Obama says climate change is harming Americans' health

[thaibeachlovers]

I can understand why industry and conservatives are anti environment. It effects their bottom line to clean up.

But to have a supposed news channel, run by a republican strategist, support the charade is outrageous.

What "Republican Strategist" would that be?

Rupert Murdoch?

The same Rupert Murdoch that held a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton in 2006 to help her get re-elected to the Senate?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Rupert+Murdoch+that+held+a+fund-raiser+for+Hillary+Clinton+in+2006&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Murdoch is a businessman. He saw a void left by the left-leaning MSM and created a News Channel that gives both sides a platform to express their viewpoints, unlike the MSM.

If the US media did it's job, FNC would not exist, let alone thrive.

This is going off topic, but are you seriously claiming here that FNC is in the middle of the political spectrum?

Have you actually watched Fox for more than a few minutes? I find it hard to believe that you have by your ill informed remark.

[stevenl]

I can understand why industry and conservatives are anti environment. It effects their bottom line to clean up.

But to have a supposed news channel, run by a republican strategist, support the charade is outrageous.

What "Republican Strategist" would that be?

Rupert Murdoch?

The same Rupert Murdoch that held a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton in 2006 to help her get re-elected to the Senate?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Rupert+Murdoch+that+held+a+fund-raiser+for+Hillary+Clinton+in+2006&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Murdoch is a businessman. He saw a void left by the left-leaning MSM and created a News Channel that gives both sides a platform to express their viewpoints, unlike the MSM.

If the US media did it's job, FNC would not exist, let alone thrive.

This is going off topic, but are you seriously claiming here that FNC is in the middle of the political spectrum?

Have you actually watched Fox for more than a few minutes? I find it hard to believe that you have by your ill informed remark.

Yes, I have. So where in the political spectrum do you place fox news?

[jamesjohnsonthird]

I can understand why industry and conservatives are anti environment. It effects their bottom line to clean up.
But to have a supposed news channel, run by a republican strategist, support the charade is outrageous.

What "Republican Strategist" would that be?

Rupert Murdoch?

The same Rupert Murdoch that held a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton in 2006 to help her get re-elected to the Senate?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Rupert+Murdoch+that+held+a+fund-raiser+for+Hillary+Clinton+in+2006&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Murdoch is a businessman. He saw a void left by the left-leaning MSM and created a News Channel that gives both sides a platform to express their viewpoints, unlike the MSM.

If the US media did it's job, FNC would not exist, let alone thrive.

This is going off topic, but are you seriously claiming here that FNC is in the middle of the political spectrum?

Have you actually watched Fox for more than a few minutes? I find it hard to believe that you have by your ill informed remark.

Yes, I have. So where in the political spectrum do you place fox news?

It ain't news. It's a right wing political program disguised as news, aimed at the religious, anti-science, racist, homophobic, gun toting, southern redneck demographic.

[canman]

This is too funny.

Coal, gas companies and the republicans are saying the scientific community is dumb, gullible or paid off. Take your pick.

"I think global warming is a hoax, there's nothing you're going to say here today that's going to convince me otherwise."

Signed,

Sean Hannity FOX News

Using a quote from Hannity to make your point for anthropomorphic global warming is as pointless as using it against.

[canman]

The first time I heard about Global Warming was in 1965 when I was a kid, my Dad thought it was all stupid and propaganda for some new plot or war.

So, global warming was being discussed fifty years ago and nobody was listening, question is, will we/you still be in the same boat fifty years hence!

So why is it that 40 years ago, the media was pushing the impending Ice Age on us?

http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

Different decade, same BS

They just change the narrative every decade or so, hoping that people have short memories. Or that they are ignorant. Or both.

Of course, new suckers are born daily as well that don't remember the Ice Age hysteria that "The Scientific Comunity" was pushing 40 years ago, and that they doubled-down on stupid, or should I say, the stupidity of the public.

50 years from now, I expect that we will hear about another Ice Age followed by more hysterics about man made globull warming.

And the cycle will continue as long as people let it.

Simply, because it's not an exact science, just the same way that medical science is not exact - they can see the symptoms but not the outcome.

True of False: The temperature of the Sun fluctuates and does not burn at the same exact temperature at all times?

If True, then logic as well as science would say that those temperature fluctuations would be observed on Earth, on the Moon, on Mars and on Satellites orbiting 22,500 miles above Earth.

And if it's not an exact science, then why can't they make up their minds between an impending Ice Age and the opposite?

Because it's NOT an exact science, yet the Globull Warming, Sky is Falling crowd says "the debate is over"

The facts are that we are seeing correlating temp changes on Mars and on Sats and that the Sun does not burn at one, constant temperature.

This according to NASA

Why is that so hard to understand?

It doesn't take a scientist to know that correlating temp changes occurring on Mars have nothing to do with Man. Same with temp changes on Satellites.

CO2 is .0385% of the atmosphere and humans contribute 3% of that. 3% X .0385% = 0.00001155%

the sky is falling crowd would have you believe that the human CO2 contribution of 0.00001155% of the total atmosphere is the main driving factor of climate change not the variations from the huge nuclear furnace in the sky:

The Sun's output is 3.8 x 10³³ ergs/second, or about 5 x 10²³ horsepower. How much is that? It is enough energy to melt a bridge of ice 2 miles wide, 1 mile thick, and extending the entire way from the Earth to the Sun, in one second.

Dr. Louis Barbier NASA

The only proof they offer is a no longer valid short time correlation between CO2 levels and fudged temperature records. Oh, and the false claim that 98% of scientists agree with them.

Edited April 14, 2015 by canman

[canuckamuck]

True of False: The temperature of the Sun fluctuates and does not burn at the same exact temperature at all times?

If True, then logic as well as science would say that those temperature fluctuations would be observed on Earth, on the Moon, on Mars and on Satellites orbiting 22,500 miles above Earth.

And if it's not an exact science, then why can't they make up their minds between an impending Ice Age and the opposite?

Because it's NOT an exact science, yet the Globull Warming, Sky is Falling crowd says "the debate is over"

The facts are that we are seeing correlating temp changes on Mars and on Sats and that the Sun does not burn at one, constant temperature.

This according to NASA

Why is that so hard to understand?

It doesn't take a scientist to know that correlating temp changes occurring on Mars have nothing to do with Man. Same with temp changes on Satellites.

CO2 is .0385% of the atmosphere and humans contribute 3% of that. 3% X .0385% = 0.00001155%

the sky is falling crowd would have you believe that the human CO2 contribution of 0.00001155% of the total atmosphere is the main driving factor of climate change not the variations from the huge nuclear furnace in the sky:

The Sun's output is 3.8 x 10³³ ergs/second, or about 5 x 10²³ horsepower. How much is that? It is enough energy to melt a bridge of ice 2 miles wide, 1 mile thick, and extending the entire way from the Earth to the Sun, in one second.

Dr. Louis Barbier NASA

The only proof they offer is a no longer valid short time correlation between CO2 levels and fudged temperature records. Oh, and the false claim that 98% of scientists agree with them.

Very well said. If only the Nods would hear it, we could put this whole embarrassing con job to bed.

[DM07]

Why don't all you climate change deniers get out and buy some beachfront -property in Miami?

Should be a safe investment for the years to come!

[canuckamuck]

Why don't all you climate change deniers get out and buy some beachfront -property in Miami?

Should be a safe investment for the years to come!

Are you crazy! The oceans have risen a centimeter in the last 100 years. One more centimeter and that whole place will be...

100 years older.

[canman]

Why don't all you climate change deniers get out and buy some beachfront -property in Miami?

Should be a safe investment for the years to come!

I have beachfront property in 3 differant countries. Why should I buy in little Cuba?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.

[thaibeachlovers]

What "Republican Strategist" would that be?

Rupert Murdoch?

The same Rupert Murdoch that held a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton in 2006 to help her get re-elected to the Senate?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Rupert+Murdoch+that+held+a+fund-raiser+for+Hillary+Clinton+in+2006&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Murdoch is a businessman. He saw a void left by the left-leaning MSM and created a News Channel that gives both sides a platform to express their viewpoints, unlike the MSM.

If the US media did it's job, FNC would not exist, let alone thrive.

This is going off topic, but are you seriously claiming here that FNC is in the middle of the political spectrum?

Have you actually watched Fox for more than a few minutes? I find it hard to believe that you have by your ill informed remark.

Yes, I have. So where in the political spectrum do you place fox news?

They report news sometimes, but they don't make it up, so that would be factual rather than biased.

I think you are referring to the opinion side which in the case of Hannity is rabidly right wing ( so I rarely watch it ). However, O Reilly, which I do watch as often as possible has both Dems and GOP people on to comment, so as far as that goes it is not biased. Greta and Kelly are pretty even handed too.

I rarely watch much Fox now, other than O Reilly, as Murdoch has almost more time devoted to ads than content and I can't be bothered watching endless repeats of Fox Extra.

So, in reply to your question, slightly to the right of center ( mainly because of Hannity ).

Reply removed to allow posting.

[thaibeachlovers]

This is going off topic, but are you seriously claiming here that FNC is in the middle of the political spectrum?

Have you actually watched Fox for more than a few minutes? I find it hard to believe that you have by your ill informed remark.

Yes, I have. So where in the political spectrum do you place fox news?

It ain't news. It's a right wing political program disguised as news, aimed at the religious, anti-science, racist, homophobic, gun toting, southern redneck demographic.

If you actually watched it, you'd know that Fox News channel doesn't have much news at all, in the way that Al Jazeera does. It's more an opinion based channel.

How can you say it's racist when there are many black presenters and commentators? They've even had Al Sharpton on, and I've never seen the KKK been given a voice on it.

Reply deleted to allow posting.

[JDGRUEN]

Here is what smart people do... instead of yelping about CO2 and how it is a poison and trying to tell the Big Lie as fact - indisputable fact... these smart people are working to turn CO2 into a raw material to synthesize products - even fuels by creating artificial photosynthesis... on the nano scale. If and when successful CO2 will become a raw material and it will be used up in a process to create useful products... Amazing ... if the crazed sky is falling man made global warming / climate change crowd would have put all the money they caused to be wasted over the past 10 years into this kind of research - we would have it on line - producing by now.... But Obama and the rest of the manipulators just want to CONTROL not solve.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/46808/20150416/artificial-photosynthesis-holds-promise-of-cleaner-greener-environment.htm

[stevenl]

This is going off topic, but are you seriously claiming here that FNC is in the middle of the political spectrum?

Have you actually watched Fox for more than a few minutes? I find it hard to believe that you have by your ill informed remark.

Yes, I have. So where in the political spectrum do you place fox news?

They report news sometimes, but they don't make it up, so that would be factual rather than biased.

I think you are referring to the opinion side which in the case of Hannity is rabidly right wing ( so I rarely watch it ). However, O Reilly, which I do watch as often as possible has both Dems and GOP people on to comment, so as far as that goes it is not biased. Greta and Kelly are pretty even handed too.

I rarely watch much Fox now, other than O Reilly, as Murdoch has almost more time devoted to ads than content and I can't be bothered watching endless repeats of Fox Extra.

So, in reply to your question, slightly to the right of center ( mainly because of Hannity ).

Reply removed to allow posting.

Wow, somebody placing Fox slightly to the right of center. This means your center has to be way to the right already.

[thaibeachlovers]

Have you actually watched Fox for more than a few minutes? I find it hard to believe that you have by your ill informed remark.

Yes, I have. So where in the political spectrum do you place fox news?

They report news sometimes, but they don't make it up, so that would be factual rather than biased.

I think you are referring to the opinion side which in the case of Hannity is rabidly right wing ( so I rarely watch it ). However, O Reilly, which I do watch as often as possible has both Dems and GOP people on to comment, so as far as that goes it is not biased. Greta and Kelly are pretty even handed too.

I rarely watch much Fox now, other than O Reilly, as Murdoch has almost more time devoted to ads than content and I can't be bothered watching endless repeats of Fox Extra.

So, in reply to your question, slightly to the right of center ( mainly because of Hannity ).

Reply removed to allow posting.

Wow, somebody placing Fox slightly to the right of center. This means your center has to be way to the right already.

Given that I am a socialist, that is unlikely.

However, I am not a believer in the BS version where people think socialism consists of giving stuff to people too lazy to go out and get a job.

Quote removed to allow posting.

[chuckd]

That old saying came to mind when I read the following article..."Don't do as I do, do as say do."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming Alarmist Bill Nye Brags About Earth Day Airplane Flight

JAMIE WEINSTEIN

Senior Editor

11:55 PM 04/21/2015

Bill Nye believes global warming is the greatest threat humanity faces — but apparently not great enough to make him think twice about taking an awesome Earth Day ride on Air Force One.

The self-proclaimed “science guy” took to Twitter Tuesday to brag to his over 2 million followers that he will be polluting the atmosphere with more carbon dioxide by joining President Barack Obama on an Earth Day trip on the presidential jumbo jet.

Obama and Nye will be flying Air Force One down to the Florida Everglades Wednesday to highlight what the White House believes is the threat global warming poses to the national park. As The Daily Caller News Foundation reported last year, a presidential visit to New York City on Air Force One to attend a United Nations summit likely contributed nearly as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as 22 Americans emit in an entire year, when you take into account all that goes along with a presidential visit.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/21/global-warming-alarmist-bill-nye-brags-about-earth-day-airplane-flight/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I particularly liked the bit about an AF One flight from DC to NYC puts as much CO2 in the atmosphere as 22 average Americans do in an ENTIRE YEAR.

This little joy ride to Florida is scheduled to travel four times farther than a trip to NYC.

Round trip is 1,846 miles vs. 454.

And that will be the Obama/Nye contribution to Earth Day 2015.

[aaacorp]

-they change the name global warming to climate change because most of the uneducated people in western and eastern countries (and on thaivisa apparently) do not understand that global warming does not mean that the region they live will be hotter and may even become cooler because of the global warming.

[JDGRUEN]

-they change the name global warming to climate change because most of the uneducated people in western and eastern countries (and on thaivisa apparently) do not understand that global warming does not mean that the region they live will be hotter and may even become cooler because of the global warming.

You have great tongue-in-cheek humor ... but if you really believe what you wrote... WOW! We have had climate change on Earth for millions of year - it is a never ending cycle of which 99.99 % took place before humans existed.

[chuckd]

We had climate change when I was just a young, uneducated lad in deep West Texas.

We called it...Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter.

But we were not chasing government grant money.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.

[MaxYakov]

Climate Change and periodic bouts of Global Cooling and Global Warming have been positively and adversely (alternately) affecting humans since we first began to evolve as our initial species and especially since Homo Sapiens began to evolve from the intermediate species around 250,000 years ago. I would hope that everyone has read about the Great Ice Ages -- you know -- it was warm - then cool - then cold - then DAMNED Cold over the Northern Hemispheres caused Glacial Ice to cover the Earth as far south as the Ohio River in North America ... then it warmed a little - then more warming ... then it got quite warm - then the Ice began to melt and retreat then we had a great many thousands of years of weather with periodic micro ice ages such as happened worldwide around 1818 or so...

These Ice Ages Great and Small were part of the great cycles of Climate Earty ... and the only humans around numbered about a million maximum at the last one --- about 14,000 years ago. I suppose the CO2 from their camp fires were causing all this?

This is the natural cycle of Global Cooling and alternately Global Warming - accompanying climate change all done without humans to be nothing but mere spectators.

Global Warming on Earth Stopped about 15-18 years ago, Climate change is a Natural Occurrence caused by various sun cycles, the not so perfect of the orbit of the Earth around the sun... little wobbles and permutations of our ride along the Milky Way. And along this up and down ride of great proportions cycling in the Milky Way there are great catastrophes of Climate Change beyond anything we can imagine about every 25 million years. When we are around when the next one arrives - we won't have to worry about debating the subject.. .

Natural Occurrence Deniers NODs just want to make up a fantastical story about humans causing Climate Change (a convenient change of terminology after the attempt to prove Global Warming was still going on with bogus science and false data FAILED) so it can be used to redistribute wealth from rich nations to poorer nations (except China won't play the game). - And for political control of the masses. It is another one of the appearances of the BIG LIE... tell it, tell it again, keep telling it - deride others who oppose your forced thought - go on like this humiliating those who do not believe the BIG LIE and tell everyone it is closed issue - no one can counter it - under threat of punishment. Sound familiar? Dictatorial Socialistic movements have a way of doing such things... look back at history - fairly recent history of about 80 years ago.

Dear NODs -- you have lost the debate that you do not want to participate in as you KNOW your faulty THEORY is incorrect - so you choose to ram it down the throats of others.

You do know the elite climate scientists & NASA disagree with you?

Many hundreds of prominent scientists happen to agree with me ... Climate Change and Global Warming are driven by huge cycles of the sun and modulated by cosmic rays that help determine cloud cover ... look it up -- or perhaps it would make you uncomfortable I suppose.

And also the Milankovitch Cycles, volcanic activity and who knows what else.

[JDGRUEN]

Obama is wrong in his conclusions and so are all the NOD's - Natural Occurrence Deniers... Just take a look at what was said in the First Earth Day... This is what happens when academics get carried away with their own egos guiding them into silly prognostications ... Trying to predict the future -- when it comes to weather - a few days in advance - forecasts are wrong as much as much as they are right... But predicting what will happen 10 - 20 years out - no problem for these guys -- except that they were WRONG!!!


18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year...

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

[jamesjohnsonthird]

Scientists and big business are at odds on the global warming. Imagine that.

Republicans are the anti-environment/anti-science party and the polluters pour millions of dollars into the republican campaigns.

Now you know.

[JDGRUEN]

Scientists and big business are at odds on the global warming. Imagine that.

Republicans are the anti-environment/anti-science party and the polluters pour millions of dollars into the republican campaigns.

Now you know.

Simplistic analysis does not science make...

[canman]

Obama is wrong in his conclusions and so are all the NOD's - Natural Occurrence Deniers... Just take a look at what was said in the First Earth Day... This is what happens when academics get carried away with their own egos guiding them into silly prognostications ... Trying to predict the future -- when it comes to weather - a few days in advance - forecasts are wrong as much as much as they are right... But predicting what will happen 10 - 20 years out - no problem for these guys -- except that they were WRONG!!!

18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year...

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

I particularily like this one:

Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Sounds familiar; now where have I heard similar claims recently......

[RickBradford]

Obama, that noble caring soul, warning us on the dangers of climate change to our health....

And Obama's administration, just about to become the biggest global player in LNG.

The United States is poised to flood world markets with once-unthinkable quantities of liquefied natural gas as soon as this year, profoundly changing the geo-politics of global energy and posing a major threat to Russian gas dominance in Europe.

"We anticipate becoming big players, and I think we'll have a big impact," said Ernest Moniz, the US Energy Secretary. "We're going to influence the whole global LNG market."

Hypocrisy and political expediency, thy name is Barack.

Edited April 28, 2015 by RickBradford

[sirineou]

-they change the name global warming to climate change because most of the uneducated people in western and eastern countries (and on thaivisa apparently) do not understand that global warming does not mean that the region they live will be hotter and may even become cooler because of the global warming.

You have great tongue-in-cheek humor ... but if you really believe what you wrote... WOW! We have had climate change on Earth for millions of year - it is a never ending cycle of which 99.99 % took place before humans existed.

you know what they say

when you fall it's not the first 99% that kills you

but dont worry, there will probably be climate change after humans are gone also