Posted on 09/12/2012 1:13:48 PM PDT by raptor22
Science: The president who said he'd slow the ocean's rise says voters can regulate the weather and stop droughts, floods, wildfires and hurricanes by backing his re-election. Never mind wrecking the economy in the process.
In 2009 President Obama modestly declared: "America, this is our moment . .. that I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
During his acceptance speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, he doubled down. No matter how much damage his war on fossil fuels has done to job and economic growth, "my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet — because climate change is not a hoax."
Our carbon emissions have declined — but due to the free market, not to any presidential plan. The Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, recently noted that energy-related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels, a 20-year low.
The report documented how the natural gas boom in the U.S. caused by the use of hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, has helped the environment in a major way while, unlike the Environmental Protection Agency's war on coal, also creating jobs and economic growth.
In Charlotte, N.C., the president noted that we have "a hundred-year supply of natural gas that's right beneath our feet." He did not say the Environmental Protection Agency and environmentalists have opposed fracking and the natural gas boom is being led by private companies on private or state-owned land.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Children in the future will look back at this time and see where their money was spent before they were even born. They will see the foolishness of those who voted for a man who was not vetted and who was inept. They will see that their parents were ignorant for voting for a man who appears not to even be constitutionally qualified to be president.
The children of the future should take note that they had better learn from this error in our history and fight like hell to never repeat it.
They should be more careful with their titles. Nobody denies that climage changes. And the question of human influence is still open.
The hoaxes are:
1. that science can predict what the climate will be in 50-100 years.
2. That a partnership of science and politics can solve the problem.
I swear, when talking to leftists about the eligibility issue, it’s like you’re talking to one of the dumber people of the society portrayed in “Idiocracy”.
“He’s eligible because he got elected”
Global warming ping
Climate change is not a hoax—global warming is the hoax. Ppl are starting to mix the two.
They make the cast of “Idiocracy” seem brilliant by comparison.
When I try to talk with liberals it’s like talking with 2 year olds. They don’t listen and then they argue about everything. I’m almost to the point of just slapping the taste out of their mouths.
Bump.
They can’t be taught. They can’t be reasoned with. They can’t be compromised with.
They simply have to be relegated to a status where they can’t do the rest of us any harm.
Of course it is. Gore got millions of dollars off of it. It’s the biggest money laundering scam forever. Arrest the real crooks.
The question of human influence, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), is a hoax and a fraud as well. The Earth like most terrestrial planets had a second atmosphere upwards of 100 times more massive than it is at present. This 100 timews greater atmosphere was composed of greater than 96 percent Carbon dioxide (CO2). Almost all of this Carbon dioxide was removed from the atmosphere by Life, which deposited the carbon and some of the oxygen in the Earth’s lithosphere as carbonate and other rocks, like the chalk cliffs of Dover.
Today, the Carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is measured in so many parts per million, bcause it is nearly all gone from the atmosphere. They are arguing over the differences between 290 ppm (parts per million), 340 ppm, 360ppm, and so forth. In other words, they’re arguing over one or few tens of parts per million of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Compare the tens of parts per million changes to the changes wroguht by Life before the presence of humans and human civilizations. Life reduced 100 atmospheres with more than 96 percent concentrations of CO2 to the present concentrations, which is greater than 960,000 parts per million down to aaround 290 to 280 parts per million. In other words, Life consumed something on the order of 959,600 ppm of one current atmsophere times 100 atmospheres of Carbon dioxide and depsoited it into rocks and carbon based lifeforms.
The process continues today, with the process leaving many forms of palnt life starving for more carbon dioxide than is presently available from the atmosphere. Grasses developed a new biochemical means of getting around the shortage of atmospheric Carbon dioxide, long befoer humans were around to influence anything.
Among the many sources of Carbon dioxide emissions into today’s atmosphere, humans are without any doubt whatsoever a nearly insignicant contributor, being responsiblee for only a few percent of such CO2 emissions. Then you have to take those few percent of emissions and note that the combustion of fossil fuels is responsible for something like less than half of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The maor source of human emissions comes from the production and usage of cement. There is some usage of fossil fuels to calcine the rosck to produce cement, but much of the CO2 emissions from cement comes from the mining of the source rock, handling of the processed cement, and the usage of the cement to build roads and buildings. Restrictions upon theusage of fossil fuels can therefore reduce CO2 emissions by only one or two percent, and only by immediately stopping the use of all fossil fuels from petroleum and natural gas to tribesmen burning firewood throughout the whole planet.
Conversely, the planet’s biosphere naturally varies its emissions and consumptions of carbon dioxide by many percentage points. Life can literally eat Carbon dioxide faster than himans can emit Carbon dioxide, despite the scaremongering claims to the contrary. If anything, the Earth needs more atmospheric Carbon dioxide to prevent the shutdown of photosynthesis in the Plant Kingdom essential to the survival of Life on the Earth as the planet’s atmosphere naturally continues to be thinned by the Solar winds.
Exactly. These meterologists today can't predict our weather 24 hours from now.
Right. I’ve noticed the climate changes about every three months.
While it is true that intense radiation pumped into the atmosphere can alter the local weather patterns, it is also true that the results are totally unpredictable.
But all in one direction. The much larger natural fluxes go in both directions. The ocean used to be a net source of CO2, particularly with the warming from Little Ice Age. Now it is a net sink of CO2 and absorbs about 1/2 of manmade CO2.
Restrictions upon theusage of fossil fuels can therefore reduce CO2 emissions by only one or two percent
Probably a bit more, but at a large economic cost. There is a distinct correlation between the economic downturn and our decreasing emissions.
Life can literally eat Carbon dioxide faster than himans can emit Carbon dioxide, despite the scaremongering claims to the contrary. If anything, the Earth needs more atmospheric Carbon dioxide to prevent the shutdown of photosynthesis in the Plant Kingdom essential to the survival of Life on the Earth as the planet’s atmosphere naturally continues to be thinned by the Solar winds.
Right now the ocean is mostly eating CO2. Plant life can eat a lot too, but only if we increase its area (e.g. rainforests). Your last point is good and worth emphasizing. Until we started raising the level of CO2 from roughly 280, the planet was literally CO2 starved. The evolution of grasses was the final nail in the CO2 coffin since they are so adept at sucking CO2 out of a CO2-starved atmosphere. We are currently within a long term ice age and a return to glacial conditions was inevitable. Even another Little Ice Age would have made it extremely difficult to feed mankind. But those fears are over for now.
We’re already in the beginning stage of a little ice age in the current Solar minimum. Temperatures are about to get much colder for about a thirty year cycle. When the current inter-glacial may end and the next glacial period resumes is of course not known, but recent research indicates it takes barely a decade to plunge into the deep freeze of one of these glacial periods once it does begin. It remains to be seen how cold the current Solar minimum will take us in the next 10 to 30 years, but past experience suggests the current Solar in activity is somewhat comparable to the cold weather experienced during the 19th Century Dalton Minimum and the much colder Maunder Minimum of the 15th to 18th Centuries.
Anthropogenic sources of Carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere simply cannot make a perceptible dent in these conditions, even if there were no humans around to provide such inluence.
I believe the CO2 will have some effect, but not as much as the models say. The effect is a little schizophrenic, Siberia will probably keep warming up even as Florida citrus freezes since CO2 has a relatively larger effect where it is cold and dry and almost none where it is warm and wet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.