AFP: Obama rebukes climate skeptics
Obama cited the lack of snow in Vancouver during the current winter Olympics and unusual snowstorms in places like Dallas in the southern United States as examples of violent weather patterns brought on by climate change.YouTube - President Obama "Explains" The Science Behind Climate Change
[As the world's most powerful man promotes the greatest scientific fraud in history, watch for Harry Reid nodding in the background] Obama goes on to blame carbon dioxide for "more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather,...more monsoons, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more drought in some places, floods in other places..."]Transcript: Remarks by The President At Town Hall Meeting In Henderson, Nevada
And what do I mean by that? Look, if you tell a company that there are no mileage standards on cars, then people end up making Hummers. Right? And everybody drives Hummers until finally gas gets so crazy and at a certain point people start saying maybe I should get a more fuel-efficient car.
...
Well, that's the only idea that we're trying to talk about when it comes to these greenhouse gases that are causing global warming. If we say that, you know what, the pollution that's being sent into the atmosphere has a cost to all of us -- in terms of in some cases the air we breathe that's causing asthma, in some cases because it's causing climate change -- we just want you to take into account those costs and price energy accordingly. And that means that things like wind energy suddenly become more appealing because they don't produce those pollution -- those pollutants, and other sources of energy become less appealing because they do produce those pollutants.
...there's got to be a transition. We're not going to suddenly get all our energy from wind or all our energy from sun because we just don't have the technology to do it.
But what we should be doing is planning over the next 20, 30 years to move in that direction. That's what countries like China are doing. That's what countries like France are doing. That's what countries all across Europe are doing, and all across Asia are doing. We don't want to be left behind. We're the only ones who have kind of missed the boat. So we're still using 20th century technologies and everybody else is producing 21st century technologies.
Look what happened with the car. We started getting our clock cleaned when consumers decided they wanted a cleaner car and suddenly everybody was buying their cars from Japan, or now South Korea. And we want to make sure that that doesn't happen when it comes to wind turbines, it doesn't happen when it comes to solar energy, et cetera.
Posts
9 comments:
President outright lie is a unique experience. He must think everyone is stupid.
This simply moronic. Where did he learn such nonsense? And as for China. is he on the same planet? Obama must be delusional.
Global Warming MIGHT cause more snow in the north but it should be falling as rain in the south. After all in a typical year it is too warm to snow and global warming would push the temperature even higher. In fact, the middle states should have more rain as well since the snow they get should be falling as rain instead.
AGW isn't science. It's science fiction.
Science requires a control group. Without a control group, all you have are guesses. Period.
The models used in place of the control group are meaningless because they make far too many assumptions -- i.e. guesses.
One must have a control group or there is no science. Period.
Until there's a control group available there is absolutely no reason to lose our very civilization to science fiction.
I completely disagree! You're just judging the world by looking out of your own window, you only see a tiny piece not the whole picture! Global warming is a FACT! Look at the statistics for the WHOLE WORLD! And also look at weather patterns... Do COMPLETE research before you make snap judgments!
I've done considerably more scientific research than at least 99% of the populace. There is no reliable scientific evidence in favor of AGW. Period.
Again, the problem is simple: no control group.
If you have no control group, you don't have science. Period.
Anyone who argues that science doesn't need a control group is simply an ignoramus.
Anyone with the slightest training in the scientific method knows that a control group is absolutely necessary in order to determine what effects any changes to the experimental group are doing.
Period.
If you argue against this, you are arguing against the scientific method itself.
Period.
Any "scientist" (and I am one) who argues otherwise completely discredits themselves and anything they may have ever said or done professionally.
No control group == no science.
Period.
Particularly when dealing with something as vast as a planet, the variables are numerous and complex. Does a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa cause a Tsunami in Asia? Maybe, but until we have a control group (i.e. a planet exactly like Earth whose only life form is one butterfly in Africa) we'll never know.
Period.
AGW makes numerous, vast assumptions about the nature of the planet and the way it works. There is no control group behind any of the theories that back the assumptions, therefore the assumptions are themselves invalid.
As to statistics, anyone who believes that modern statistics are in the slightest bit relavant have no conception of the geological timeframe in which climatology operates. Keep making measurements until about 2500 and you might have something that will show a short-term trend. Keep it up until 5000, and you might have the basis of a theory. Keep it up until the year 10,000, and you may have a theory you can prove.
Until then, any measurements made prior to the invention of precise digital thermometers are useless. Any made since that time can only be considered the first few data points -- and you need another 10,000 years' worth to really see a pattern.
Ice and geologic core samples? Useful, but not good data. A six-foot ice core has gone through who-knows-what over the course of the thousands or even millions of years that it might represent. We can only get -- at best -- a very gross idea of what might have been going on. But since no one was there taking measurements, we have no really accurate data.
AGW is science fiction. Period. You want to impress anyone, bring the data back in another 10,000 years and we'll see what you've got.
Jim in Dallas...when you say look at the facts, the statistics for the whole world, whose stats are you using? The temperature stations that are predominantly in warmer urban areas now compared to 1990? Even if we "skeptics" concede that the earth is indeed warming, it is a light-year leap to then conclude that it is predominantly from man-made sources. Another light-year leap to then decide that we can do something meaningful about it, and still another that we could afford the trillions of dollars that the true believers want to spend to try to "fix" it. I would be the first to open my wallet to fix it, inasmuch as I want a planet here for my kids and grandkids just like the "true believers". What I also want is not to spend all of this generation's wealth on a poorly understood and highly biased and politically charged "crisis" that has yet to be fully debated and proved (despite Al Gore's proclamation that the debate is over).
complete and utter coruption. This winter was predictable based on short term weather drivers and processes. Strong trof setup along the east coast and high pressure over the pacific NW (more snow east and little snow in Vancouver..."simple" and predictable). To continue to use small scale events to prove or disprove anything is utterly ridiculous and makes anyone look foolish. Overall on a large scale, total snow amounts should be getting less on average with lower lattitudes (Dallas) receiving no snow, not having historic years. We have no idea what the temperatures are since the data is manipulated, deleted and/or courupt... This is starting to be admited to by AGW scientists/record keepers.
I don't mind being more respectful of the atmosphere and what we deliver into it, but I won't support some of the outlandish (and scary) ideas that some are suggesting. There are ideas on the table of actually tring to manipulate the temperatures by putting SO2 in the atmosphere over the arctic and putting turbines in the oceans to detour hurricanes.... This kind of stuff should be maddening and scary to people no matter their political agenda or bias. We will destroy the earth if these kinds of things are allowed to happen.
Post a Comment