Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama on Obama on Climate
New York Times ^ | June 8, 2014 | by Thomas L. Friedman

Posted on 06/08/2014 7:49:54 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

WHEN it comes to dealing with the world’s climate and energy challenges I have a simple rule: change America, change the world.

If America raises its clean energy standards, not only will others follow — others who have hid behind our inaction — we’ll also stimulate our industry to invent more of the clean air, clean power and energy efficiency systems, and move them down the cost curve faster, so U.S. companies will be leaders in this next great global industry and American consumers will be the first to benefit. That is why the new Environmental Protection Agency rules President Obama proposed last week to curb carbon emissions from power plants are so pivotal. You can’t make power systems greener without making them smarter — smarter materials, software or design. One new ruling will not change the world — and we have to be careful that this one doesn’t replace our addiction to coal with an addiction to natural gas alone. But coming at a time when clean energy technologies are becoming more competitive, and when awareness of climate change is becoming more pervasive, this E.P.A. ruling should give a real boost to clean power and efficiency innovation and make our country more resilient, healthy, secure — and respected.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: climatechange; climategate; hoax; journalism; media
If we just de-industrialize America the world will follow. All for the cause of changing the weather.
1 posted on 06/08/2014 7:49:54 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

This is satire, right?


2 posted on 06/08/2014 7:51:40 AM PDT by Gadsden1st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Why don’t you lead by example, Tommy boy? You can start by moving out of your mansion, which is obviously an energy hog.


3 posted on 06/08/2014 7:53:47 AM PDT by Prince of Space (Be Breitbart, baby. LIFB.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“... others who have hid behind our inaction ...”

Grammar Police!!!


4 posted on 06/08/2014 7:55:47 AM PDT by cdcdawg (Be seeing you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gadsden1st

Right. The NYTimes op-ed page is the Funnies page.


5 posted on 06/08/2014 7:57:17 AM PDT by BusterBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I think Thomas Friedman just went full retard...

Of course China, India, Russia will follow in our footsteps...

Facepalm....


6 posted on 06/08/2014 9:22:21 AM PDT by Popman ("Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BusterBear

What a simpleton.


7 posted on 06/08/2014 9:25:02 AM PDT by ully2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

OK!! Everybody pay attention!

Lesson for today:

1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.

2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.

3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.

4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.

5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.

Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?


8 posted on 06/08/2014 10:06:04 AM PDT by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
we’ll also stimulate our industry to invent more of the clean air, clean power and energy efficiency systems,

If there is one thing the world needs, it's more of the unreliable, more expensive energy that liberals want.

9 posted on 06/08/2014 10:06:42 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Obama thinks that if we do not jump over the cliff, no one else will. Probably about as strong as an argument as you will get from this munchkin.

If Obama was really concerned with the planets future, he would have thousands of assets over in Fukushima trying to stop the flood of radioactive particles entering the biosphere. The Japanese are currently trying to install a giant underground frozen wall that is the largest of its kind in world history. Maybe, just maybe, they could use some help. It appears that one of Obama's green power sources is completely out of control and could potentially ruin significant sections of Japan.

10 posted on 06/08/2014 10:12:02 AM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

Where do you get the idea that Obama is in favor of nuclear energy?


11 posted on 06/08/2014 10:16:49 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Europe was supposed to be leading the world in renewables and is now reeling from the negative effects of it.

The US is now following them on a path that is a proven failure


12 posted on 06/08/2014 10:26:19 AM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
...and when awareness of climate change is becoming more pervasive, this E.P.A. ruling should give a real boost to clean power and efficiency innovation and make our country more resilient, healthy, secure — and respected.

MEGA BS!!!

13 posted on 06/08/2014 10:27:58 AM PDT by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

He said it himself. It is one of the pillars of his green energy program. Nuclear energy does not increase global warming green house gas emissions, according to the idiots who do not know what water vapor actually is. All part of the greatest con in world history.


14 posted on 06/08/2014 10:30:13 AM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
He said it himself.

Yeah, he lies.....a lot.

It is one of the pillars of his green energy program.

How much nuclear capacity has been added to the grid since he took office?

Nuclear energy does not increase global warming green house gas emissions

It doesn't release CO2.

according to the idiots who do not know what water vapor actually is.

Are you worried that water vapor from nuke plants is going to warm the planet?

15 posted on 06/08/2014 10:38:04 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

What an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


16 posted on 06/08/2014 11:49:36 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Obama thinking like a Lemming ?


17 posted on 06/08/2014 11:54:03 AM PDT by molson209 (Blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
to invent more of the clean air, clean power and energy efficiency systems

Liberals live in a fantasy world.

They pretend or are self deluded that so called "clean energy" is clean as well as efficient, reliable and inexpensive energy, which neither wind, water or solar are at this time nor in the foreseeable future.

Yet they want to enact economic and energy policies based on technology that doesn't exist.

Like planning government policy on "Unobtainium", Mithral, and "Fairy Dust"
18 posted on 06/08/2014 12:38:20 PM PDT by RedMonqey ("Gun-free zones" equal "Target-rich environment.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Are you worried that water vapor from nuke plants is going to warm the planet?

I would worry about water vapour from Nuclear cooling towers as much as CO2 from a coal driven steam plant...

...which is zilch!!
19 posted on 06/08/2014 12:42:07 PM PDT by RedMonqey ("Gun-free zones" equal "Target-rich environment.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“coming at a time when clean energy technologies are becoming more competitive, and when awareness of climate change is becoming more pervasive, this E.P.A. ruling should give a real boost to clean power and efficiency innovation and make our country more resilient, healthy, secure — and respected” Who says? Show me where any of this is true. You can’t even get your “facts” straight,let alone change the weather.


20 posted on 06/08/2014 12:50:10 PM PDT by oldtech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
How much nuclear capacity has been added to the grid since he took office?

A new plant construction project has broken ground somewhere in Georgia or Alabama, just off the top of my head. That is a first for a couple of decades. They also wanted a new one down near Houston in Texas, but it looks like that one was possibly delayed. The real issue is how many plants were recently built by the old GE boys that had to leave and go work for the Japanese.

Are you worried that water vapor from nuke plants is going to warm the planet?

Water vapor is the number one green house gas. So it is there logic problem, not mine. Nuke plants are designed to do one thing. Create immense amounts of heat by controlling and limiting a nuclear reaction. So how in the world can something designed to generate enormous amounts of heat, not be contributing to Global Warming ? Again, that is their logic problem, not mine.

21 posted on 06/08/2014 2:49:20 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The White House isnthe Westboro Baptist of the religon of Climate Change. GAIA HATES DENIERS!


22 posted on 06/08/2014 2:54:20 PM PDT by Theophilus (Be as prolific as you are pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
How much nuclear capacity has been added to the grid since he took office?

A new plant construction project has broken ground somewhere in Georgia or Alabama, just off the top of my head.

So that would be zero? A negative number? Doesn't sound like a top Obama priority.

Water vapor is the number one green house gas.

Scary.

Are you worried that water vapor from nuke plants is going to warm the planet?

23 posted on 06/08/2014 3:01:44 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
It takes many years to build a new nuclear plant. You could not have built a functional one in the time he has been in office. Especially with all the US red tape. So you have no point. A new plant construction has broken ground. It will eventually be producing once complete.

Nuclear plants have been documented warming the planet. All that heat generation, the purpose of the nuclear reaction, generates excessive heat that is not converted into electricity. That excess heat has to be dissipated. Typically that occurs via a secondary water loop that sucks in water from lakes, rivers and the ocean. Thus, the planet is warmed by the excess heat. And that excessive heat creates the increased water vapor as water evaporates due to the heat.

Science is science. It is not up for debate. You cannot dissipate heat into the biosphere without causing global warming. In fact the CO2 itself cannot possibly cause the warming the AGW acolytes claim it will. Why ? Because its concentration is too low. The minor warming CO2 does gets enhanced in a positive feedback loop. That feedback mechanism is the increased water vapor due to the very minor amounts of warming from CO2. Exactly what dissipating the heat from nuclear power plants does. Enhances water evaporation.

24 posted on 06/08/2014 4:25:27 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
It takes many years to build a new nuclear plant.

How many?

You could not have built a functional one in the time he has been in office.

If it really was a pillar of his green energy program, I'm sure something could have been done. Several somethings, with more in the pipeline.

Nuclear plants have been documented warming the planet.

They have? How much "documented warming", per plant?

Thus, the planet is warmed by the excess heat. And that excessive heat creates the increased water vapor as water evaporates due to the heat.

Are you under the impression that heat does not leave the planet?

Are you worried that water vapor from nuke plants is going to warm the planet?

25 posted on 06/08/2014 5:39:41 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
How many?

Cannot say accurately since the US has not even built a commercial large scale plant one in over two decades. We shall find out as they build this new one.

If it really was a pillar of his green energy program, I'm sure something could have been done. Several somethings, with more in the pipeline.

We are talking about Obama. The man who failed at everything he has done. His ends are meaningless. All that matters to him are the means. And the means are lining his pockets with green cash from the nuclear crowd.

They have? How much "documented warming", per plant?

Ask the surfers and examine fish populations along the coast of San Onofre. While that leaking reactor was still running, it warmed the Ocean water in the area. Numerous studies of nuclear plants have found the water cooling exhausts warm the water. Heck, they are designed to transfer excess heat to the biosphere. Does that causes warming globally ? Probably not, but no one has studied it because they really do not care about warming. They only care about CO2.

The way statist work is if a problem costs them money out of their pocket to solve, the problem is ignored (Fukushima). If solving the problem can bring them money and power, CO2, then they try to solve the problem.

Are you under the impression that heat does not leave the planet?

Surface heat through infrared is dissipated at night, but heat deep down in the oceans stays for decades. If you warm the oceans, you warm the planet. Japans reactors all warm the ocean water around Japan. Reactors that warm river water end up warming the oceans where the rivers empty. There is a reason why they have been ignoring this heat. See my statement about statist solving problems above.

Are you worried that water vapor from nuke plants is going to warm the planet?

The water vapor represents heat. It takes large amounts of energy to evaporate water. And the AGW crowd claims heat generated water vapor represents a positive feed back system. Do not agree with that, myself. But eventually the excess heat will accumulate long term in the deep oceans. So in a nut shell, we need to start doing actual science. Not statist science which is more or less worthless.

26 posted on 06/09/2014 7:20:55 AM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson