right or wrong because I know first-hand what they world looks like from my travels and in summary we are ruining the planet. I won't call out the countries but when in Asia I see garbage on side streets that is 3 feet deep, contaminated water and the natural world overrun with human activity. More horrifying is that these countries want to consume like the USA and they have at least 1/3rd of the world's population!!
Looking around us at the natural environment it is easy to see and statistics tells us that the trend lines for animal habitat and various species are not good and many are threatened with extinction if the trend lines are not reversed.
The human population is too large and too impactful on the world. We have to get away from large consumer driven economies and live with less. We don't need all the things that are pushed at us and we buy and that end up in the garbage. These are the kinds of things that have to be put on the table if anything material is going to happen.
I really don't spend much time looking at the science behind global warming or getting uptight about who is right or wrong because I know first-hand what they world looks like from my travels and in summary we are ruining the planet. I won't call out the countries but when in Asia I see garbage on side streets that is 3 feet deep, contaminated water and the natural world overrun with human activity. More horrifying is that these countries want to consume like the USA and they have at least 1/3rd of the world's population!!
Looking around us at the natural environment it is easy to see and statistics tells us that the trend lines for animal habitat and various species are not good and many are threatened with extinction if the trend lines are not reversed.
The human population is too large and too impactful on the world. We have to get away from large consumer driven economies and live with less. We don't need all the things that are pushed at us and we buy and that end up in the garbage. These are the kinds of things that have to be put on the table if anything material is going to happen.
8
A strong climate change agreement out of Paris would be the perfect international response to the recent barbarian attack on Paris, and on civilization itself.
ISIS is clearly bent on destroying civilization; the nations of the world are going to protect and repair the planet.
ISIS is clearly bent on destroying civilization; the nations of the world are going to protect and repair the planet.
5
ISIS is laughing up the sleeves of their robes at how breathtakingly stupid you progressives are that you actually think this is true.
3
Well, that's a sea change since the industrialized nations have been slowly destroying the world for a couple of hundred years.
1
I agree. Better to shoot first and aim later.
1
Providing the world’s most deprived countries with solar panels instead of better health care or education is inexcusable self-indulgence.
In an online U.N. survey of more than 8 million people in the world’s poorest countries, they ranked “action taken on climate change” dead last out of 16 categories when asked “What matters most to you?” Top priorities are “a good education,” “better health care, “better job opportunities,” “an honest and responsive government,” and “affordable, nutritious food.”, etc.
According to a recent paper by the Public Health Foundation of India, just $570 million a year—or 0.57% of the $100 billion climate-finance goal—spent on direct malaria-prevention policies like mosquito nets would reduce malaria deaths by 50% by 2025, saving an estimated 300,000 lives a year.
All this green posturing by progressives is deeply immoral.
In an online U.N. survey of more than 8 million people in the world’s poorest countries, they ranked “action taken on climate change” dead last out of 16 categories when asked “What matters most to you?” Top priorities are “a good education,” “better health care, “better job opportunities,” “an honest and responsive government,” and “affordable, nutritious food.”, etc.
According to a recent paper by the Public Health Foundation of India, just $570 million a year—or 0.57% of the $100 billion climate-finance goal—spent on direct malaria-prevention policies like mosquito nets would reduce malaria deaths by 50% by 2025, saving an estimated 300,000 lives a year.
All this green posturing by progressives is deeply immoral.
3
Krugton, of course you are right about doing a lot more on health, education, food security, etc. But this doesn't mean that we don't also do climate change mitigation. It is not a zero sum game. We can afford it all, in fact must do so. Question: Money aside, do you think climate change is for real, and if so, should it be acted on?
2
I just returned from two weeks in Singapore, where most days you could not see the sun because of smoke haze. The haze is from fires in Indonesia that burn for months to clear land. The smoke affects cities hundreds of miles away. Local news reports that these fires emit as much carbon as a year's worth of the US carbon emission. This has been going on when I first visited the region in 2006. Why this story is not published in western media or reported is unknown. The US is not the evil polluter that many of the reader comments reflect. Just visit China or India.
13
The President is the one who is causing "climate change". He has made the climate in our country awful. He has deliberately divided the races against one another and has ignored the Congress and side stepped our Constitution whenever he knows the stupid GOP will not challenge him. The hot air coming out of Obama is the Worlds biggest danger. I am sure he minored in wasting time at Harvard.
8
NYChap... AM radio is indeed one of the great works of modern science, isn't it?
4
And what's the temperature in Chappaqua?...
The word "nuclear" does not appear even once in the article. India has 21 operational reactors, with six more scheduled to come online by 2017. China has 26, with 24 being planned. Nuclear energy, once the reactors are built and the uranium is mined, is zero-carbon. Including the preparation it's still very low carbon. Because of the problems of the past, and the issue of storing waste, it's not nearly as appealing or fashionable as solar or wind, but it's much more reliable and cost-effective, and can generate much larger amounts of electricity quickly. Why aren't we hearing more about it? Solar and wind are great... we need more of both. But nuclear has to be part of the solution if we are going to curb global warming.
12
I don't understand India's argument. One large cost of modernity has been climate change. If they are participating in the modern world of electric lights, airplanes, cars and global supply chains, then they are benefiting from the pollution of all of our forebears.
1
As I read it, India's argument is very clear -- it does not want a Climate Control Plan which will not be based on per person emission, for without such a base, countries like India will have to mortgage their future. They will not be allowed even to provide each citizen the privilege of riding a Bus, while the Western developed countries keep on wasting energy in their SUVs and sports cars! A solution or suggested regime must be egalitarian which will leave room for the developing world to provide the basic advancement and comfort to each of their citizens.
CO2 is not a pollutant—it is an essential part of the biosphere. Because the present atmospheric CO2 levels are well below the optimum for plant growth, human-caused increases in CO2 concentrations are already contributing to increases in agricultural productivity and natural plant growth—creating a measurably greener planet.
The Paris 2015 summit is not only about nations potentially wasting time and resources on a phantom problem existing only inside computer models—the ugly reality is that the CO2 reduction programs being proposed would increase poverty, lower living conditions, and accelerate death rates around the world. The world simply cannot support a growing population with improving conditions of life using only solar, wind, and other forms of so-called “green” energy.
More to the point, this scheme is being intensely promoted by modern followers of the population reduction ideology popularized by Thomas Malthus.
Organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund/World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) have repeatedly declared that current human population is billions of individuals beyond the Earth's ”carrying capacity,” and must therefore be reduced by some billions of people. The present push for a CO2 reduction program is deeply rooted in this Malthusian ideological motivation. But Malthus was wrong in the Eighteenth Century, and his followers are wrong today.
The Paris 2015 summit is not only about nations potentially wasting time and resources on a phantom problem existing only inside computer models—the ugly reality is that the CO2 reduction programs being proposed would increase poverty, lower living conditions, and accelerate death rates around the world. The world simply cannot support a growing population with improving conditions of life using only solar, wind, and other forms of so-called “green” energy.
More to the point, this scheme is being intensely promoted by modern followers of the population reduction ideology popularized by Thomas Malthus.
Organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund/World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) have repeatedly declared that current human population is billions of individuals beyond the Earth's ”carrying capacity,” and must therefore be reduced by some billions of people. The present push for a CO2 reduction program is deeply rooted in this Malthusian ideological motivation. But Malthus was wrong in the Eighteenth Century, and his followers are wrong today.
29
It is the unnatural excess of CO2 which is considered as dangerous, not CO2 itself. Yes, there is such a thing as the Greenhouse effect and nobody denies it. We don't know exactly how high CO2 concentrations will impact climate, but we know there are considerable risks. What we need to to is to reduce those risks by reducing CO2 emissions. This can be likened to reducing spreed when you drive in a fog patch. It's the reasonable thing to do when you don't know for sure what's going to happen but you know risks exist.
3
Your first para's nonsense, as I assure you that if I were to come over with a big grey tank and raise your house's partial pressure of CO2 some, you'd notice. Or I can dump you inna ocean, and you can try out this whole "part of Nature, so always harmless," theory with water.
Your second para repeats the old right-wing pieties about "the poor," as though the capitalist and colonial economics you're cheering for weren't a big oart of what stck it to "the poor," in the first place. And just so's ya know, all the projections say that the poor will be hit first, most and hardest by warming.
Third: Malthus didn't advocate. He argued that every pop has its limits, and then will crash.
The acxusations about the WWF are beyond silly.
Your second para repeats the old right-wing pieties about "the poor," as though the capitalist and colonial economics you're cheering for weren't a big oart of what stck it to "the poor," in the first place. And just so's ya know, all the projections say that the poor will be hit first, most and hardest by warming.
Third: Malthus didn't advocate. He argued that every pop has its limits, and then will crash.
The acxusations about the WWF are beyond silly.
4
JE's post ignores (among other factors) the obvious effect of increased CO2 upon temperature, which in turn results in the growth of desert areas.
How much CO2 did POTUS deliver by flying a 747 from DC to Paris?
Ever since we started agriculture, humans have been affecting the "climate" by adding more methane and CO2 to the atmosphere. This is hypothesized as the reason why we're currently overdue for the inevitable Ice Age.
Ever since we started agriculture, humans have been affecting the "climate" by adding more methane and CO2 to the atmosphere. This is hypothesized as the reason why we're currently overdue for the inevitable Ice Age.
4
Simply put, on a per capita basis, the USA's Co2 emissions are at their lowest point in our lifetimes. They have not been this low in over 50 years and the trend continues dramatically downward. We have reduced by over 25% since the peak in the mid-70s.
Western Europe is also down about 30% from its peak.
Both the USA and Western Europe have made dramatic technological advances in energy conservation and shared these with the rest of the world.
Certain other countries, however, are on trends that are dramatically upward. They argue that they have the right to continue to increase their rate of destruction of the planet because of past history, as if there is any good excuse for destroying the planet.
I have spent a number of years in the Middle East, in an area that is second only to China in its increasing rate of Co2 production on a per capita basis. There is an absolute refusal here to recognize even the simplest and most basic environmental practices. The waste and pollution that I see around me on a daily basis are shocking. The crass ignorance of the people, to continue this behavior, is even more shocking.
Western Europe is also down about 30% from its peak.
Both the USA and Western Europe have made dramatic technological advances in energy conservation and shared these with the rest of the world.
Certain other countries, however, are on trends that are dramatically upward. They argue that they have the right to continue to increase their rate of destruction of the planet because of past history, as if there is any good excuse for destroying the planet.
I have spent a number of years in the Middle East, in an area that is second only to China in its increasing rate of Co2 production on a per capita basis. There is an absolute refusal here to recognize even the simplest and most basic environmental practices. The waste and pollution that I see around me on a daily basis are shocking. The crass ignorance of the people, to continue this behavior, is even more shocking.
3
A note on symbolism. Obama's trip on Air Force One, the Boeing 747, is expected to produce 189 tons of CO2. Why can't he for once leave that whale of a plane at home, and take the smaller, more fuel efficient 757 narrow body? It certainly has the range. And it is outfitted with all the security / communications he needs. The 747 just screams, "do as I say, not as I do."
4
Yes, I'm sure that the president's flight has caused global climate change. Of course, he should have walked on water right across to Paris. What's wrong with the guy?
4
Tide still rising in Miami?
4
Hang in there only another year. Then your poor fevered bent out of shape psyche can take a rest - until the next Democrat takes the Oath of Office.
1
Sandstone cliffs in Utah; limestone quarries in Indiana; palm frond fossils in Colorado; the continent stretching WesternInteriorSeaway draining into the GoMexico & the ArcticO; what happened to the NAmerican continent in those years prior to our obsessively obsessive culture fixating, like a beauty pageant contestant over serious discussion, on how to appear intelligent while focusing only on her beauty regimen & the $50000 scholarship for a proper education? CHANGE. The constant change that precipitates the fossilized desert sand in ZionNationalPark; the calcified remains of sea creatures in Bedford & the tropical plants buried within spitting distance of the RockyMountains. So here's a D.I.Y. guide for those who expect their government & NGOs to simulate Sisyphus & his repetitive labors while continuing to consume creature comforts without sacrificing one ounce of their own renewable energy; start closer to home with your cerebral cause & perhaps in one hundred thousand years, your fossilized bones will be sifted & sorted by some species intent on discovering your place in your corner of the world.
2
"Mr. Obama has staked much of his legacy on ensuring success here."
Nonsense. Obama has already staked out a position which will ensure Paris is a failure - he is the only world leader already to have rejected obligatory reductions. Optional limits will not work.
Nonsense. Obama has already staked out a position which will ensure Paris is a failure - he is the only world leader already to have rejected obligatory reductions. Optional limits will not work.
2
Obligatory reductions in the US would require a formal treaty structure, which has to be agreed on in the Senate by a 2/3 vote. Not going to happen.
3
There was a cartoon I saw once that I really agreed with when it came to Global Warming and the need for Sustainable Energy, aimed towards climate change deniers the basic idea was this: What if we ARE wrong about climate change and end up making the world a better place anyways? Seriously....(Sustainable Energy is better than fossil fuels for a whole host of reasons even regardless of carbon emissions). I would like to point out that Elon Musk (the guy who has started 2 billion dollar enterprises (not including solar city or paypal)) believes that Sustainable Energy is one of the 5 things that will most affect humanity in the future. A true businessman said it himself. What if we make the world a better place even if we are wrong, deniers? <br /> You best be getting paid by Exxon or something because you can be sure the Congressmen spouting this stuff are.
10
A better place for who? Not the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people who will be condemned to shorter lives of dire poverty because they can no longer get access to inexpensive, reliable energy. Not for the tens of thousands who are already dying each year because they can't afford the increased cost of heat in the winter when it has to be obtained with solar and wind.
But hey - politicians and bureaucrats and plutocrats can still jet around having fun and making themselves feel good at the expense of everyone else.
But hey - politicians and bureaucrats and plutocrats can still jet around having fun and making themselves feel good at the expense of everyone else.
1
In the long run, Diane, they are probably better off living sustainably than buying into the myth that they need access to "inexpensive, reliable energy," if by that you mean coal and oil.
2
I like what I hear! I'm also happy that Mr. Obama doesn't feel the need to endear the deniers and extremists in the U.S.
The U.S. is an essential part of the world and if the Republicans want that America leads, it must be in not out. You lead by example, not by dictating and threatening. The climate change threatens all of us, including America and the G.O.P.
The U.S. is an essential part of the world and if the Republicans want that America leads, it must be in not out. You lead by example, not by dictating and threatening. The climate change threatens all of us, including America and the G.O.P.
7
I promise you that any money given to Narenda Modi and India will be wasted through graft and corruption. Modi is a right-wing miserable excuse for any country's leader. India will continue to willingly destroy itself. Note no action regarding cleaning up pollution, a rather nasty way to carry out population control.
I see no reason to optimistic regarding avoiding climate change in general. I believe that James Hansen is the scientist most on target.
You article yesterday, Tales of a Warmer Planet, pretty much sums it up.
Jane Taras Carlson
I see no reason to optimistic regarding avoiding climate change in general. I believe that James Hansen is the scientist most on target.
You article yesterday, Tales of a Warmer Planet, pretty much sums it up.
Jane Taras Carlson
1
Yeah right, says the person whose country has been the most responsible for causing the problem in the first place. Per capita, india's carbon emissions are way way lower than the United States'. It is not a problem of India's making and still people are beating up on India as if the billions of tons of carbon emitted in the last few hundred years is somehow india's fault.
1
And it won't get any better by playing the blame-game. Both countries (and others,too) have contributed significantly to the state we now find ourselves in.
One of the primary reasons storms and the slight rise in sea level are so destructive is that the percentage of the population living within 100 miles of the coast line has increased dramatically in the last 50 to 100 years. Our ancestors moved inland to get away from the dangers of floods and hurricanes. Their insight has been ignored and the population susceptible to the damage of storms has grown exponentially. No amount of carbon polution reduction will solve the fact that we are now populating more dangerous areas. We are wasting our money and our children's future by trying to mitigate the fact that much of the danger of living so close to the oceans can not be solved by solar and wind energy.
7
This is one of those "You can't handle the truth" issues.
The real problem is that we've already put too many humans on Earth. Any effort that does not involve reducing human population by 75% over the next 200 years will probably fall short. And politicians need to talk bluntly about that specific problem.
Mathematics of replacing fossil fuels / natural gas with renewal resources does not work out and will take a long long time before we can scale it up to a point where it can be considered a viable alternative. What we need to do is just consume a lot less energy. The easiest way to do that? Fewer people.
And for all those holier-than-thou tree hugging liberals, here is a fact. The western world became prosperous on the back of those very fossil fuels you dub evil. And with current economics they continue to be the best hope for uplifting large swath of masses in under developed countries. The primary reason why countries like China and India won't move away from coal is because it is the cheapest way to generate energy and the only viable way, not because of some evil plot perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry.
Really want to make a difference? Do not fly, take sail boats across continents, sell your car and do not take rides in any fossil fuel based transport, no house heating in winter or AC in summer, refuse to buy anything from any business that uses heating or AC. Sounds absurd? It is.
The real problem is that we've already put too many humans on Earth. Any effort that does not involve reducing human population by 75% over the next 200 years will probably fall short. And politicians need to talk bluntly about that specific problem.
Mathematics of replacing fossil fuels / natural gas with renewal resources does not work out and will take a long long time before we can scale it up to a point where it can be considered a viable alternative. What we need to do is just consume a lot less energy. The easiest way to do that? Fewer people.
And for all those holier-than-thou tree hugging liberals, here is a fact. The western world became prosperous on the back of those very fossil fuels you dub evil. And with current economics they continue to be the best hope for uplifting large swath of masses in under developed countries. The primary reason why countries like China and India won't move away from coal is because it is the cheapest way to generate energy and the only viable way, not because of some evil plot perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry.
Really want to make a difference? Do not fly, take sail boats across continents, sell your car and do not take rides in any fossil fuel based transport, no house heating in winter or AC in summer, refuse to buy anything from any business that uses heating or AC. Sounds absurd? It is.
7
Liberals created the science that made the prosperity you cite possible.
3
Nobody said "evil."
What we said was, "obsolete, more and more dangerous, and really kind of stupid since we have the technology and ability to do better."
By the way and since you raised the moral issue, does it ever concern you that fossil fuel money goes straight to some of the very worst governments qnd corporations on the planet?
What we said was, "obsolete, more and more dangerous, and really kind of stupid since we have the technology and ability to do better."
By the way and since you raised the moral issue, does it ever concern you that fossil fuel money goes straight to some of the very worst governments qnd corporations on the planet?
3
'Science' has no particular party affiliation.
2
The great researchers at Exxon Mobil and Shell Oil have long ago debunked this global warming myth. Why is everyone so worried? Science is overrate anyway.
Cute. If you're being ironical, fake skeptics don't do irony, except when they're on the attack, where they are fond of showing how up is down, etc., and being polite in a nasty rude underhanded way. How's about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/science/more-oil-companies-could-join-...
(I chose this amongst a variety of articles on the subject. Simply put, Exxon spent a lot of money creating doubt and supporting disinformation when their own scientists did good honest work. They could have moved into clean renewables, but that didn't seem to fit their business model of maximum profits for minimum effort, and using the gullibility of the public to help them hurt themselves.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/science/more-oil-companies-could-join-...
(I chose this amongst a variety of articles on the subject. Simply put, Exxon spent a lot of money creating doubt and supporting disinformation when their own scientists did good honest work. They could have moved into clean renewables, but that didn't seem to fit their business model of maximum profits for minimum effort, and using the gullibility of the public to help them hurt themselves.)
4
Indeed we are partly to blame for climate change. But all these leaders do is talk.The oligarchies don't want change though. The way it is , is good for business and ,as we know, business thinks in the short term.
3
Prime Minister Modi's comments about "it is our turn to pollute" should remove all doubt about Modi's willingness to reform anything political, economic or on a justice issue despite his yammer otherwise. All rice, no curry.
7
Since this is the beginning of the holiday season, I wish that, in addition to the location and name of the commenter, the NYT would add a box for political affiliation for this section. I would love this addition because it would save me time from having to read a bunch of gibberish posing as intelligent, well-reasoned opinions. 90% of the comments that I read I can usually divine the political affiliation of the commenter from their drivel...er comments. Very little intelligent analysis of facts or science and even less cogent reasoning...it seems that political affiliations prevent many from seeing or articulating anything more than what they want to see. I read comments that include links to items which support their version of the 'truth' but fail to include the numerous links that support or, at least, consider the other version. Most of the big issues that are worthy of a NYT article are complicated and nuanced, which generally means that more than one point of view merits serious consideration. Yet, as I write this, I know that even if there were a political affiliation box, few would be honest in revealing their true political selves. I see far too many claims of "independent" when most have very little independence of mind or spirit and are really too scared to share their true selves.
A system of "badging" regular commenters has been floated by this host. It is a controversial idea.
Have you considered switching to a different publication?
It is a shame that Paris has turned into dictators and tyrants demanding money to do what they always do with it, that is to steal it. George engineering doesn't need anymore than one country to do something real, effective and now.
Let's not finance the world'series tyrants in the name of global warming!
Let's not finance the world'series tyrants in the name of global warming!
1
Well, no one would doubt that the U.S. is an industrial country, though increasingly less so. The disturbing thing here, as always, is our president's seeming joy in criticizing his country's behaviors and his posturing himself as the savior. He could easily have simply proposed solutions (as he sees them anyway) without having to apologize for our historically successful economy. Our country is far from perfect in many, many ways, but I for one would love to see a president who exhibits pride in his country. It shouldn't be blind pride, or crude "Yee Haws," but c'mon, Mr. President, stop pretending that America was a bad actor until the 44th president arrived!
2
Leading the project to end the age of combustion would give the US something to take pride in.
Reality check which is worse world war 3 where all human life wiped out by nukes or we ruin the planet threw pollution which could change planet an all life on planet took millions years to evolve. This exactly what our world leaders need to think about before making stupid dessions for our childrens future
1
The US and many nations in Europe made terrible environmental mistakes during and after the Industrial Revolution that have cost us untold amounts of money to clean up, take care of those effected and rebuild that have also put the climate at risk.
The greatest challenge at this juncture is the ability for the developed world to convince the developing world that repeating our mistakes is a bad idea and that the model of growth the developed world took is not going to work for the developing world because our planet cannot take it. If the developed world cannot convince India and China that taking the dirty polluting industrial road to greater economic success has too many unforeseen costs that are not worth it and that continued movement along this path will jeopardize all of our futures, this climate effort will fail.
The fact is the 3 most populous nations on Earth, China, India and the United States, are the biggest polluters and can have the greatest effect in preventing further global warming. The US understands the costs of pollution because we are still paying for mistakes made well over 100 years ago in many cases, but can India and China be shown our mistakes and believe they have the power to avoid those mistakes while still bringing their people out of poverty and raising their economic level?
The greatest challenge at this juncture is the ability for the developed world to convince the developing world that repeating our mistakes is a bad idea and that the model of growth the developed world took is not going to work for the developing world because our planet cannot take it. If the developed world cannot convince India and China that taking the dirty polluting industrial road to greater economic success has too many unforeseen costs that are not worth it and that continued movement along this path will jeopardize all of our futures, this climate effort will fail.
The fact is the 3 most populous nations on Earth, China, India and the United States, are the biggest polluters and can have the greatest effect in preventing further global warming. The US understands the costs of pollution because we are still paying for mistakes made well over 100 years ago in many cases, but can India and China be shown our mistakes and believe they have the power to avoid those mistakes while still bringing their people out of poverty and raising their economic level?
4
Well, yes, that and then convincing the developed world that it has to change it's economic paradigm from one of growth forever and always to one of sustainability. Also a tall order.
1
Growth will not stop in the developing world or the developed world. One can only find a way to grow in a sustainable manner.
“I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter,” Mr. Obama said, “to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.”
So are you going to stop heating oil up in the Northeast from the Kennedy trust?
Are you going to stop coal shipments to China via the Buffet express?
George Soros is buying huge blocks of coal shares?
Why not use the 350 billion from Gates to convert to natural gas to every household, and install solar panels to every residence in the US?
No, you don't embrace any change with your democrat financial backers. Just keep talking about nothing, and as usual put some solar in the desert while losing 33% of what is generated and pollute the desert environment.
So are you going to stop heating oil up in the Northeast from the Kennedy trust?
Are you going to stop coal shipments to China via the Buffet express?
George Soros is buying huge blocks of coal shares?
Why not use the 350 billion from Gates to convert to natural gas to every household, and install solar panels to every residence in the US?
No, you don't embrace any change with your democrat financial backers. Just keep talking about nothing, and as usual put some solar in the desert while losing 33% of what is generated and pollute the desert environment.
2
There are no instant solutions in the energy business.
Glad Obama finally is getting around to this, way too little, way too late. He used environmental policy to kick his base around while toying with the Koch's Keystone XL for 7 years. He is about pro-environment as he is anti-war. Sorely disappointed in Obama's total lack of leadership on the environment, and he may have doomed the planet with his stupid stunts to win over troglodytes and his complete lack of progress on this essential-to-solve problem. Just so incredibly short sighted and stupid from the guy lucky enough to get to go to one of our finest educational institutions, or at least it used to be before it became the haven of princelings, foreign and domestic. If I were the third world countries I would laugh in his face.
3
I'd ask if you'd happened to notice the radical expansion of the Pacific refuge, or the new rules on coal, or about fifteen other things, but I think I'll just note that this kind of silly howling really helps a lot.
Keep it up, though: maybe you can help pull off another genius election like the one that got George Bush elected, or saddled us with a Republican Senate too.
Keep it up, though: maybe you can help pull off another genius election like the one that got George Bush elected, or saddled us with a Republican Senate too.
2
Name a President who has done one-tenth as much as Obama. Raising CAFE standards, investing in solar and wind via the stimulus and afterward; implementing new standards on power plants; cutting a bilateral deal with China; changing the fleet of vehicles owned by the federal gov't and all in the face of total obstruction. If you actually care about dealing with climate change, work to get Republicans out of office. Otherwise, you are blowing hot air.
3
The Islamic State is a serious problem, but its relevance vanishes into insignificance when compared with atmospheric warming. While ISIL is a very real threat to human civilization, atmospheric warming is an existential threat to humanity itself.
When it comes to threat assessment, we humans are parochial by nature - evolution made us this way, we didn't evolve to react to distant or unusual threats. When Mitch McConnell implicitly asserts the coal industry of the State of Kentucky is more important than the future of humanity (which presumably includes Kentucky), he isn't acting out of willful ignorance only, he is responding with indifference to a much larger peril because his genes allow him to do so.
Denying scientific facts isn't new, what is new are the implications of the denial. Humanity didn't collapse when G. Bruno was burned at the stake or when J. T. Scopes was tried and it won't end because Dr. Carson calls the Big Bang the work of the devil. Unfortunately, atmospheric warming is a different story altogether, and sane people shouldn't sit down and wait for the few to insure the demise of the many.
When it comes to threat assessment, we humans are parochial by nature - evolution made us this way, we didn't evolve to react to distant or unusual threats. When Mitch McConnell implicitly asserts the coal industry of the State of Kentucky is more important than the future of humanity (which presumably includes Kentucky), he isn't acting out of willful ignorance only, he is responding with indifference to a much larger peril because his genes allow him to do so.
Denying scientific facts isn't new, what is new are the implications of the denial. Humanity didn't collapse when G. Bruno was burned at the stake or when J. T. Scopes was tried and it won't end because Dr. Carson calls the Big Bang the work of the devil. Unfortunately, atmospheric warming is a different story altogether, and sane people shouldn't sit down and wait for the few to insure the demise of the many.
10
The irony here is that we outsourced those manufacturing jobs to China allowing us to reduce our emissions more easily. Meanwhile the Chinese are producing the same products with a much higher carbon footprint due to their energy mix and lack of regulation. Bring the jobs back and since it is a global not a local problem, reduce carbon.
11
Why so much heat on India, a country responsible for only about 5% of emissions even though it houses 16% of the world's people? The problem is not India's overpopulation when the US with only one-fourth of India's population emits 3 times the CO2 emitted by India. And I am not even going to mention the historical carbon emissions by coal and oil which was so vital to the dominant position enjoyed by the US in the world economy. Asking India to stop using coal is like demanding a worker on minimum wage to ditch his second hand car for a brand new tesla costing 100 grand.
Runaway population growth driven by religion.
1
Simply put, the prob is that India is very rapidly expanding its use of coal, and therefore rapidly expanding its emissions output.
Sorry, and you guys kind of got a bad historical deal--but the time when we could afford to just crank this stuff out is past, just as the time where everybody could have 15 kids is past.
You're confusing a moral question wth a scientific one.
Sorry, and you guys kind of got a bad historical deal--but the time when we could afford to just crank this stuff out is past, just as the time where everybody could have 15 kids is past.
You're confusing a moral question wth a scientific one.
1
Just wait until India gets so hot that nobody can live without an air-conditioned refuge.
1
Increases in the incidence and intensity of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, and wildfires may adversely affect people’s health immediately during the event or later following the event.
So when you hear about increases in forest fires in California and elsewhere think about the release of pollutants in the air and an increase in dust storms leading to mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory disease.
So when weather-related Morbidity and Mortality rates increase and when children find it hard to breathe, thank the deniers.
Not to forget about the waterborne diseases caused when an increases in water temperature, precipitation frequency and severity, evaporation-transpiration rates, and changes in coastal eco-system health could increase the incidence of water contamination with harmful pathogens and chemicals, resulting in increased human exposure. Not to think about how water will interact with sewage in surface and underground water supplies as well as
drinking water distribution systems, what food sources may become contaminated, and when those ocean-related pathogens and biotoxins keep you from cooling off at the beach, thank the deniers.
So when you hear about increases in forest fires in California and elsewhere think about the release of pollutants in the air and an increase in dust storms leading to mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory disease.
So when weather-related Morbidity and Mortality rates increase and when children find it hard to breathe, thank the deniers.
Not to forget about the waterborne diseases caused when an increases in water temperature, precipitation frequency and severity, evaporation-transpiration rates, and changes in coastal eco-system health could increase the incidence of water contamination with harmful pathogens and chemicals, resulting in increased human exposure. Not to think about how water will interact with sewage in surface and underground water supplies as well as
drinking water distribution systems, what food sources may become contaminated, and when those ocean-related pathogens and biotoxins keep you from cooling off at the beach, thank the deniers.
6
Big taxpayer funded payments to tiny Island Nations or unstable African countries? Sorry, but no. "Solving" climate change thru a carbon tax that will quadruple my energy bill? Sorry, but no. Liberal climate change activists are going to have to come up with something different if they want the average American to sign up for a climate change action plan.
6
It's obviously a liberal problem. Let's just forget about it and hope for the best. How's that?
Well, how about a) you can help pay to fix some of the problems now, or pay way, way more later, as these countries and the economies collapse and the wars start, and b) one would have thought that anybody living in Florida should only need to open the door to see what happens when we trash the place.
Not good enough. It's one planet for all. So in the end, it's not just a 'Liberal' problem, but a planetary one.
1
50 years from now , telling the republicans ,'we told you so', will be a poor consolation since they will all be dead, and the living will bear witness to their stupidity.
14
Yeah, kinda sad, isn't it?
1
Reality check world leaders all know what must be done .Unfortently those who run those leaders an make final desissions have own intrest . The arms race would be first to go trillions have been spent on building weapons most which are worse in polluting our envirment .The globilzation of manufacturing will need to go back to lean production by peoples own governments ending waste in shipping cause huge envimental problems for oceans dumping ground.If world leaders can do just these two things could save our planet for children future
3
Some say that denialism exists only because the fossil-fuel industry has done what the tobacco industry did years ago (see http://www.cigarettecentury.com). But this is false. Chapter 2, which, bar the introduction, is the opening chapter, of IAS's Jonathan Israel's "Democratic Enlightenment" is entitled 'Nature and Providence.'
In it, he discusses earthquakes, particularly the Lisbon earthquake, and the massive debate in the eighteenth century concerning whether earthquakes were signs of the Almighty's anger or simply naturally-occurring phenomena. Or both. For those who think the debate is settled among everyone, I invite them to see what James Inhofe said about global warming re "God's still up there"; or what Pastor John Hagee said about Hurricane Katrina.
I know getting the masses to accept anthropogenic global warming would be easier without the money that has been poured into advancing denialism. But to reject entirely the aid provided to denialism by fundamentalist religious belief is wrong. Travel, if you can stand it, to Southern Baptist churches on Sunday mornings. People believe weather events, which are conflated in their minds with the climate, are prescribed by God. That is a demonstrable fact.
So much of what is wrong with our politics and our society, as far as I'm concerned, derives from the fact that large swathes of our population are scientifically illiterate and have had their brains poisoned by fundamentalism. This is yet another reason to combat it.
In it, he discusses earthquakes, particularly the Lisbon earthquake, and the massive debate in the eighteenth century concerning whether earthquakes were signs of the Almighty's anger or simply naturally-occurring phenomena. Or both. For those who think the debate is settled among everyone, I invite them to see what James Inhofe said about global warming re "God's still up there"; or what Pastor John Hagee said about Hurricane Katrina.
I know getting the masses to accept anthropogenic global warming would be easier without the money that has been poured into advancing denialism. But to reject entirely the aid provided to denialism by fundamentalist religious belief is wrong. Travel, if you can stand it, to Southern Baptist churches on Sunday mornings. People believe weather events, which are conflated in their minds with the climate, are prescribed by God. That is a demonstrable fact.
So much of what is wrong with our politics and our society, as far as I'm concerned, derives from the fact that large swathes of our population are scientifically illiterate and have had their brains poisoned by fundamentalism. This is yet another reason to combat it.
3
Religion is essentially about getting God to manifest itself, which nobody has ever really done. Still, an awful lot of people believe that God will finally manifest itself by sending in Jesus II to save the human race from itself rather than watch another semi-intelligent animal toast another planet.
Every time I
* walk the cold foods aisle at my local supermarket
* am driving our highly traveled freeways and highways
* am enjoying my air conditioned home on a warm day
* notice large well lit billboards along our highways
* view the city scape at night, so brightened by inexpensive lighting
* walk through any of the large highly air conditioned and well lighted retail stores across our land
* watch tv advertisements lying to me about the fossil fuel companies good works,
I am reminded as to how extremely careless and unmindful we as a culture are towards protecting our natural environment.
I'm reminded of climate change and the gross neglect and lack of respect for conservation of our planet.
E
* walk the cold foods aisle at my local supermarket
* am driving our highly traveled freeways and highways
* am enjoying my air conditioned home on a warm day
* notice large well lit billboards along our highways
* view the city scape at night, so brightened by inexpensive lighting
* walk through any of the large highly air conditioned and well lighted retail stores across our land
* watch tv advertisements lying to me about the fossil fuel companies good works,
I am reminded as to how extremely careless and unmindful we as a culture are towards protecting our natural environment.
I'm reminded of climate change and the gross neglect and lack of respect for conservation of our planet.
E
20
Americans sit in their cars, idling the engines just so they can run their air conditioners even when it's not hot outside instead of simply leaving their windows open. Nor do many of us bother turning lights off when we leave a room, or even the radio. NYC buses and subways are freezing on moderate days. Worst of all, Americans refuse to drive small cars, instead dominating the roads with imposing, gas-guzzling SUV's and mini-vans. In all of these ways, we are mindless of the fuel we are needlessly consuming. It's time to stop this selfish behavior not only for the sake of this generation's lungs, but for our children's well being.
On September 11, 2015, The Supreme Court of Canada declines to hear constitutional appeal of NEB decision to preclude climate change evidence from NEB hearings.
----------------
Hard to believe, with all the hysteria around, a learned court can't find enough hard science related to climate change to permit it to go forward as evidence in decision making. Strange. Silly lawyers.
----------------
Hard to believe, with all the hysteria around, a learned court can't find enough hard science related to climate change to permit it to go forward as evidence in decision making. Strange. Silly lawyers.
There are as many legal opinions as there are lawyers.
2
People in the middle of the political spectrum long ago made their minds up about the importance of action on climate change as again evidenced by today's polling results (two-thirds of Americans want U.S. to join climate pact). Only for the minority of American voters on the far right is this still up for debate. Unfortunately, this happens to be the faction that sets the agenda for the Republican Party, which means that the GOP presidential candidates ridicule what has long been established as common sense to the rest of the world:
- the earth is warming due to an increase in carbon gases in the atmosphere
- the economic and security impacts of this warming are significant and long-lasting
- governments must take a leading role in countering these impacts
While President Obama has had a far from perfect tenure, his leadership on this issue is to be commended and supported. Where is the Republican Party on this? Where are the common sense voices that speak for half the party?
- the earth is warming due to an increase in carbon gases in the atmosphere
- the economic and security impacts of this warming are significant and long-lasting
- governments must take a leading role in countering these impacts
While President Obama has had a far from perfect tenure, his leadership on this issue is to be commended and supported. Where is the Republican Party on this? Where are the common sense voices that speak for half the party?
9
Obama , of course, blames the US for a non-existent problem. He really dislikes this country and assumes by denigrating America, he looks intellectual. Actually, he lives in an alternative universe where he solves all problems imaginary or real. He has lost all credibility on any issue and needs to resign.
13
And do you think that this sort of nonsense makes America look good?
1
"Non-existent"? I suppose an alternative universe from the fantasy world of denier-ism would be reality, and thank goodness the POTUS, along with 2/3rds of sensible Americans are firmly grounded in it.
1
Obama is the best president this country has had since I was born, and I don't think much of politicians (including Obama). Among a sorry lot, Obama has been the least evil. GWB has been the most. I am confident that Romney and McCain would've been worse choices as would the current crop of Republican contenders.
Great quote Mr. President about taking global warming seriously. If only you took ISIS and Islamic extremism so seriously over 250,000 lives could have been saved and 5,000,000 more people would have homes, not to mention parents and families. Thank you for prioritizing the right things.
7
i bet you didn't know that the consensus opinion from CIA and the military is that the precipitating factor in the collapse of Syria was an unprecedented drought.
2
You obviously have never been there. It has been a desert for 4000 years. You should be blaming moon beams as they are a more likely cause.
1
False narrative brought to by your sponsor, the same people who came up the "Video insulting Islam caused the Benghazi attack" bit of genius. Do you know that there are more foreign security people guarding the Global Warming conference than there are troops fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq?
1
Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural, and are balanced to various degrees by natural CO2 sinks. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, while new growth entirely counteracts this effect, absorbing 450 gigatonnes per year.
In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide.
My math:
439 +9.14=448.14
448.14 < 450
Where am I wrong?
In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide.
My math:
439 +9.14=448.14
448.14 < 450
Where am I wrong?
3
Congratulations, Mr. President, for your leadership. Thank you!
84
Our President will no doubt be lauded by like minded supporters who hope for the best but risk getting the worst-nothing concrete. Please be careful to not confuse nice comments with leadership. Hot air is no replacement for actually doing something substantive. His Nobel Peace prize has resulted in what exactly? I regret that this meeting and his comments will end with the same kind of less than satisfying result.
1
If the opposite of pro is con, what is the opposite of progress? Talk is cheap, President Obama will, as usual, have a difficult time with Congress.
Despite the climate-change narrative being presented by an extremely well-funded, top-down propaganda campaign, there is an immense amount of solid scientific evidence which clearly contradicts and/or refutes the claims of coming catastrophic climate change caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
For example, satellite measurements have shown that there has been no average rise in global temperatures for over 18 years, despite the fact that human greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing at an accelerating rate. This underscores the reality that the climate simply does not respond to CO2 levels in the way claimed by climate alarmists; said otherwise, the Earth's climate system is not highly sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
For example, satellite measurements have shown that there has been no average rise in global temperatures for over 18 years, despite the fact that human greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing at an accelerating rate. This underscores the reality that the climate simply does not respond to CO2 levels in the way claimed by climate alarmists; said otherwise, the Earth's climate system is not highly sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
4
JE should get his facts correct before he sticks his foot in mouth. Are you a climate scientist? I thought not. How is it you know more than the thousands of specialists in this field? Your opinion counts for nothing.
4
This is quite simply false, made-up nonsense based on ignorance regarding the difference between weather and climate. There is absolutely no question that the earth has continued to warm over the past two decades. Yes, there is a well financed propaganda campaign, but it is being waged by the oil and coal companies, who have far more money at stake than the collection of scientists from dozens of different countries, backgrounds, funding institutions and cultures. The only common connection between these scientists is their commitment to doing good science. Follow the money and the answer will be obvious.
10
You don't happen to HAVE any of that great science, do ya?
2
Best line in this (sadly, increasingly common from the Times) Obama puff piece: "In a speech interrupted by repeated beeps warning that he had exceeded his time limit..." To bend other nations to his will, Obama needs to be a leader on the world stage in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt or JFK. Instead in the past seven years he has been an apologist for all things American, an unreliable fair weather ally to our friends, an irrelevant blusterer to our enemies and is now the world's lecturing scold on global warming. But because he is determined to get an agreement (not a treaty), any agreement on whatever terms the conference attendees will give him, he has a good chance of doing so.
7
No matter what the President says, we Americans will never stop consuming at the levels that resulted in the huge increase in emissions over the last two decades. Although primarily from China, let's not forget that China is essentially the de facto manufacturer for the world, and much of these increased emissions can be laid squarely at the foot of the over-consuming OECD nations.
This game is now in overtime (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/11/29/carbon), and the final outcome probably determined.
But still, I give this President credit for owing up to our profligate ways.
This game is now in overtime (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/11/29/carbon), and the final outcome probably determined.
But still, I give this President credit for owing up to our profligate ways.
6
Actually, we've already reduced our emissions by quite a bit. Nor is China the de facto manufacturer for the world. Plus you forget about India, which will soon surpass us to become number 2.
1
Isn't the president's admission of guilt to the world at large going to open up the US to a number of lawsuits? I wonder if COFA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association will be expanded to include other low lying nations, granting additional folks to emmigrate to the US.
When the book is written on climate change efforts during this period, it will describe the lack of effort as shameful. It will say that deniers appeared to be punch drunk. And it will say that, despite the admirable intent of many, those advocating action were unable to mobilize private and public efforts because the majority was far more concerned about the problems of the day and simply did not care enough about those of the future.
8
michjas is not pointing out it is the money and only the money of those corporations that are beholden to stockholders. Like the song says, "money, money, money.
1
I'm afraid that what the book will say is that the blind pursuit of profit completely outweighed our concern for our children and grandchildren. Coal companies don't care how many of their workers die in mine accidents, why should they care about this?
3
Obama wants other countries' leaders to drag their feet as much as our Congress has?
1
There is no country, or entity on Earth that could drag its feet as much as the U.S. Congress does.
1
Climate change is a global problem. The technology developed to reduce the air pollution anywhere in the world must be made available to every country for free. Any attempt to blackmail any country would fail. This is one issue where all nations has to work as one nation.
1
Obama should be impeached for saying these things and spending our tax dollars on what is obviously a hoax!
4
Matt is entitled to his opinion, but impeaching someone for saying truth does not help deal with the problem.
6
The first part of fixing a problem is admitting you have one. Thank you president Obama for admitting it, we have a problem.
16
Enough of the rhetoric. We all know what some of the consequences will be if there is 2% global rise in temperature. As per usually, there is far too much obfuscation, poker playing and Russian roulette tactics occurring. Capitalism at its finest. My heart says I am an optimist but my brains says don't be silly, get real. Does anyone really care enough about our children's children? More wars, more famines, more droughts, more human disasters, and more greed is a recipe for extinction. Everyone should focus on what a 2% global rise will mean because at that point all hell starts to break loose.
6
Uhm ... 2% isn't the same as 2°C. 2% would be about 6°C.
1
Thank you, President Obama. It is past Thanksgiving and here where I live, we have yet to have a hard freeze. Usually a hard freeze comes shortly after Halloween. We had the wettest June on record this year, followed by the driest October, unprecedented temperature/rainfall extremes for some time. I've been seeing an unusual number of huge dead oaks being taken down in peoples' yards. You can sense it.......something is off, way off. And if it seems off to us, how does it seem to the birds, insects and wildlife whose survival depends on timely response to the seasons for breeding, feeding, migration, etc?
Climate change deniers trash climatologists, ignoring the fact that the impacts of climate change have been overwhelmingly confirmed by biologists, foresters, horticulturists, botanists, ornithologists, entomologists, geologists, etc. all over the globe. So don't pretend to love nature if you are a denier. Go live in a concrete box. You have no right to enjoy what you would damn.
Climate change deniers trash climatologists, ignoring the fact that the impacts of climate change have been overwhelmingly confirmed by biologists, foresters, horticulturists, botanists, ornithologists, entomologists, geologists, etc. all over the globe. So don't pretend to love nature if you are a denier. Go live in a concrete box. You have no right to enjoy what you would damn.
66
Trees have a lifespan, some simply die from old age. Mighty oaks and other hardwoods can fail because of lack of or too much water, too much competition from vegetation like honeysuckle which produces enzymes that prevent nearby trees and shrubs from making use of nutrition in the soil, and not being pruned to allow air to flow freely throughout the tree. Blaming climate change is an insufficient explanation why trees in your neighborhood die or fall over. There are many things we can do to extend or reduce the lifespan of trees.
I would like to 1 credible non-anecdotal evidence of any of the items you listed. Just 1. The truth is that climates change and the earth has been much warmer in the past. For most of the earth's history, the arctic was ice free ( what did you think deposited all of the organic material that made the oil?) . The satellite data shows no warming in 18 years and every model these warmers have is demonstrably wrong , and not just slightly wrong. A fraud has been perpetrated on the uninformed and unfortunately you fell for it. DO your own investigation and understand what has been done.
Yes. The average temperature does seem to have gone up. About as much from 1980 to 2000 as it did from 1920 to 1940. It's been going up, overall, since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800s.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we've been putting more of it into the atmosphere than would be there naturally, enough to start making a difference in the mid 1900s, so we are responsible for at least some of that change.
No, the actual measured temperatures have not gone up the way the catastrophists predicted they would for the last 15 years or so, even if you allow the ignoring of satellite data, the "adjustments" made when the numbers didn't "look" right and all the theories of the month as to why the numbers aren't what was expected.
All the recent "record" temperatures? Even accepting all the above manipulations as totally accurate, the "records" are being set by less than the margin of error. If you go up a step, the temperatures are all higher than before, even if there's no additional change, making the "but all these hot years have been recent" tale statistically meaningless.
So how about both sides showing a little honesty and see what we can do if we work together?
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we've been putting more of it into the atmosphere than would be there naturally, enough to start making a difference in the mid 1900s, so we are responsible for at least some of that change.
No, the actual measured temperatures have not gone up the way the catastrophists predicted they would for the last 15 years or so, even if you allow the ignoring of satellite data, the "adjustments" made when the numbers didn't "look" right and all the theories of the month as to why the numbers aren't what was expected.
All the recent "record" temperatures? Even accepting all the above manipulations as totally accurate, the "records" are being set by less than the margin of error. If you go up a step, the temperatures are all higher than before, even if there's no additional change, making the "but all these hot years have been recent" tale statistically meaningless.
So how about both sides showing a little honesty and see what we can do if we work together?
Despite insistent assertions that climate change due to global warming is not happening, it is here, real, and devastatingly dangerous. There is so much reliable information from so many sources, one wonders what has happened to the minds and curiosity of people who won't even look at the vast quantities of useful evidence here and from every worldwide expert organization. (Not to mention worldwide weather trends.) Here's one:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
As for the US share, and the complexities of international interactions (not to mention the greedy multinationals), none of this is a good excuse for inaction.
It's our world, our future, and our potential extinction, and time does not stop at 2100. We are responsible, and the planet is not interested in your politics or your refusal to think about the evidence, ever increasing, that our weather is going haywire and we are poking a dangerous wild thing.
Here's another good summary of the evidence:
www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/science/earth/paris-climate-talks-avoid-scien...
Paris Climate Talks Avoid Scientists’ Idea of ‘Carbon Budget’
http://climate.nasa.gov/
As for the US share, and the complexities of international interactions (not to mention the greedy multinationals), none of this is a good excuse for inaction.
It's our world, our future, and our potential extinction, and time does not stop at 2100. We are responsible, and the planet is not interested in your politics or your refusal to think about the evidence, ever increasing, that our weather is going haywire and we are poking a dangerous wild thing.
Here's another good summary of the evidence:
www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/science/earth/paris-climate-talks-avoid-scien...
Paris Climate Talks Avoid Scientists’ Idea of ‘Carbon Budget’
10
The Mongolian desert is growing. The Sahara desert is shrinking. The ice cap of West Antarctica is thinning. The ice cap of the much bigger East Antarctica is growing by more than the West is losing. Net sea ice everywhere is increasing. More people die from cold than from heat. The observed temperature trends are below all of the predictions based on CO2 feedback theory and the gap between prediction and reality has been growing for over 15 years.
Worldwide, there has been no statistically significant increase in droughts and storms and other adverse weather phenomena. There are always new records of one sort or another being set somewhere. It would be a statistical aberration if there weren't.
All that being said, yes, the average temperature of the Earth has been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800s. Yes, the sea level has been rising since then. Yes, glaciers have been shrinking since then. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we've been putting quite a bit more of it into the atmosphere, so at least part of that increase is caused by human action. But almost half of the warming took place before our contribution to the CO2 levels started becoming significant in the mid 1900s.
These are all facts, on both sides. If we can't even agree on the facts then we're never going to agree on any mitigating actions.
Worldwide, there has been no statistically significant increase in droughts and storms and other adverse weather phenomena. There are always new records of one sort or another being set somewhere. It would be a statistical aberration if there weren't.
All that being said, yes, the average temperature of the Earth has been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800s. Yes, the sea level has been rising since then. Yes, glaciers have been shrinking since then. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we've been putting quite a bit more of it into the atmosphere, so at least part of that increase is caused by human action. But almost half of the warming took place before our contribution to the CO2 levels started becoming significant in the mid 1900s.
These are all facts, on both sides. If we can't even agree on the facts then we're never going to agree on any mitigating actions.
2
I was using generalizations, factual and still being elucidated, because the comment structure here does not appoint me the space and other commenters and resources can cover the detail.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
However, there are other inflection points of human influence on climate, such as the introduction of agriculture thousands of years ago, and the beginning of industrialization, about 250 years ago. Also, there have been other sources of heat-trapping emissions which have nothing to do with humans in the distant past.
There are a variety of informative sources, including the ongoing discussion about attribution, here at the NYT and elsewhere, if you want to know more. Arguing the detail in this comments section is not useful, as space is short and much better informed science is available elsewhere.
Try Justin Gillis's work here, for example. He's good at science, and his 12 questions are carefully written and moderate, almost too much so.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
However, there are other inflection points of human influence on climate, such as the introduction of agriculture thousands of years ago, and the beginning of industrialization, about 250 years ago. Also, there have been other sources of heat-trapping emissions which have nothing to do with humans in the distant past.
There are a variety of informative sources, including the ongoing discussion about attribution, here at the NYT and elsewhere, if you want to know more. Arguing the detail in this comments section is not useful, as space is short and much better informed science is available elsewhere.
Try Justin Gillis's work here, for example. He's good at science, and his 12 questions are carefully written and moderate, almost too much so.
2
The arguments against taking radical and concerted action are those of petulant children or worse of corrupted plutocrats. How foolish can we as a species remain? 'My country didn't start the industrial revolution, so we should be able to pollute like mad to catch up'? All nations need to participate in reducing greenhouse emissions, quickly and broadly. There is no more time for childish arguments, no more time to "get mine". This is not a long term issue, it's an immediate issue - right here, right now, we have the opportunity to set the trajectory for the next century of climate change. The longer the timeframe, the better the result. These gasses persist for centuries and it's a scale challenge to recapture them. We do have the technology to replace fossil fuels in a major way - but it will mean changing the economic status quo for those who profit the most from fossil fuels. <br /><br />The choice is simple and clear: we act now, not as nations, but as a species, to preserve as much of our current biosphere as possible. Or, we fail to act as a species, continue to act as petulant children, and condemn ourselves, and all the humans (and other species) to come, to a life in a climate that is alien and inimical to our current expectations. <br /><br />The only logical choice is clear - follow the science that we know to keep our climate from becoming hell. Despite all our knowledge, however, I fear we will not act as an intelligent species.
85
Reality check maybe president ought to put it differnet lite ,those who refuse to change will be attack an destroyed by nukes. Same is true if nothing happens mother nature could turn our world in to wast land much worse then if world was destroyed by nukes
Easy for people to sit in ivory towers and talk down on the poor. 40% of Indians have little or no access to electricity. There actually isn't a whole lot India can do to cut it's emissions which are already negligible on a per capita basis. Why should India be punished because of its population which is a result of being one of the oldest civilizations in history? Blaming poor countries is a cop out by western politicians unable to convince their electorate about the seriousness of climate change.
Most of the countries that are there just want a handout and will pocket the money and run like the have always done. Note the always!
5
"In a speech interrupted by repeated beeps warning that he had exceeded his time limit..."
If that don't say all. I'm King Barack. American exceptionalism at its finest!
(Wonder what the staff of MSF had to say about our wonderful president.)
If that don't say all. I'm King Barack. American exceptionalism at its finest!
(Wonder what the staff of MSF had to say about our wonderful president.)
7
That puts him in good company with every Academy Award winner. Citing this as evidence of...anything...is ludicrous.
3
Our Congress will do nothing, nothing. I don't know why we keep paying them, but I don't suppose they would care if we stopped. They are already bought and paid for.
11
Reality check why do people complain about congress they best politicans money can buy
I am certain before he even gets back to Washington DC, the Repubs will be knocking him and his ideas. That's what they do cause they hate him so much because he is (1/2) black.
Time magazine November 13, 1972 ran a front page lead in article that scientist have concluded that because of pollution in the air the earth is now going through a cooling trend. It was predicted if this was not reversed that the earth would be entering into a new ice age.
17
one article in 1972? come on, this is classic misdirection. Yes, there was some work to clarify what the effects were, but that was 43 years ago. A little investigation will put this in proportion:
7
I know this is hard for denialists, but would you be the least bit interested in the truth behind that nonsense? As a Scientific American wrote notes:
Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-c...
Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-c...
8
I remember that very well. As a teenager I was told that we were entering an ice age and that fossil fuels would be depleted by 1975. So when the ice came, you would not even be able to drive to Florida because there would be no gas.
2
The GOP would like to thank Obama and the democrats for going above and beyond on a theory that means very little to 97% of the country. It's especially banal considering their racial divisiveness and their economic and foreign policy failures.
2
Please define the 97% that you are referring to.
12
Google it. A November Fox News poll of more than 1,000 registered voters found that only 3 percent listed “climate change” as the most important issue facing the country.
Oh and don't start with the "FOX Poll" stuff while posting on this leftist publication.
Oh and don't start with the "FOX Poll" stuff while posting on this leftist publication.
1
FOX NEWS?????......enough said.
"In a speech interrupted by repeated beeps warning that he had exceeded his time limit" Several times, oh but it's me the Wonder Boy, Peace Prize Winner......... Wait I need more time to finish the speech on the teleprompter written by my adviser and pal Valerie...
8
Really? The teleprompter thing again? And a president has speechwriters??? Get out!! I mean, no president has EVER used a speechwriter before Obama, right?
3
From elsewhere in today’s NYTimes, at
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/28/science/what-is-climate-ch...
“The amount of carbon dioxide in the air has fluctuated naturally in the past, and every time it rises, the Earth warms up, ice melts, and the ocean rises. A hundred miles inland from today’s East Coast, seashells can be dug from ancient beaches that are three million years old.”
The issue is not whether or not we will have a warming that will be catastrophic to coastal regions – indeed, to all aspects of human activity. We will. The question is the degree to which even the most stringent regulations and restrictions can have an ameliorating effect. The historical evidence is that they can’t; warming is a natural part of the Earth’s cycles. We may slow it down, but we cannot stop it.
But, beyond the debate on how much mankind can affect this phenomenon is the avoidance of the true issue: Overpopulation, not by 10% or 20 %, but by a factor of ten or more. Every environmental problem is the direct result of there being too many human animals in the wild for their environment to absorb their natural wastes: garbage, sewage – and carbon dioxide.
Until that is solved, the rest – recycling, reducing greenhouse gases, etc. – is just applying bandages to the suppurating wounds while the disease rages on.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/28/science/what-is-climate-ch...
“The amount of carbon dioxide in the air has fluctuated naturally in the past, and every time it rises, the Earth warms up, ice melts, and the ocean rises. A hundred miles inland from today’s East Coast, seashells can be dug from ancient beaches that are three million years old.”
The issue is not whether or not we will have a warming that will be catastrophic to coastal regions – indeed, to all aspects of human activity. We will. The question is the degree to which even the most stringent regulations and restrictions can have an ameliorating effect. The historical evidence is that they can’t; warming is a natural part of the Earth’s cycles. We may slow it down, but we cannot stop it.
But, beyond the debate on how much mankind can affect this phenomenon is the avoidance of the true issue: Overpopulation, not by 10% or 20 %, but by a factor of ten or more. Every environmental problem is the direct result of there being too many human animals in the wild for their environment to absorb their natural wastes: garbage, sewage – and carbon dioxide.
Until that is solved, the rest – recycling, reducing greenhouse gases, etc. – is just applying bandages to the suppurating wounds while the disease rages on.
7
I suppose you are hoping that others wouldn't read the linked article, and realize that you had taken the quotes out of context. The article also stated "These past conditions are not a perfect guide to the future, either, because humans are pumping carbon dioxide into the air far faster than nature has ever done." And, since the article referred to the study of PALEOCLIMATE research, you should know that past climate conditions you refer to occurred over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Contrasting anthropogenic climate change, which we are witnessing over decades to hundreds of years!
I don't have an argument with your voicing concerns over overpopulation, which I agree is clearly a major global problem, but your attempts to compare past changes in climate (glaciation and interglaciation) with modern day, anthropogenic climate change is just plain ignorant and dishonest.
By the way, solving climate change and overpopulation can't be a serial process. We don't have the luxury of waiting to address climate change after the overpopulation problem is solved. We have to do both now.
I don't have an argument with your voicing concerns over overpopulation, which I agree is clearly a major global problem, but your attempts to compare past changes in climate (glaciation and interglaciation) with modern day, anthropogenic climate change is just plain ignorant and dishonest.
By the way, solving climate change and overpopulation can't be a serial process. We don't have the luxury of waiting to address climate change after the overpopulation problem is solved. We have to do both now.
3
So in what manner should we kill them? How should we decide who gets to have kids or how many? I assume you have no children and no plans for having any in the future. No sisters, no brothers, no aunts or uncles, no cousins. In fact, why not get rid of the human species altogether since we're such horrible and useless blobs of protoplasm? That would be the ticket.
I just have one problem with that. I like human beings (at least most of them, most of the time). If you want, I'll make an exception in your case though.
I just have one problem with that. I like human beings (at least most of them, most of the time). If you want, I'll make an exception in your case though.
1
It always astounds me how people think that a finite amount of resources will last forever with an ever increasing population. The paucity of critical, rational thinking is the thing that will eventually doom us
1
This is nothing but blind adherence to a false religion.
But even worse, it may be an attempt at the biggest governmental power and wealth grab in the history of Democracy.
I for one will vote for pretty much anyone who fights against this Alice in Wonderland nonsense.
But even worse, it may be an attempt at the biggest governmental power and wealth grab in the history of Democracy.
I for one will vote for pretty much anyone who fights against this Alice in Wonderland nonsense.
18
My head is spinning after reading your comment. You can believe a massive government conspiracy with absolutely no evidence ("biggest governmental power and wealth grab in the history of Democracy) and simultaneously dismiss as "religion" 30 years of data and recommendations from virtually every reputable scientific organization on the planet.
1
Does anyone else see the problem with this conference? ISIL is killing innocent people in Paris and in the Middle East, and all our leaders can do is meet on climate change? And all Obama can do is blame the United States, AGAIN. Shut down coal fired plants, let the EPA set stupid regulations, and with that comes more unemployment. And all Obama wants is climate change to be his legacy?? PLEASE tell me it ain't so. ISIL, al Qaeda, Taliban, and all the other terror groups that are causing widespread death and destruction do not even concern Obama. And when they hit us again, who is going to take the blame? Sure won't be him because as usual he will pass the buck.
13
Since you believe "stupid" EPA regulations are our greatest threat, I urge you to move to Beijing for awhile, try living in a place with air pollution so bad that you cannot move about outside without compromising your ability to breath, then tell us how you think the U.S. should emulate the Chinese government. And perhaps you long for the level of water pollution in 1960s, pre- EPA water pollution regulations, when rivers burst into flames.
I'd also like you to cite for me the studies that link any EPA regulations to unemployment, beside the standard GOP talking points of "job-killing regulations" that are baseless and fear-mongering tactics intended to protect their oil industry masters.
I'd also like you to cite for me the studies that link any EPA regulations to unemployment, beside the standard GOP talking points of "job-killing regulations" that are baseless and fear-mongering tactics intended to protect their oil industry masters.
4
Pistol, this is not an either or world. Unfortunately, climate change will not conveniently wait until the world has eliminated eradicated all terror threats, which is never going to happen. By the way, Mr. Pistol, your list of terror groups conveniently fail to list the domestic terror that resides here in the US--the looney who shoots up an abortion clinic or church he doesn't agree or is angry with. Senator Cruz in his recent attempt to equivocate said that the killings at the abortion clinic were not necessarily domestic terror but instead "was a multiple murder of what appears to be a deranged individual." And how is this, at its most fundamental level, different from the Paris attacks?
1
This whole thing reminds me of a very expensive wedding party where the bride is dressed in white, zillions of guests eating good food but giving useless cheap presents and a soon-there-after splitting of husband and wife. All show, strictly based on proper behavior.
8
Where is there more sun than in the middle east and Africa? Think of all the jobs that would be created if average people in India and Africa started employee-owned, community owned companies to manufacture solar panels. Think of how many lives could be changed if average people in these countries had the minimal investment needed to start employee-owned, community owned water sources. BIG MONEY MASTERS think only of themselves and how much profit they can make. WE average people around the world must think of how WE can create sustainable lives, and communities, for ourselves.
9
Odds are, Indians who would create a solar farm would likely go out of business. This has already been tried and failed, because Indians want real electricity generated by coal, not fake electricity generated by solar. Read this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-trumps-solar-in-india
The only way that solar power will succeed in India is if the solar infrastructure (including batteries and panels) are free, and if the solar power provided to Indians is also free.
The only way that solar power will succeed in India is if the solar infrastructure (including batteries and panels) are free, and if the solar power provided to Indians is also free.
Do you have any idea what materials are involved with making solar panels? The toxic pollution involved with mining and processing those materials? The toxicity left over when they reach the end of their life span and get discarded?
I didn't think so.
If you want to actually help people in the developing world, donate to the clean water project. Invest in Kiva. Let them develop the power technologies they can afford and sustain to lift them out of absolute poverty. Insist on freedom, both economic and political. Let them find what works for them instead of insisting on pounding square pegs into round holes.
I didn't think so.
If you want to actually help people in the developing world, donate to the clean water project. Invest in Kiva. Let them develop the power technologies they can afford and sustain to lift them out of absolute poverty. Insist on freedom, both economic and political. Let them find what works for them instead of insisting on pounding square pegs into round holes.
1
Once again Obama talks the talk but can't walk the walk. There is no climate change legislation that Obama could get through congress. One could say Obama is a spent force except for the fact that he never was a force at all.
44
And who has vowed to make it so? In the circumstances, Obama has demonstrated a kind, humorous patience with a bunch of nasty fractious bullies, in order to do what he can for all of us, including his sworn enemies.
9
And we're the idiots that accept our Congress's obduracy on issues of science and its cupidity n the service of the petro-industry. Blame the President if you like, deride him for failing to change the will of a group that swore from the outset not to support any initiative, regardless of the benefit to the American people. However, we're kidding ourselves if we fail to lay blame at the feet of our legislature and ultimately at our own feet. We keep electing these idiots and paying them to do nothing.
5
And we all know why Obama has gotten virtually zero support in Congress, on just about everything. I do remember that one (only one) Republican senator voted for the ACA and got the vote to 60 back in early 2010. Olympia Snow, and once in a while a few others, have been the only Republicans to cast any vote for an Obama initiative. It's called gridlock, and it's not Obama's fault as anyone knows.
4
"Partly to blame" is a major understatement, and since his climate policy proposals have always stayed within the bounds of what big oil will tolerate, his call for other nations to "join him in fixing the problem" is nothing more than lip service.
If "the second largest emitter", a wealthy developed country, is unwilling to stand up to the fossil fuel industry, the Kochs and the Chamber of Commerce in any substantive way (opening new tracts in the Arctic and the east coast, and giving big oil and the frackers carte blanche on public lands actually speeds up climate change and environmental destruction), then there is little motivation for other countries to act.
But no need to worry about Obama's "climate legacy", no matter the outcome in Paris, the corporate media will proclaim Obama an "environmental president" with the usual fanfare, regardless of the facts.
If "the second largest emitter", a wealthy developed country, is unwilling to stand up to the fossil fuel industry, the Kochs and the Chamber of Commerce in any substantive way (opening new tracts in the Arctic and the east coast, and giving big oil and the frackers carte blanche on public lands actually speeds up climate change and environmental destruction), then there is little motivation for other countries to act.
But no need to worry about Obama's "climate legacy", no matter the outcome in Paris, the corporate media will proclaim Obama an "environmental president" with the usual fanfare, regardless of the facts.
4
This conference is pure entertainment, Hollywood-style. Each country is permitted to commit to whatever reduction in co2 it wants.
This constitutes an "agreement" in the same way that the fact that everyone wakes up everyday constitutes an "agreement" to observe universal time.
The old song "Fine and Dandy" would be an appropriate background theme.
This constitutes an "agreement" in the same way that the fact that everyone wakes up everyday constitutes an "agreement" to observe universal time.
The old song "Fine and Dandy" would be an appropriate background theme.
2
US manufacturers should not be put at a competitive disadvantage to China because we want breathable air. A pollution tariff on Chinese imports would level the playing field.
14
Great idea, Jack! Ditto with imports from India.
Jane Taras Carlson
Jane Taras Carlson
2
The cause began as a noble push to conserve parks and wilderness, followed by a worthwhile effort to clean up pollution and conserve natural resources by recycling. The current political industry that is climate change reminds me of curbside crazies screaming about the end of the world. Perhaps the UN can make a resolution requiring all humans to revert to back to walking on all fours. Meanwhile recorded history is but a spec on the natural timeline of the planet that has endured numerous ice ages, meteor strikes, and major climate and geographic changes.
1
Those truly interested in preventing meaningful climate change should be most concerned about the spread of nuclear material to entities that cannot be trusted to use such energy and technology for benevolent purposes.
On partisan planet Washington, D.C. the statement "Water is wet," by any Democrat would provoke debate. If the person uttering this provocative sentence is President Obama, there is no argument to be made. The Republican majorities will have already decided. If the speaker happened to be a Republican and Mr. Obama voiced agreement, then investigative panels would be named, months of "expert testimony" by Republican vetted scientists would ensue. The poor schmuck with whom the President agreed would be "re-educated" by his colleagues, recant, and fade into the woodwork.
Such is the state of "discussion" between the combatants occupying Capitol Hill with regard to climate change. There will be no legislation from this Congress that will support any of the President's proposals made in Paris.
One longs for the days when it was only religion that fought to hold science to the ground with a boot to the neck.
Such is the state of "discussion" between the combatants occupying Capitol Hill with regard to climate change. There will be no legislation from this Congress that will support any of the President's proposals made in Paris.
One longs for the days when it was only religion that fought to hold science to the ground with a boot to the neck.
9
only a DIM would believe it necessary to pronounce that "water is wet." Of course, given their lack of vision and integrity, it wouldn't surprise me to hear a DIM make that statement.
You really failed to get or to address my point, Ralphie. I would try to explain it to you in detail with words no longer than four letters, but the NYT limit of 1500 characters makes it very hard. (I was going to say "difficult" but I don't want to make you work hard to see what I mean.)
Read all the words in a post, then let your wit go to work. When you don't you seem "dum" with your put down.
Try one more time, okay?
Read all the words in a post, then let your wit go to work. When you don't you seem "dum" with your put down.
Try one more time, okay?
Glen, I think you prove another point I have about DIMS, they rarely ever debate an issue but instead immediately employ ad hominem attacks. And it may have slid by you but mine was merely a barb at the DIMS, not a response to whatever point it is you are trying to make in your post. Yeah, the Repubs will not support any Obama on CC, not because they don't like him and think he's a swell guy (despite his arrogant, noninclusive leadership style) but because no sentient being would risk our current economy to salve the souls of left wing progressives who have embraced CC like a religion even though it is devoid of scientific rigor.
My two bits to the entire group of leaders assembled in Paris:
Words are cheap!
Words are cheap!
3
Judging by the comments on this article so far, it seems that climate change denialists are in full troll mode today. But as should be abundantly clear from all of the NYTimes (excellent) reporting on the Paris talks, we simply don't have any more time for faux 'science' and climate change denialism. I request that the comment moderators block comments that include demonstrable falsehoods about the state of climate science. For example, Gina Liggett's comment below claims that "The earth has warmed very little in the last century." This is fabulously, ridiculously untrue and has no place in a forum for serious debate.
63
What happened to the right to free speech?
1
Jack, why have you been hiding the climate modeling software in your basement? You need to share that with the world so everyone has access to your exact forecasting 20 years out. How many variables are in that equation? Is it true that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Thailand that it will rain in Texas?
1
Define "very little." It's been a little less than 1°C from the mid 1800s to the present and about half of that was before we started putting much additional CO2 into the atmosphere (pre-1950).
1
Given India's stubborn stance much more effort in developed countries must be made to adapting to the inevitable. India is basically saying: "we will do nothing with our money, you pay for, in the mean time our efforts to grow will generate so much GHG that they will make your effort fruitless to stop the predicted warming. Granted large swaths of our population will evetually be wiped out by global warming floods, but that we are putting on your conscience, we think you will fold with that suicidal bluff".
To me the decsion is made: we will have very significant warming no matter what developed countries do. We should still do something, because nothing will make it worse, but instead sending anything beyond what is cost free to India, spend on coping and adapting inluding getting ready to abandon some coastal areas. India is making it bed, it can sleep in it (we also have to prepare for potential mass refugee migration from places like India when they are caught utterly ill prepared).
To me the decsion is made: we will have very significant warming no matter what developed countries do. We should still do something, because nothing will make it worse, but instead sending anything beyond what is cost free to India, spend on coping and adapting inluding getting ready to abandon some coastal areas. India is making it bed, it can sleep in it (we also have to prepare for potential mass refugee migration from places like India when they are caught utterly ill prepared).
2
Both India & China had been using their "Developing Nation" status for years to continue to pollute the atmosphere with cheap burning fuels. Of course this is of no surprise, since the fabulously ineffective 'Kyoto Protocol' was non-binding. But China's recent admission that it had consistently been under-reporting its coal-use was a real-eye-opener for a government that thrives on secrecy. (Not that the world hadn't noticed its unrelenting days of smog alerts...)
1
India is responsible for only 5% of the world emissions. And the yearly rate of increase is well below the rates enjoyed by western nations like Canada in the 19th and 20th centuries as they were building their carbon-fueled economies. And, by the way, the average canadian emits 10 times as much carbon as the average Indian. India is not irresponsible, but only wants some fairness.
This is not the point. Canada emits about 1.5% of the world's GHG. India intends to become an economy of the nature of developed countries with 50 times the population of Canada. They would go from 1.5% to 50% to 75% of current world levels for 1 country. Fairness can't be considered here because it will destroy the first India (probably before it reaches that level) and eventually the world. Their position is unsustainable. In this case the idea you put forward as "fair" is simply not realistically achievable.In fact it is not even fair, because it will destroy the very world we live in.
1
Since there is no "Global Warming" nor is there any human caused "Climate Change" nor are the seas rising, the entire exercise is a colossal fraud and hoax. But our "Liar-In-Chief" gets to run down America in front of the world, again, which is a passion that all liberal, left wing, traitors, share. Nothing that he has said is true. Nothing. It is more of the old, tired, left wing need to redistribute income away from Americans to third world countries. How idiotic!
11
How can people continue to insist there is no "Global Warming" or Human caused "climate change"? Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers all over the world melting, oceans rising, temperature records year after year. What evidence would you need? Would anything convince you this is real?
It seems like the facts are ignored due to cultural and ideological biases. What else are people to think when we hear things conspiratorial statements like "colossal fraud and hoax", "liberal, left wing, traitors" or "the old, tired, left wing need to redistribute income away from Americans to third world countries"?
It seems like the facts are ignored due to cultural and ideological biases. What else are people to think when we hear things conspiratorial statements like "colossal fraud and hoax", "liberal, left wing, traitors" or "the old, tired, left wing need to redistribute income away from Americans to third world countries"?
3
Yes, there has been "global warming." Yes, the seas have been rising and glaciers retreating. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and human activity has put more of it into the atmosphere than would be there purely naturally at this point in time.
All that being said, we obviously don't know yet just how much warming there will be or what portion of it is actually tied to human activities as opposed to natural causes. We don't understand the feedback mechanisms. We don't even understand exactly what role water vapor, whether in clouds of which type at which altitudes or as humidity plays and that is, by far, the strongest greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.
The observed warming is lower, significantly lower, than what almost every one of the future climate models has predicted. The entire continent of Antarctica is still net *gaining* both ice sheet mass and sea ice. These "record" temperatures, even if you ignore all the inconvenient readings that get left out or "improved" because they don't fit the narrative, are still less than the margin of error.
Both sides are right, to some extent, and both sides are wrong, to some extent. We're never going to get anywhere if we continue to ignore that.
All that being said, we obviously don't know yet just how much warming there will be or what portion of it is actually tied to human activities as opposed to natural causes. We don't understand the feedback mechanisms. We don't even understand exactly what role water vapor, whether in clouds of which type at which altitudes or as humidity plays and that is, by far, the strongest greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.
The observed warming is lower, significantly lower, than what almost every one of the future climate models has predicted. The entire continent of Antarctica is still net *gaining* both ice sheet mass and sea ice. These "record" temperatures, even if you ignore all the inconvenient readings that get left out or "improved" because they don't fit the narrative, are still less than the margin of error.
Both sides are right, to some extent, and both sides are wrong, to some extent. We're never going to get anywhere if we continue to ignore that.
You're welcome to bury your head in the sand, but don't take it out to spread your nonsense. Sea level rise is pretty darned easy to measure. http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
1
How much Co2 did all the world leaders attending this conference in France use to get to the conference? They should have all traveled by steam ships, horse and buggy, and good old walking to get there. They maybe I would thing about drinking some of their Kool-Aid. Instead, I will take this for what it is, the biggest con the world has ever seen.
An watch out for the Pope. He has his own reasons for pushing climate change, and it has nothing to do with the well being of the planet.
An watch out for the Pope. He has his own reasons for pushing climate change, and it has nothing to do with the well being of the planet.
4
Steam ships used coal and were very inefficient at transferring the energy to propel them. Horse pollution not only produced greenhouse gasses but were also a major health hazard.
2
Being here in Paris for the climate talks it is great to see President Obama and President Xi Jinping both pledging to do something about climate change and leading by example. Is this enough? - no we need more. But with billionaires promising to put billions of dollars to the problem and with states like California leading the way - we can make this the time the world started to solve the problem. There are many, many steps to go - we need to leave the oil in the ground- but this is a good - and long awaited first step!
83
Mao said , talk talk , fight , fight , and he succeeded against the Nationalists , even though he talked at length with them concerning democracy , shared power , human rights etc and so the Maoists do today , they talk about a minimizes carbon use , a green economy , etc but its all just talk , which means nothing but buying our complacency , their goal is fight , fight , Chinese imperialism lies and subterfuge the greatest threats to the free world
This whole discussion is mute unless developed countries aggressively promote nuclear power. It is the sole clean, economical and scalable answer if there is to be a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions over the next 50 years.
2
Clean energy will do more for world peace than anything else.
Once the middle east becomes irrelevant and we no longer need to kowtow to the Saudis (perpetrators of 9/11, chief funders of Wahhabist Islam extremists), the US will lose interest in "installing democracy" (bombing the heck out of it) and go away.
It's a shame the entire region will have been turned into a dog's breakfast by then.
Once the middle east becomes irrelevant and we no longer need to kowtow to the Saudis (perpetrators of 9/11, chief funders of Wahhabist Islam extremists), the US will lose interest in "installing democracy" (bombing the heck out of it) and go away.
It's a shame the entire region will have been turned into a dog's breakfast by then.
6
It is disappointing that USA which created the climate crisis and continuing to have largest share of Carbon emissions in the world (given China's emissions are majorly due to American consumerism) preaches the world to act. If Americans stop eating beef, take public transport, use LED or fluorescent lamps, wash their utensils instead of throwing paper plates, use water instead of paper to clean their bottoms at least one day in a week, that could bring down the world pollution by at least 3-4%.
2
There is no climate crisis.
It is utter nonsense and has been debunked over and over again. It only serves a larger agenda of complete governmental control of everything in our lives.
Wake up and smell the silliness.
It is utter nonsense and has been debunked over and over again. It only serves a larger agenda of complete governmental control of everything in our lives.
Wake up and smell the silliness.
1
You are stereotyping and mischaracterizing merely to continue to lay blame rather than find solutions. Reducing and recycling are only a fraction of the solution. The real solution is the radical shift in energy sourcing.
2
Tell that to the melting glaciers and the polar bears......
1
President Obama is right that the US bears most of the blame for global warming. Imagine if the US had taken responsibility for the problem of carbon pollution and started to scale it back in the 90s. Imagine if in 2000 the US had elected Al Gore. Imagine if the government had made massive investments in clean technology and energy conservation, and stopped subsidizing the fossil-fuel industry. Not only could the US could have stood as a leader worldwide on the moral imperative of reducing pollution, we could have also been on the cutting edge of clean energy technology. We could have been exporting clean technology to India and China right now, today. Instead, the US stands in shame and regret, still apologizing for the idiots over at Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and the WSJ who are still denying the necessity of staying within the 2 degree C limit, even though this was the global temperature within which humanity evolved, and scientists say over 2C it's game over for our grandkids.
Ever since Ronald Reagan took the solar panels off the White House our US Republican Party and Fox News began laughing at clean technology advances, scoffing at science, and selling lies masqueraded as "news" to protect the profits of fossil-fuel industrialists. The US is to blame because we could have been leaders committed to protecting our grandchildren's future, and now we're all stuck worldwide riding Republicans' dumb, primitive and polluting technology right off the cliff.
Ever since Ronald Reagan took the solar panels off the White House our US Republican Party and Fox News began laughing at clean technology advances, scoffing at science, and selling lies masqueraded as "news" to protect the profits of fossil-fuel industrialists. The US is to blame because we could have been leaders committed to protecting our grandchildren's future, and now we're all stuck worldwide riding Republicans' dumb, primitive and polluting technology right off the cliff.
17
1. Carbon Tax is a corporate sham, a jigsaw, intended to perpetuate polluting industries.
2. Money and resources should be focused on phenomenalizing the utilization of sustainable eco-energy. Spending billions of money on mitigating the effects of climate change do not solve the cause of the problem. In fact, it even garb the liabilities of polluting corporations that they themselves are liable.
3. The notion of economy vs ecology is a deceptive. In fact, a more sustainable and equitable global economy can only be achieved through eco-based economy.
4. The notion that the pervasive utilization of alternative eco-energy is not viable is a merely petrol propaganda. Of course, oil corporations, with their dummy governments, will do their best at suppressing the advancement of the use of alternative energy. But we have the the science, the technology, and the diversity of sources in the sanctum of our advanced science and tech institutions—what crucially needed is the candid and daring resoluteness to finally say, “Now is the time shift!” To shift from destructive fossil-based industries, oil-based economy so sustainable eco-regenerating industries, and life-saving global economy. It's about our life now and the security of our future generations.
5. The old stale world did dramatically changed itself to an exploitive industrial workplace. Now we can also dramatically change our world into a creative and sustainable home for our, and all of Nature's, species.
2. Money and resources should be focused on phenomenalizing the utilization of sustainable eco-energy. Spending billions of money on mitigating the effects of climate change do not solve the cause of the problem. In fact, it even garb the liabilities of polluting corporations that they themselves are liable.
3. The notion of economy vs ecology is a deceptive. In fact, a more sustainable and equitable global economy can only be achieved through eco-based economy.
4. The notion that the pervasive utilization of alternative eco-energy is not viable is a merely petrol propaganda. Of course, oil corporations, with their dummy governments, will do their best at suppressing the advancement of the use of alternative energy. But we have the the science, the technology, and the diversity of sources in the sanctum of our advanced science and tech institutions—what crucially needed is the candid and daring resoluteness to finally say, “Now is the time shift!” To shift from destructive fossil-based industries, oil-based economy so sustainable eco-regenerating industries, and life-saving global economy. It's about our life now and the security of our future generations.
5. The old stale world did dramatically changed itself to an exploitive industrial workplace. Now we can also dramatically change our world into a creative and sustainable home for our, and all of Nature's, species.
3
exactly what are we going to do? we, all of us humans here, need to make changes, big and small in how we live. so what's the plan?:
3
"Obama Urges Leaders to Act With U.S. on Climate Change"
Sure they will. Right after you get Congress, the Coal Lobby, and the Petroleum and Auto industries lined up.
Sure they will. Right after you get Congress, the Coal Lobby, and the Petroleum and Auto industries lined up.
6
Republican candidates for pesident vow to block or overturn agreements Obama makes at COP. A bunch of jerks. Dopes living in a delusional world. A disgrace to the USA and the human race.
47
President Obama is to be commended for taking responsibility for the US' role in climate change, between our industries and a Congress opposed to regulations. A lesser leader would have passed the buck to China and India. Instead, President Obama has thrown down the gauntlet and asked others to improve, alongside America.
168
There are no lesser leaders than Obama
Ok so we're bad! (isn't it always us?) Wow that took courage. What takes courage is standing up to the guys whose track records on human rights are abissmal but they still want to be coddled and stroked. Obama doesn't do that; that's a failure of leadership
Now Pres. Obama wants to lead the world in the "war" on Climate change while much of the world is blowing up in his face in which he seems to show little interest. Is his presence at the conference simply for a job interview as he will be looking for work in a year?
6
This is at once encouraging and frightening. Encouraging that we have a president with the composure and sensibility to transcend short-term and reactionary politics in a fear-mongering age. Climate change could well be the silent killer of humanity, legislation here would not be too soon or too late. Its encouraging to see cooperation and realization between the U.S. and China and to see those "evil" billionaires pooling private wealth.
But its all so frightening. Frightening that India feels slighted by the first world 's polluting when the source of their economic troubles extend far beyond a lack of carbon fuel utilization. It's delusional to believe that the heightened exploitation of coal will cure a country plagued by corruption and an oppressive social structure.
And then, lying in wait at the end of the column, is the radicalized GOP with their parochial revolver pressing against the temple of our future. I can only hope their God will help us.
But its all so frightening. Frightening that India feels slighted by the first world 's polluting when the source of their economic troubles extend far beyond a lack of carbon fuel utilization. It's delusional to believe that the heightened exploitation of coal will cure a country plagued by corruption and an oppressive social structure.
And then, lying in wait at the end of the column, is the radicalized GOP with their parochial revolver pressing against the temple of our future. I can only hope their God will help us.
7
Let's see: China has in the past few years added more coal fired generating capacity than the USA ever had in the first place. Yet, it is our fault. I for one am tired of the blame the USA first stance of our current and, thankfully, soon to be former president.
Yes, we need to protect the world's climate, but our CO2 emissions are declining while those of most of the rest of the world's countries continues to increase. Anyone who believes the Chinese are serious and will verifiably reduce emissions is also probably waiting for Santa to come down the chimney.
Yes, we need to protect the world's climate, but our CO2 emissions are declining while those of most of the rest of the world's countries continues to increase. Anyone who believes the Chinese are serious and will verifiably reduce emissions is also probably waiting for Santa to come down the chimney.
7
China will do nothing till 2030, if then, India will do nothing, period, the senate will block any of Obama's initiatives. There's your three biggest polluters. Talk is cheap.
2
Probably the most effective thing the President could have done to really help do something about Climate Change, was to have parked Air Force 1. These summits are becoming too ritualistic, that probably no one really takes them seriously anymore and participates solely out of habit and political correctness. Kind of just like the annual Thanksgiving/Christmas holiday madness we all find ourselves laboring under the throes of here.
2
As it pertains to the political climate here in America where leadership is essential, the belief or disbelief in climate change is largely relegated to the two political parties and their followers. Democrats are mostly comprised of well educated or liberal leaning people with a capacity for introspective thought and analysis on their own given basic details of climate change. Liberals tend to be intellectual and forward looking that rightly see and plan for the future. Conversely, the Republican party and it's followers are largely comprised of conservative leaning people who are comfortable living in and desiring the ways of the past. They are not as inquisitive and independent thinking as liberals. They mostly follow their leaders and now in the mass media radio and television markets targeting the conservatives, they all exist in an echo chamber in which big business and their political servants control the message. It was always like this and always will be. It is the duty of liberals to tolerate the intransigence of conservatives and save them from themselves. Someday the conservatives will be grateful. Maybe not.
10
So in other words, liberals live in a intellectual fantasy land of academia while conservatives are making it in the real world and actually solving problems instead of creating them.
6
Just like Social Security which has now saved several generations from old age poverty and allowed them to spend their waning years independently and happily, while still denagrating liberals that made it happen. Just feel happy we saved so many lives despite their lack of gratitude. I think the Republican leadership is attacking Social Security to try to convince the public it is bad and to garner votes from those who would have voted for liberals in gratitude.
4
Harlan; au contrare! Both liberals and conservatives created the climate problem, but unlike conservatives who support polluting businesses putting the almighty buck before their own well being, the liberals are trying to save you all and the planet. Thanks for proving my point. We will now both be breathing easier, and so will our succeeding generations. You do care about the children, don't you?
You know, it would really be nice if people actually discussed the merits of a position and see what sort of compromise, if any, could be reached rather than just attacking the "other" side, whichever side that happens to be for anyone.
Global warming is real and CO2 really is a greenhouse gas, so human action is contributing at least something to the warming. On the other hand, the extreme positions on ending fossil fuel usage will kill millions of people and reduce standards of living for billions while actually only reducing future warming by a fraction of a degree. Also, the climate models have NOT been accurate in predicting climate for almost 20 years now, so there's obviously a lot we still don't know about the natural feedbacks in the Earth's heat budget.
Those are all facts and both sides have to acknowledge them before we can reach any sort of deal we can all live with. Is scoring points really more important than that?
Global warming is real and CO2 really is a greenhouse gas, so human action is contributing at least something to the warming. On the other hand, the extreme positions on ending fossil fuel usage will kill millions of people and reduce standards of living for billions while actually only reducing future warming by a fraction of a degree. Also, the climate models have NOT been accurate in predicting climate for almost 20 years now, so there's obviously a lot we still don't know about the natural feedbacks in the Earth's heat budget.
Those are all facts and both sides have to acknowledge them before we can reach any sort of deal we can all live with. Is scoring points really more important than that?
6
You call them facts but they are not, it is religion. If it was fact the climate folks would release all data instead of changing it and hiding it and resort to litigation to hide it. It is not science if you have to declare "debate over" and refuse to discuss the science.
2
Yes, but --- if anything has been correct, it's that predictions are inaccurate - just that the inaccuracy has been on the side of underestimating the results, rather than overestimating. The temperatures continue to rise and faster than expected. The extremes of weather are happening sooner than expected. The concentrations in our atmosphere and oceans are higher than expected. We need to think longer term than just what next months' price per gallon will be.
3
Obama is the best president we have had in my lifetime (since the 60's).
It is truly incredible how disciplined, intellectual, morally upright, and effective he has been in his tenure. This is especially the case considering half the country is trying to stop him from doing anything based not on actual policy or facts, but because of racism and religion.
If Hillary Clinton becomes president she should take a page from Obama's book on how not to create scandals every 3 months.
It is truly incredible how disciplined, intellectual, morally upright, and effective he has been in his tenure. This is especially the case considering half the country is trying to stop him from doing anything based not on actual policy or facts, but because of racism and religion.
If Hillary Clinton becomes president she should take a page from Obama's book on how not to create scandals every 3 months.
20
I respectfully disagree. I believe Jimmy Carter was the best. Never ordered the killing of ANY one. Never ordered any bombings, never sent in troops to attack and kill (other than a few rescue missions) and NEVER told a whopper while in office. Mr. Carter tried to get us all to listen about consuming less and conserving more and this was back in the 70's. People derided and laughed at him then, who is laughing now? Not me!
The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux.
4
Would you be swayed by what real live, actual, for-real scientists have to say about the matter?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emission...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emission...
7
The purest of irony: Mr. Obama criticized President Bush for years for going into Iraq with far too little information, but now he charges right into climate change depending on a completely unbelievable NOAA which never saw a temperature that couldn't be played with for political reasons.
At least Bush had lights on while he outran them. Obama can't be bothered seeing where he's going. So what if he destroys more workers' jobs? They'll still vote for statism!
At least Bush had lights on while he outran them. Obama can't be bothered seeing where he's going. So what if he destroys more workers' jobs? They'll still vote for statism!
9
This isn't a war, this is a real opportunity to work with other nations to address a major problem. I doubt seriously even the most conservative Houstonian was complaining about NOAA when they were providing warnings and information about their catastrophic flooding. What an odd comparison.
9
Wow. Actually, the purest irony is in your acceptance of FOX and Friends as your source of scientific information. Science isn't partisan, it's just fact. The atmospheric and oceanic concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is measurable and those measurements are (or should be) terrifying, if you know what they mean. They mean more energy is retained in our system - more energy means more unpredictable, violent weather patterns, more heat, more extremes of drought, of cold, etc.
As to destroying jobs for "workers" you can thank corporate greed for that. Regulation doesn't kill jobs, but it provides likely excuses for those who benefit by offshoring.
As to destroying jobs for "workers" you can thank corporate greed for that. Regulation doesn't kill jobs, but it provides likely excuses for those who benefit by offshoring.
6
"Destroys more workers' jobs"? Like when Henry Ford "destroyed" jobs -- like horse carriage driver, horse shoer, and buggy whip maker? Like those kinds of jobs?
Yes, jobs like coal miner and oil rig worker will go away, but more than enough jobs in the renewable energy sector -- producing, installing, and maintaining solar panels, windmills, and energy storage facilities -- will crop up to replace them.
And the last time I checked, energy sector companies, including renewables, in this country, are all in the private sector, meaning those jobs would be private sector jobs, not public. So much for "statism".
Yes, jobs like coal miner and oil rig worker will go away, but more than enough jobs in the renewable energy sector -- producing, installing, and maintaining solar panels, windmills, and energy storage facilities -- will crop up to replace them.
And the last time I checked, energy sector companies, including renewables, in this country, are all in the private sector, meaning those jobs would be private sector jobs, not public. So much for "statism".
6
Congratulations to President Obama for being an honest and humble American...owning up to his country's mistakes, greed and gluttony that has been responsible for more than 70% of carbon emissions. Countries like India, prior to 1980, in spite of a large and desperate population, had a carbon emission rate of 0.
And many of these Brown and Black nations, including Mr.Obama's father's land of Kenya, were invaded, occupied, controlled, decimated and exploited by violent colonialists, greedy imperialists, gluttonous invaders, racist occupiers...who all became tyrannical abusers of the land and its resources. Prior to English and Spanish colonialism there were few mines in many parts of Asia, Africa, North America and South America. These greedy invaders and colonialists used the land of Brown and Black people to feed their imperial greed, power, privilege, addiction to violence and chronic gluttony.
Even the US suffered from the devastating impacts of coal extraction, processing and burning with English industrialization of the North Americas to feed the greed and arrogance of the imperial British royal family. Few Americans know how horrible the American environment was in the 1700s and 1800s. America took the worse of the English and European industrialization and turned it into "growth on steroids"...contributing 70% of the carbon emissions. It is time US took responsibility and provided fair compensation, aid and assistance on this matter. Good going Pres. Obama
And many of these Brown and Black nations, including Mr.Obama's father's land of Kenya, were invaded, occupied, controlled, decimated and exploited by violent colonialists, greedy imperialists, gluttonous invaders, racist occupiers...who all became tyrannical abusers of the land and its resources. Prior to English and Spanish colonialism there were few mines in many parts of Asia, Africa, North America and South America. These greedy invaders and colonialists used the land of Brown and Black people to feed their imperial greed, power, privilege, addiction to violence and chronic gluttony.
Even the US suffered from the devastating impacts of coal extraction, processing and burning with English industrialization of the North Americas to feed the greed and arrogance of the imperial British royal family. Few Americans know how horrible the American environment was in the 1700s and 1800s. America took the worse of the English and European industrialization and turned it into "growth on steroids"...contributing 70% of the carbon emissions. It is time US took responsibility and provided fair compensation, aid and assistance on this matter. Good going Pres. Obama
12
Who knew that Eric Garner's last words, "I can't breathe", would be a swan song for the entire human race?
5
I hope that the global leaders at the Paris conference carry Pope Francis' address to the UN two months ago with them. The Pope described environmental protection as a moral imperative and also specified that the most vulnerable countries pay a steep price for the effects created from wealthier nations' pollution. Seize the moment and follow Pope Francis' lead.
69
The Pope isn't the solution. He's the problem. The Catholic Church has a long history of deny women's reproductive rights which has led to overpopulation, which is the driving force behind global climate change.
President Obama is right on when he says,“What greater rejection of those who would tear down our world than marshaling our best efforts to save it.”
There is no doubt in my mind that BIG oil money is funding and/or fueling worldwide terrorist attacks.
The "conservative' Iranian president says, “Justice demands that, with what little carbon we can still safely burn, developing countries are allowed to grow.” Then, "India was demanding free technology from other countries as well as significant financial aid." As if WE American and other Western taxpayers OWE India the right to pollute our planet more and pay them not to? Are they kidding? There is no doubt in my mind that the same BIG money that is funding the worldwide terrorist attack also paid for the Iranian presidency.
And finally, "Republicans in Congress and those vying to become the next president have vowed to block or overturn much of Mr. Obama’s efforts here." Starting to see a pattern? WE all know who is funding these traitorous/planet destroying/women's rights destroying operatives.
November 8, 2016 cannot come soon enough when America voters will outsmart the BIG democracy-destroying money and VOTE them out of office.
There is no doubt in my mind that BIG oil money is funding and/or fueling worldwide terrorist attacks.
The "conservative' Iranian president says, “Justice demands that, with what little carbon we can still safely burn, developing countries are allowed to grow.” Then, "India was demanding free technology from other countries as well as significant financial aid." As if WE American and other Western taxpayers OWE India the right to pollute our planet more and pay them not to? Are they kidding? There is no doubt in my mind that the same BIG money that is funding the worldwide terrorist attack also paid for the Iranian presidency.
And finally, "Republicans in Congress and those vying to become the next president have vowed to block or overturn much of Mr. Obama’s efforts here." Starting to see a pattern? WE all know who is funding these traitorous/planet destroying/women's rights destroying operatives.
November 8, 2016 cannot come soon enough when America voters will outsmart the BIG democracy-destroying money and VOTE them out of office.
8
It is disappointing to hear that India is planning to double the use of coal by 2019. I think consumers need to spend their dollars to help influence countries and corporations, but we need the information to make wise consumer choices. For instance, I did not know that India was using so much coal. The technology is available to phase out coal. They can make other decisions with the help of this fund. If they don't, that may color my consumer choices in the future as to regards to India. What other countries have the same intent to double their use of coal? We need to know that to help with out personal consumer choice divestment strategies.
101
India's per capita emissions are just about 10% of the US per capita emissions - 1.7 tons CO2/person/year versus the 16.6 tons/person/year we Americans spew out. IF we cut back on our emissions by 10%, it will still give countries like India, which need to increase energy output to spur development for a very poor population, the headroom to grow without appreciably denting the world's carbon budget.
Volunteering to double or triple one's cost of power is not an option for the 700 million poor in India.
An article worth reading explaining the complexities of meeting energy demands of the millions in India and the entrepreneurial path pursued by some small companies there.
http://www.wired.com/2015/11/climate-change-in-india
http://www.wired.com/2015/11/climate-change-in-india
The meetings President Obama is having on the side with Presidents Xi, Putin and others are far more important than any kind of unenforceable agreement and the promises of payoffs to developing nations that will come out of the climate conference. Any reason to get world leaders together during these current tense times is a good reason. It's fun to watch the press in the U.S. attempt to bang the drum for this conference as an attempt to prevent the end of the world too!
1
Can we ask our cities like memphis tn, huntsville al to enforce emission testing first? Why bother other countries when we can force our own citizens to driver emission less cars?
3
@thenxbox81,
"when we can force our own citizens" You realize that comment goes against everything this country was founded on.
"when we can force our own citizens" You realize that comment goes against everything this country was founded on.
1
ok, Some facts:
1) Since we started burning fossil fuels, human life expectancy globally has doubled.
2) The standard of living has increased dramatically.
3) Our ability to feed the world population has increased exponentially
4) Travel times to world locations -- as the Paris conference proves, regardless of how silly the motives -- have been reduced from weeks or months to hours.
5) Health care, personal comfort, easy availability of food, better clothes, housing, on and on, are qualitatively different than at the end of the 19th century.
All of these improvements are the direct result of our learning how to use fossil fuels and applying the resultant power to all areas of our lives. This is not a correlational relationship nor some projection based on computer models. These are the facts.
It is possible that global temps may have risen (less than 1 degree C) over this time, but who would trade these advances in quality of life to get that degree back? Personally, I'm guessing that the purported rise in temps is a result of measurement error, natural variation and a dose of AGW, so we can be guilt free.
And I'm all for finding alternatives (nukes) so we can stretch our finite fuels as long as possible. But so far, all I see as a result of the purported temperature elevation is we're a heck of a lot better off.
Of course, anyone who would like to walk all these advances back is welcome to go try subsistence farming in a shack in the wilderness.
1) Since we started burning fossil fuels, human life expectancy globally has doubled.
2) The standard of living has increased dramatically.
3) Our ability to feed the world population has increased exponentially
4) Travel times to world locations -- as the Paris conference proves, regardless of how silly the motives -- have been reduced from weeks or months to hours.
5) Health care, personal comfort, easy availability of food, better clothes, housing, on and on, are qualitatively different than at the end of the 19th century.
All of these improvements are the direct result of our learning how to use fossil fuels and applying the resultant power to all areas of our lives. This is not a correlational relationship nor some projection based on computer models. These are the facts.
It is possible that global temps may have risen (less than 1 degree C) over this time, but who would trade these advances in quality of life to get that degree back? Personally, I'm guessing that the purported rise in temps is a result of measurement error, natural variation and a dose of AGW, so we can be guilt free.
And I'm all for finding alternatives (nukes) so we can stretch our finite fuels as long as possible. But so far, all I see as a result of the purported temperature elevation is we're a heck of a lot better off.
Of course, anyone who would like to walk all these advances back is welcome to go try subsistence farming in a shack in the wilderness.
31
Well put.
I think the point is not to walk back humanity's remarkable advances in technology over the last 150 years, but to apply the knowledge we have garnered regarding the by-product of burning fossil fuels at the rate we do. We have the technology and knowledge to change our course. The question is whether we have the wisdom.
7
Ralphie: Of course you do realize that we have had the clean (non carbon based) resources to do everything you listed all along. We could have used them without such devastating effects to human survival - and now that we have advanced knowledge and ability to use alternative forms of energy - we should. Or there will be no farming, and no wilderness.
6
President Obama is correct to observe that United States as a whole "recognizes our role in creating this problem," but the science-hating Republican Clown Party is effectively no longer part of the United States as a whole, on this very crucial issue. It has instead become an oafish yet quite Orwellian puppet of a very small band of incredibly deceptive and selfish corporate executives who refuse to countenance the slightest sacrifice of the gargantuan wealth they have accumulated, a large and growing fraction of which has come from knowingly raping hundreds of future generations, by despoiling the global climate which belongs to all humanity and on which the viability of the long term global economy depends. And who are defending their greedily gotten gains by funding politicians who massively deceive the public about basic science.
When is the spineless Democratic Party going to finally stand up and stop turning the other check to what has become one of the most profoundly corrupt, blatantly dishonest and colossally ignorant bunch of politicians in human history?
When is the spineless Democratic Party going to finally stand up and stop turning the other check to what has become one of the most profoundly corrupt, blatantly dishonest and colossally ignorant bunch of politicians in human history?
33
FYI. The Democratic Party isn't the sole heir to "the most profoundly corrupt, blatantly dishonest and colossally ignorant bunch of politicians in human history." Maybe you should read the news a little closer.
1
So many things are stupid about this conference, where to begin?
It would not be in jihadists' interests to bomb the conference: The West can self-immolate by ruining the fossil fuel economy and its life-enhancing benefits. The death-worshiping Islamists must be laughing their turbans off!
The science doesn't back up claims about catastrophe: C02 does not appear to be a major greenhouse-gas. The earth has warmed very little in the last century. C02 is great for plants.
Natural climate is ignored: How will the UN stop El Nino? Should the UN stop winter from happening? What will the UN do about volcanos? How will the UN stop the sun from causing the next global ice age?
Developing countries want billions, but they did nothing to create the technology they now benefit from. So why is that not factored in the massive wealth transfer schemes?
It appears that all those little emperors have NO CLOTHES.
It would not be in jihadists' interests to bomb the conference: The West can self-immolate by ruining the fossil fuel economy and its life-enhancing benefits. The death-worshiping Islamists must be laughing their turbans off!
The science doesn't back up claims about catastrophe: C02 does not appear to be a major greenhouse-gas. The earth has warmed very little in the last century. C02 is great for plants.
Natural climate is ignored: How will the UN stop El Nino? Should the UN stop winter from happening? What will the UN do about volcanos? How will the UN stop the sun from causing the next global ice age?
Developing countries want billions, but they did nothing to create the technology they now benefit from. So why is that not factored in the massive wealth transfer schemes?
It appears that all those little emperors have NO CLOTHES.
15
Gina,
You're joking, right?
Go to Alaska and talk to someone else besides that woman who ran with John McCain. The ones whose kids will be leaving their towns because of the ice melt.
Come down here and talk to some ejiditarios (farmers and cowboys) who are over 80 years old. Ask them. You'll get an earful.
Yes, I too do not trust politicians any farther than I can throw them, but you are just plain wrong in your assessment.
You're joking, right?
Go to Alaska and talk to someone else besides that woman who ran with John McCain. The ones whose kids will be leaving their towns because of the ice melt.
Come down here and talk to some ejiditarios (farmers and cowboys) who are over 80 years old. Ask them. You'll get an earful.
Yes, I too do not trust politicians any farther than I can throw them, but you are just plain wrong in your assessment.
3
developing countries are disproportionately burdened by the effects of climate change, largely caused by rich countries. they are owed a debt for this exploitation. the widely recognized concept is called the ecological debt -- look it up.
2
Supporting hydrocarbon economies is equivalent to supporting self immolation. It has a predictable outcome. The hydrocarbon industry is on its way to becoming the ice cutting, horse harness industry, except for the fact that neither was responsible for global warming, wars, and the death and disease caused by handling or burning hydrocarbons. The only industry that can be tied to the level of corruption and harm as hydrocarbons is the tobacco industry and we are just as addicted to both to our personal destruction. Our involvement with primitive monarchs and the stupid religious wars they foment will end once we end our addiction to hydrocarbons.
4
That America has played a major role, perhaps more so than any other nation, in driving CO2 levels up is evident to everyone. To gloss over that fact is exactly the self-righteous attitude that will derail any potential agreement.
It is a sign of leadership to be able to acknowledge your own mistakes. and a necessary first step in moving towards a solution.
It is a sign of leadership to be able to acknowledge your own mistakes. and a necessary first step in moving towards a solution.
21
The US and European true contributions to greenhouse emissions are disguised by 2 subterfuges : 1) all the production offshored to China for export to the US and European ultimate consumers which really should be counted on US and European ledgers
2)NO accounting for transcontinental shipping whatsoever!
Naomi Klein mentioned this as an appalling lapse she discovered and had not expected..
2)NO accounting for transcontinental shipping whatsoever!
Naomi Klein mentioned this as an appalling lapse she discovered and had not expected..
Katie Hopkins wrote in the Daily Mail, "Aside from protesters-for-hire, the jobless, the feckless, unemployed actors, and students outraged by their own shadow - do the people who work and pay taxes to fund this whole charade care enough to fork out for it?
One hundred and fifty world leaders and 40,000 delegates are gathering to discuss a new climate-change agreement, watched over by an incredible 120,000 security forces mobilised for the event.
But in this time of terror and global crises, doesn't it feel uncomfortable to be talking about how warm it is - or isn't? A bit like going shopping when you should be at a funeral?
I watch it all and wonder if there aren't more pressing matters at our door.I know world leaders, particularly Obama, get to the latter stages of their Presidency and feel the need to leave a legacy; COP15 will be part of his.But the Americans and Canadians have been perfectly clear. This Treaty on Climate Change Emissions is not going to be legally binding. And, in fact, it is not going to be a treaty at all."
But the best is ,"As African nations follow on the coat-tails of India, trying to drag themselves out of abject poverty and feed the millions with nothing to eat, are we seriously asking them to care about emissions?"
One hundred and fifty world leaders and 40,000 delegates are gathering to discuss a new climate-change agreement, watched over by an incredible 120,000 security forces mobilised for the event.
But in this time of terror and global crises, doesn't it feel uncomfortable to be talking about how warm it is - or isn't? A bit like going shopping when you should be at a funeral?
I watch it all and wonder if there aren't more pressing matters at our door.I know world leaders, particularly Obama, get to the latter stages of their Presidency and feel the need to leave a legacy; COP15 will be part of his.But the Americans and Canadians have been perfectly clear. This Treaty on Climate Change Emissions is not going to be legally binding. And, in fact, it is not going to be a treaty at all."
But the best is ,"As African nations follow on the coat-tails of India, trying to drag themselves out of abject poverty and feed the millions with nothing to eat, are we seriously asking them to care about emissions?"
14
Christians are accused of believing in a make believe God with no evidence of His existence other than a book of stories. The climate change crowd believes in a make believe event with no evidence of its existence other than theoretical and unproven computer models.
6
At this time of terror and global crisis, this is exactly what we need. It is a dire mistake to see terror and "global crisis" as unrelated to climate change.
For example, the crises in Syria and Yemen have direct ecological roots. Climate change did not cause dictators there to be corrupt and unpopular, but it did push these societies past their breaking points to where they have collapsed. See this cartoon if you need explanation. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/syria-climate-years-living-d...
For example, the crises in Syria and Yemen have direct ecological roots. Climate change did not cause dictators there to be corrupt and unpopular, but it did push these societies past their breaking points to where they have collapsed. See this cartoon if you need explanation. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/syria-climate-years-living-d...
1
Focusing the on the short term at the expense of the long term is what has gotten us into this mess.
Partly to blame? How about mostly to blame !
Those who continue to deny reality will be first in line to blame the government for lack of action down in the near future when the more significant consequences of climate change arrive.
Those who continue to deny reality will be first in line to blame the government for lack of action down in the near future when the more significant consequences of climate change arrive.
23
There is no man-made climate change. Period. The data has all been compromised.
1
GLO, while you're on your way to hug a few trees in central park, stop to consider all the benefits you've received because of our using fossil fuels. Imagine how your live would have been if our power sources and technology had remained at the 1880 level. Why, you might not even be alive now, because back then life expectancy was much shorter. But it does feel good to be angry at something, doesn't it. And yes, the US may have emitted more carbon (gad) but we're also responsible for most of the innovation that makes the world a better place to live than back in 1880.
1
Unless this climate conference agenda includes wealthier nations subsidising worldwide birthcontrol on-demand, it will be nothing but hot air.
20
We are truly at a critical moment in history and future generations will either commend our courage and live a hell that we created for them. Imagine if we hadn't taken a role in fighting Hitler? Imagine if we hadn't funded research into new technologies like computers? Imagine if we'd let slavery continue? Our progress as a civilization is predicated on belief in a better future and having the capacity to change our path. The scourge of carbon pollution is threatening our planet's viability as a place where humanity can prosper. Would be really want to destroy the only place we have to live? The moment of truth as arrived. We either step up to the challenges of creating a carbon free world, or sit idly by as our climate collapses in catastrophe. Which path do you think our descendants would want us to take?
19
don't be silly. We don't have any proof that we're on the verge of a crisis or are at a moment of truth or are headed toward capacity --- despite the ill informed thinking of Obama and a handful of world leaders too cowed by the left to think for themselves. And bubba, how do you think we were able to conduct all this research that made our lives better? Hate to break it to you -- fossil fuels.
1
You didn't take a role in fighting Hitler. For two long years the US sat back and allowed Britain and its Commonwealth of nations to fight Germany and the Axis powers alone. It was Joe Kennedy and the Republicans considered opinion at the time that our cause was lost and that their time was better spent preparing to negotiate with the Nazis. Roosevelt although sympathetic was powerless. Not until Japan surprised you at Pearl Harbour did you recognise that you may have to join in. Even then it still took you another six days before declaring war on Germany ! The US refusal since 1997 to sign the Kyoto agreement was a huge signal to the rest of the world that the US did not care nor believe in the science. Bush and his religious thuggery tried to turn your great country into a Christian Right fundamentalist Ostrich with its Intelligently Designed head buried very firmly up its own ar... Stem research anyone ? President Obama is a world leader of true intelligence (jokes about the flat earth society were hilarious!) and thank goodness you a) elected him b) elected him for a further term. Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump will be a no-brainer so hopefully these much needed reforms can be ratified and institutionalised. Western Civilisation is fully to blame for Climate Change and the US however unsophisticated in its thinking have played a major role in that. Recognising the problem in the first place appears to be a major step for your country and gives future hope.
3
Cave men used fossil fuels too, so what's your point?
Gardiner, Obama said no such thing. "The United States...recognizes our role in creating the problem," is what Obama said. The sensationalism of your title isn't warranted, because in fact no country can accept "blame" for creating a problem they didn't know existed.
If we must use that word well, OK: the U.S. must also accept most of the blame for internal combustion, automobiles, electrical generation/distribution technology, discovering the problem of climate change exists, and proving humans are responsible.
If we must use that word well, OK: the U.S. must also accept most of the blame for internal combustion, automobiles, electrical generation/distribution technology, discovering the problem of climate change exists, and proving humans are responsible.
9
Our president will go down in history as the great apologist
3
this is getting ugly for India. Western countries have emitted more greenhouse gas in last 200 years. China contributed to this in last 20 to 30 years. India just started to industrialize and now this is going to impact India's prosperity and its future in many ways. Sad to see US and china getting closer when it comes to attack a country which is democratic in nature. sad.. this is going to end with sanctions and trade barriers against Indian exports and trade if they co-operate. If they co-operate then they can say good bye to their industries. Their coal plants will be shutdown and they are not allowed to build nuclear plants without WEST's approval.
4
One would have to be greviously misinformed if they did not see America's fingerprints in the global carbon footprint that is damaging our environment. Once, again, President Obama's leadership is the beacon by which the world community can take solace. Now, if we can get the industrialists, and their minions, the Republicans, to join our President in fighting this world cancer, climate change. I wouldn't bet on it, though, they can't even get the gun savagery under control.
106
Thanks Don, reading your comment was just like eating too much chocolate.
1
Who can eat too much chocolate?
Having contributed the most to emissions to date America has a special responsibility and should share some of our clean technology so developing countries can skip some of the pollution intensive steps in development. I'm glad that Obama is taking steps to ensure the well-being of my children and grandchildren. Climate change is real and could eventually threaten us all.
What's more threatening and more immediate though, is ISIS, which according to NYTimes generates over $1billion in annual revenue and has killed thousands (in a previous form, al-Qaeda) in NYC before. Obama needs to get serious with all threats, not just distant ones.
What's more threatening and more immediate though, is ISIS, which according to NYTimes generates over $1billion in annual revenue and has killed thousands (in a previous form, al-Qaeda) in NYC before. Obama needs to get serious with all threats, not just distant ones.
9
If we don't stop climate change, there will be many, many, many more ISIL's in the world. The Pentagon knows this. And climate change threatens people right now, this minute. It is not a distant future thing any more.
5
The war in Syria was due to a drought, there will be more to come too.
Is anyone else sick and tired of the "Sorry, its all our fault" attitude of our President?
43
It's called "owning up". Or do you prefer lies and denial like those presented by Bush?
156
most def bro.
8
Read the article, bayboat65. The President said we are "partly" to blame.
Then look at some other facts. In the U.S. we emit 5.5 tons of carbon per capita per year. The next closest country is Russia, which emits less than half of what we do per person. Germany and Japan are slightly lower than Russia. Then, France and Iran emit 1.6 tons and 1.3 tons, respectively. Every other country in the world emits less than 1/5 of what we emit.
China emits 0.7 tons, Indonesia emits 0.4 tons and India emits 0.3 tons per capita. They are still significant as sources of carbon because their populations are so large.
But, saying we are partly to blame is more than justified.
Then look at some other facts. In the U.S. we emit 5.5 tons of carbon per capita per year. The next closest country is Russia, which emits less than half of what we do per person. Germany and Japan are slightly lower than Russia. Then, France and Iran emit 1.6 tons and 1.3 tons, respectively. Every other country in the world emits less than 1/5 of what we emit.
China emits 0.7 tons, Indonesia emits 0.4 tons and India emits 0.3 tons per capita. They are still significant as sources of carbon because their populations are so large.
But, saying we are partly to blame is more than justified.
120
"In the 20 years since the first UN conference on climate change, weather-related disasters have claimed 606,000 human lives, damaged or destroyed 87 million homes, and injured, displaced or left helpless a total of 4.1 billion people.
"A new study from the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) demonstrates that 90% of all disasters are now weather-related. And the average of 335 weather-related disasters per year in the last 10 years is twice that recorded between 1985 and 1995."
(from Climate News Network)