Print 118 comment(s) - last by jimbojimbo.. on Dec 1 at 2:06 PM

President Obama will be the first U.S. President to pursue participation in a global climate treaty. He says he will attend the talks and is trying to convince the Senate to pass regulations to cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2020. However, he won't be staying at the UN Copenhagen climate summit for long, as he has to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize.  (Source: Sustainability Ninja)
Obama will attend the Copenhagen negotiations and help broker the successor to the Kyoto Treaty

President Barack Obama is making plans to join the rest of the industrialized world in working out an agreement to cut carbon emissions.  The move comes amid calls for action by much of the scientific community, which warns that if manmade warming is not halted, there may be dire consequences.  It also comes amid controversy over leaked emails indicating misconduct a major UK research center.

President Obama has proposed an ambitious plan to cut emissions, in line with a climate change bill passed by the US House of Representatives in June.  President Obama says the U.S. will offer to cut 17 percent of its emissions by 2020 (with regards to 2005 levels).  He also promises to attend the early days of December's UN climate treaty talks in Copenhagen.  However, he will miss the critical final days when the final deal will be reached.

UN Climate Chief Yvo de Boer said for President Obama to attend at all, was a major victory, though.  He states, "It's critical that President Obama attends the climate change summit in Copenhagen."

Officially, President Obama will be unable to formally commit to the emissions target, as the legislation is currently stuck in the U.S. Senate after sailing through the House.  Under Obama's proposed plan, the cuts will continue with a 30 percent reduction by 2025, 42 percent by 2030, and 83 percent by 2050.  The White House says that the cuts are "a significant contribution to a problem that the US has neglected for too long."

Over 60 world leaders have committed to attending the talks, including President Obama.  The pledges from other countries, though, will be a bit different from those of the U.S. as most are putting their cuts in context with 1990 levels.  As the U.S. emissions rose 15 percent from 1990 to 2005, this means that our cuts would fall several percentage points when normalized.

President Obama will pay a largely symbolic visit to the Danish capital on December 9.  Instead of attending the later talks, he will instead make a quick trip to Oslo, Norway to collect his Nobel Peace Prize the next day, then return to his normal duties.

Compared to the U.S. targets, other nations are offering bigger promised cuts.  The European Union says it will cut 20 percent of its emissions (w.r.t. 1990 levels) by 2020.  The conference aims to enact 30 percent cuts, and developing nations are demanding 25 to 40 percent cuts in the same time frame.

A spokesperson for the environmental group Friends of the Earth, Tom Picken cheered Obama's decision to attend, stating, "Obama's pledge to go to Copenhagen is a welcome and significant development - but he must adopt a 'Yes we can' attitude in the UN climate talks if he is to earn his Nobel prize.  The US is the world's biggest per capita polluter. It has a moral responsibility to take the lead in securing a strong and fair agreement."

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) also endorsed the move, commenting, "This could be one hell of a global game changer with big reverberations here at home."

The U.S. is the second biggest polluter in terms of carbon emissions, behind only China.  China's president Hu Jintao has not committed to attending the summit, but many other major leaders including UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva have.  The international community hopes to use the conference as a planning phase, as they have given up on enacting a legally-binding treaty by the time the conference is over.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Iaiken on 11/27/2009 10:23:13 AM , Rating: 5
I appreciate the sentiment... but that is a stupid/unkeepable promise...

RE: Hrm...
By scrapsma54 on 11/27/2009 10:31:03 AM , Rating: 5
I would appreciate reducing obesity, but I don't see that happening.

RE: Hrm...
By MonkeyPaw on 11/27/2009 2:01:18 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, but maybe it will with Obamacare on the horizon. If you aren't in reasonable health by default, you may not be worth "investing" in for care. Obesity could become a quick denial of treatment scenario.

Ultimately, whether you believe in Global Warming doesn't matter. The reality of it is, today's US government has proven that they can't fix anything. The "cap 'n trade" bill is basically a ready-made waitint-to-be-corrupted tax scam. For example, a CO2 polluter can buy credits from a landowner under the condion that this landowner doesn't clear his forest. It doesn't matter if the landowner ever intended to clear his forest or not; the polluting company can buy it anyway to increase their CO2 cap. Then, of course, there's no guarantee that the forests will not burn up somehow anyway! How does that reduce anything? It won't, so the government will say that they need to tax harder to get the results. Eventually, we'll have runaway inflation--something Obama probably wouldn't mind in order to reduce the effect of our increasing foreign loans--one of the biggest concerns in China these days. The concepts are simply rediculous, like just about every other government solution.

The sad part is, places where the government already has some control is a total fail. Take the food industry--the FDA does practically nothing about such rediculous polluters like high-density feed lots and slaughterhouses (where there's a huge illegal alien problem), and they really don't do too well to protect our food supply anyway. Maybe if they'd fix these issues that are already in their jurisdiction, we wouldn't have such cronic diet-related health issues in the country, and then maybe healthcare wouldn't be such a "disaster." Instead, we are offered more government in the form of a 2000+ page bill that actually talks of sending you to JAIL if you don't have coverage. Our fearless leaders are so out-of-touch and out-of-control that they have no idea what they are doing.

RE: Hrm...
By B166ER on 11/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hrm...
By B166ER on 11/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hrm...
By rvertrees on 11/30/2009 1:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
He can refuse questioning because the accident happened in a private community. That means he can just say "Hey this is a private matter." Its not because he is invincible but because he is well within his rights to refuse.

RE: Hrm...
By lightfoot on 11/30/2009 2:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
You too have labeled a false-boogyman.

Money isn't the problem, and neither is government. The problem is the people. People make decisions about money and people elect and serve in government. If you are looking for someone to blame, blame the people. Inanimate objects and man made constructs cannot be held to blame. All the blame rests with people. And until the people are willing to take responsibility for their actions, no progress will ever be made.

What were we talking about again?

RE: Hrm...
By DoeBoy on 11/30/2009 1:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
Hey of all the things that you should crap on it should not be the public health workers. I am in an accredited program for environmental health and know many workers in the public health department. Most of these departments are not funded well enough and have an overflowing amount of education in most cases. It is not easy having to spend an entire day in a food market inspecting and especially when a health department may only have a few inspectors to do the job. The point is that while the FDA does not do the job quick enough many of the food service/quality related issues are inspected by someone on the ground that is underpaid for the job and has nothing to do with the FDA. The first place they cut when there is no money is going to be anything related to your health whether it be well inspectors, food inspectors, or septic system inspectors. These are the people that keep the public safe on a constant basis so take it easy friend.

RE: Hrm...
By Ammohunt on 11/30/2009 2:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe if they'd fix these issues that are already in their jurisdiction, we wouldn't have such cronic diet-related health issues in the country, and then maybe healthcare wouldn't be such a "disaster."

People like you scare me as you have no concept of what freedom truly represents. You want to legislate personal responsibility and that is just crazy. If I choose to be fat by over eating or otherwise that is within my rights and none of your or the Governments business; only I am responsible for the downsides of such a life style meaning higher cost of healthcare for me due to health problems. What’s next? Banning sky diving? Racing? <insert any risky human behavior here>. I want government to leave me the hell alone!!!

RE: Hrm...
By borowki2 on 11/28/2009 5:42:29 AM , Rating: 5
I pledge that by 2080, 99.9% of the presently obese people in the US will no longer be obese.

RE: Hrm...
By Kurz on 11/28/2009 10:15:10 AM , Rating: 1
The reason why that'd happen is we change the definition of obesity to those who are so fat they cant walk.

Sorry the supply of food is great and the lack of activities plays a huge part of Obesity.

RE: Hrm...
By nosfe on 11/28/2009 2:45:49 PM , Rating: 5
no, the reason why the presently obese people won't be obese anymore in 2080 is because 99.9% of them will be dead by then

RE: Hrm...
By Manch on 11/30/2009 12:52:27 PM , Rating: 3
it's always kinda sad when it needs to be explained.....

RE: Hrm...
By Regs on 11/30/2009 12:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it sounds like one of those mock business plan proposals we all had to do in school. In this case Obama fails because his goal is way too broad, unrealistic, and unclear. It's likely because he lacks any business experience or savvy like all the other white-coaler presidential candidates had. His leap-of-faith and fanciful goal settings however is what got him elected, so why stop now? Not saying it's completely bad, because most candidates that are very business savvy likely stabbed a few backs and screwed a few servants on their way to the top.

RE: Hrm...
By segerstein on 11/28/2009 11:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
He'll pledge to reduce energy consumption i.e. prosperity. He'll return the U.S. back to the stone age!

Well, in DPRK there are no obese people. The also don't emit a lot of "greenhouse gases". That's probably BHO's role model :-(

RE: Hrm...
By daInvincibleGama on 12/1/2009 12:49:01 AM , Rating: 2
He'll pledge to reduce carbon emissions, not energy consumption. Not even close to the same thing. California already gets 30% of its electric power from renewable sources.

Not that there was much of a point in trying to explain that to you though.

RE: Hrm...
By amanojaku on 11/27/2009 10:42:55 AM , Rating: 4
Where are the links to sources? Seriously...

I'm completely against what Obama said, if he indeed said this. He would not be the first politician to make a promise he couldn't possibly keep, either. Any politician promising something that will be out of his/her hands when he/she leaves office is just deluded, or lying to us.

Bloomberg has "committed" NYC to something similar, known as PlaNYC.
the PlaNYC effort to reduce the amount of carbon emitted by municipal government 30 percent by 2017 and to reduce the entire City’s carbon emissions 30 percent by the year 2030.
Talk about a crock. Unless Bloomberg convinces the city to re-elect him for a fourth term (more believable now that he broke, er, changed the rules to get a third term) his successors will be the ones responsible for upholding this. Which means if it goes wrong people won't look at Bloomberg for being unrealistic, they'll blame the guy in office for not doing his job. And right or wrong, our taxes will go up to fund this. What's funny is my contacts tell me that in the year since this initiative started nothing has been done. Seriously, NOTHING. Not even a memo reminding people to turn off the lights and PCs when leaving for the day.

RE: Hrm...
By scrapsma54 on 11/27/2009 11:02:21 AM , Rating: 3
I wish we had Giuliani as a president, he is a much more realistic president, and fixed what mattered most as Mayor of New York.

RE: Hrm...
By amanojaku on 11/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hrm...
By scrapsma54 on 11/27/2009 11:17:55 AM , Rating: 5
RE: Hrm...
By amanojaku on 11/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hrm...
By scrapsma54 on 11/27/2009 5:11:59 PM , Rating: 1
only a foolish person would source wikipedia.

And thats politics.

RE: Hrm...
By amanojaku on 11/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hrm...
By scrapsma54 on 11/28/2009 2:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
And those are a big deal? A mayor can only do so much until his actions are frowned upon. If you were faced with these problems as mayor, how exactly are you going to go about these issues without as much as moving a few rocks with a couple centipedes?

Its do as much as possible, or do nothing.

RE: Hrm...
By amanojaku on 11/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hrm...
By Kurz on 11/28/2009 10:17:21 AM , Rating: 2
At least its not Gullani himself writing that crock.
Well it could be (Wiki can be edited by anyone), but he writes where it counts on the Gov website.

Since the Government Website makes that that much believable.

If you cant tell I am being very sarcastic.

RE: Hrm...
By cmdrdredd on 11/27/2009 11:51:49 AM , Rating: 3
I don't, and I disagree that he would have made a "better" president. What exactly did he fix in NYC? I ask because I don't see where he was responsible for most, if any, of the good done during his tenure.

At least he wouldn't bow to foreign leaders showing yourself to be "below" them and embarrassing the executive office. He wouldn't try this bullshit about "I'm sorry everyone, forgive me" while they spit right in your face on the world stage. He would not be going to Copenhagen to sign away our sovereignty basically pledging that we will pay 3rd world countries because of our supposed role in global warming which is a crock of shit and has been debunked by numerous sources.

Lastly he would have been voted in based on merit and leadership and not on race. If you think people voted for Obama because he was the better choice, you're hopeless.

RE: Hrm...
By Iaiken on 11/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hrm...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/2009 12:14:50 PM , Rating: 5
There is a fine line between humble and pandering. Obama is pandering, and in doing so, has weakened the Office of the President of the United States. Of course what he does over here isn't much better.

Diplomacy is not a strategy, it's a tool, a method. Probablem is, the Obama administration HAS no strategy. This is what happens when you elect a 'community organizer' who's never ran anything in this life to the highest office in the country. You get a leader, I use the term lightly, who bows low, talks a lot, but get's nothing done. Look at the Afghanistan situation. Our troops have been waiting for him to come to a decision for THREE months now, and he's had like 7 meetings and has STILL not made a decision !

There are many ways to be polite without physically bowing to other leaders. All the other President's before him were able to do it. Unless you're now going to suggest they were ALL being rude ??

RE: Hrm...
By Donkeyshins on 11/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hrm...
By bjacobson on 11/27/2009 1:05:23 PM , Rating: 5
LOL still can't do anything but blame the last guy.
Note how it wasn't ok for Bush to do that when Clinton left him with a crapper, overinflated economy.
But for some reason it's OK for Obama to blame everything that goes poorly on "this problem he inherited", and then when things go well, he can take all the credit for himself. LOL. You're too good.

Whatever happened to "The Buck Stops Here" anyways???

RE: Hrm...
By freaqie on 11/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hrm...
By Kurz on 11/28/2009 10:22:02 AM , Rating: 3
Umm... I thought it came from Bush spending a lot more money.

Taxes for the most part inhibit economic activities.
Thats what they do Inhibit.

At least the money went back to the people where all of the economy comes from. Though then he had to bail out his pals.

Obama is much worse than Bush is.
Well I would say Both Obama and Congress are worse than it was before.

RE: Hrm...
By ChickenMcTest on 11/30/2009 7:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
Obama has made a well thought out rational decision after evaluating the advice from several different sources.

His agenda is clear, unless you are closing your eyes claiming 'I can't see anything! Obama must be doing nothing.'

He is trying to remove US troops from Afghanistan, that is his goal. However, we can't just leave Afghanistan in rubble and dust for the Muslim warlords, we have to make an attempt to stabilize the country.

It took three months to develop the details involved in that strategy. Would you prefer he rashly send or remove troops based on his party ideology?

RE: Hrm...
By SPOOFE on 11/27/2009 9:05:27 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps because he inherited a totally mismanaged cluster-&$*$!

Then he's incompetent; if he was unaware that the US was engaged in a conflict in Afghanistan during the campaign, something is seriously wrong with his head.

There's been eight years to examine the conflict, Junior Senator or no. It wasn't exactly hidden; it wasn't exactly insignificant. Only incompetence can explain Obama's lack of decision on what was one of the most obvious issues he had to tackle. Heck, he had time to have a beer with a prof and a cop over the summer; he had time to chime in with his opinion of Kanye West; his HAND-PICKED commander in Afghanistan had his report sitting on Obama's desk for over a hundred and twenty days. There is no excuse for the dilly-dallying.

and is attempting to figure out the best way to extract our military without appearing 'weak'.

Extract? Is that a new development? Because this spring he sure seemed all gung-ho and eager to pull a Master Chief and finish the fight.

RE: Hrm...
By Iaiken on 11/27/2009 11:42:21 PM , Rating: 1
As incompetent as someone who thinks that a Junior Senator is privy to information that is above top secret. The complete tactical situation in Iraq and Afghanistan are only available to a handful of people as per:

Sec. 4.3. Special Access Programs .

(a) Establishment of special access programs. Unless otherwise authorized by the President, only the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Energy, and the Director of Central Intelligence, or the principal deputy of each, may create a special access program. For special access programs pertaining to intelligence activities (including special activities, but not including military operational, strategic, and tactical programs), or intelligence sources or methods, this function shall be exercised by the Director of Central Intelligence. These officials shall keep the number of these programs at an absolute minimum, and shall establish them only when the program is required by statute or upon a specific finding that:

(1) the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional; and
(2) the normal criteria for determining eligibility for access applicable to information classified at the same level are not deemed sufficient to protect the information from unauthorized disclosure.

(b) Requirements and limitations.
(1) Special access programs shall be limited to programs in which the number of persons who will have access ordinarily will be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved.
(2) Each agency head shall establish and maintain a system of accounting for special access programs consistent with directives issued pursuant to this order.
(3) Special access programs shall be subject to the oversight program established under section 5.4(d) of this order. In addition, the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office shall be afforded access to these programs, in accordance with the security requirements of each program, in order to perform the functions assigned to the Information Security Oversight Office under this order. An agency head may limit access to a special access program to the Director and no more than one other employee of the Information Security Oversight Office, or, for special access programs that are extraordinarily sensitive and vulnerable, to the Director only.
(4) The agency head or principal deputy shall review annually each special access program to determine whether it continues to meet the requirements of this order.
(5) Upon request, an agency head shall brief the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, or a designee, on any or all of the agencys special access programs.

(c) Nothing in this order shall supersede any requirement made by or under 10 U.S.C. 119.

So yeah, the gross strategic overview are pretty much limited to the highest levels of the administration and it's agencies as well as the join chiefs of staff.

So please, don't be stupid.

RE: Hrm...
By SPOOFE on 11/28/2009 2:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
A: No link for your cite.

B: Your quote doesn't at all indicate that Obama, as a Senator and part of the body responsible for funding the war, wouldn't have enough information to be prepared to make decisions about the war once becoming President.

C: Obama's hand-picked commander - presumably with ready access to all salient information - has had his report and recommendations sitting on Obama's desk since June or July. Again, there is NO EXCUSE for Obama's taking so long to make a decisions either way.

RE: Hrm...
By ChickenMcTest on 11/30/2009 7:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
So you would prefer a hasty decision on committing the lives of Americans to war?

If you think all Obama decided was to "send more troops" you are grossly underestimating the nature of the decisions which he had to make. I do not want any POTUS to blindly follow the advice of any military commander, I want them to make an informed reasoned decision.

The actions taken by Obama are going to shape the future of Afghanistan and the middle east for the next 50 years. It would be pathetically ignorant of Obama not to take time in fully understanding all of the issues surrounding Afghanistan before making a formal decision.

With out time for rational discussion and deliberation we might accept bad intelligence of nuclear weapons and invade the wrong country.

RE: Hrm...
By Stonewall123 on 11/29/2009 6:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe cause he's indecisive and dont know WTF he is doing.

RE: Hrm...
By SPOOFE on 11/29/2009 6:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't be, as that would confirm all the blatantly obvious shortcomings about the man mentioned for over a year prior to the actual elections. He has no faults, only features.

RE: Hrm...
By Stonewall123 on 11/29/2009 6:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
our President or any american citizens bow to NO ONE! Not a king, not a head of state, not an emperor. doesn't matter if he's visiting. If they don't like that, stuff em

RE: Hrm...
By kyleb2112 on 11/29/2009 4:47:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I was for Giuliani too. He was the only guy serious enough for the times.

RE: Hrm...
By room200 on 11/30/2009 3:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
Giuliani. A verb, a noun, and 9/11.

RE: Hrm...
By amanojaku on 11/27/2009 11:02:02 AM , Rating: 2
Where are the links to sources? Seriously...
I missed the BBC link. There's so many self-referential DT links that it was hard to spot.

RE: Hrm...
By GaryJohnson on 11/27/2009 11:13:39 AM , Rating: 3
self-referential DT links

We call those McLinks.

RE: Hrm...
By Manch on 11/30/2009 12:54:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'm completely against what Obama said, if he indeed said this. He would not be the first politician to make a promise he couldn't possibly keep, either.

Maybe he plans on being the el presidente for a while.

RE: Hrm...
By Dorkyman on 11/27/2009 12:01:53 PM , Rating: 3
I can imagine what nightmares Messiah must be having these days. After such a stunning victory just a year ago, and after a career of being told that he was the answer we were all seeking, now he surveys the realm and sees everything he touches going up in flames.

I have no hatred of the man himself, as he appears to be a good husband and father to his daughters. His politics, however, are socialist garbage. In a sense I am grateful that he came along, because he has almost single-handedly turned the American public back towards a conservative/moderate outlook. Look for a major shift in the election outcome a year from now.

RE: Hrm...
By kyleb2112 on 11/29/2009 4:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think he has any nightmares at all, and that's what scares me most. By all evidence the guy is a true believer, with zero capacity to process facts which contradict his ideology.

RE: Hrm...
By SPOOFE on 11/29/2009 6:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
He follows the Samuel Clemens philosophy of leadership, in which (paraphrasing) "all you need is ignorance and confidence and then success is sure".

RE: Hrm...
By glennforum on 11/27/2009 12:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much par for the course for this President, Carter II, destined to be the worst President in the history of the US.

Global warming is a fraud, pure and simple, designed to demonize one of the 4 most common elements in the universe just so they could tax it, once taxed they can redistribute the wealth - the ultimate global socialism program.

ALL of the politicians supporting global warming, cap & trade should be put in fully investigated - this will go down in history as the biggest scam and fraud ever.

RE: Hrm...
By Jalek on 11/27/2009 12:05:47 PM , Rating: 3
It could be done, the biggest polluters for decades have been coal-fired power plants, not cars.

Nuclear power plants are really the least polluting we have with the capacity to replace them under current technology. For pollutants, instead of hundreds of tons of emissions into the atmosphere each year, it's a contained and stable mass of a much smaller scale.

There's still no politically expedient answer for what to do with solid waste for long term storage, but other than turning the Mohave into a huge solar collector and praying for clear weather, it's the the only readily available answer.

RE: Hrm...
By Solandri on 11/28/2009 1:12:40 AM , Rating: 4
The comparison isn't even close. In a year a 750 MW nuclear plant produces about enough "waste" (spent fuel which could be reprocessed to produce nearly 10x more fuel but which we've decided to bury instead) to fill about a bathtub. If you include extraneous irradiated material, it's about enough to fill a bathroom or two.

In contrast, in a year a 750 MW coal plant will burn 3-5 million tons of coal most of which ends up as ash, and produce 5-10 million tons of CO2. The trace uranium and thorium in coal which ends up in the air and in the ash actually contains more energy than the coal itself.

You can see the same thing in the performance characteristics of the NS Savannah, the first nuclear cargo ship. From 1959-1971, it logged 450,000 miles on 163 pounds of uranium. By volume, that's a hair over 1 gallon. If she had been powered by convention fuel oil, she would have consumed 29 million gallons in that time.

RE: Hrm...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hrm...
By log on 11/27/2009 1:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
That's a shame. I think it's a promise that many are wishing it is kept.

And all in all, it's not that much of a promise since it's proposing a reduction on carbon level emissions against 2005 when many other are committing to 1990, which makes it almost symbolic!

Probably the reason for being so welcomed is that until now the US has pulled itself aside as to commit to carbon emission reductions.

RE: Hrm...
By ggordonliddy on 11/30/2009 11:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
You're a complete dumb@ss if you appreciate the sentiment. You appreciate the attempted destruction of society to appease your religion of global warming?

By mdogs444 on 11/27/2009 10:37:40 AM , Rating: 5
However... because this is sooooo big - I'm not going to say carbon emissions should not be cut.

There is no global warming. Its cooling. Its nothing but a tax scam. And since its cooling, it shows that carbon emissions have nothing to do with the temperature anyway.

So why cut it? That's retarded, and does nothing but scale back our standard of living, increase our prices, and fall into the redistribution of wealth mentality.

I say we we cut no carbon emissions, and if other countries don't like it, they can suck one.

By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/27/2009 11:49:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's a Jason article. Slap the stick a few times in the hornets nest and watch the posts fly.

By Amiga500 on 11/27/2009 12:06:34 PM , Rating: 1
There is no global warming. Its cooling.

If it is cooling, then why are the ice shelves becoming ever thinner/cover less surface area?

The map of the arctic now compared to 1960-1970 speaks volumes. Maybe a short term 1/2/3 year trend is different, but long term it points one direction. Feel free to post information to the contrary, I'm always open to new evidence.

Whether carbon is the driver or not I don't know. But I'd sure as hell rather be safe than sorry.

You are adament it is cooling just to suit your own fiscal politics. For that reason, for me, your opinion (and that is all it is) carries very little weight.

By iFX on 11/27/2009 12:17:29 PM , Rating: 1
If it is cooling, then why are the ice shelves becoming ever thinner/cover less surface area?

They aren't.

By McDragon on 11/27/2009 3:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, they are. We may not be on the low-low point of 2007, but seen on a slightly longer scale they're extremely low.

Ever heard of the North-West passage? It just opened, for the first time since the medieval warm period!

Many European glaciers are disappearing, I've seen it - And they've been there for many generations.

Whatever it is, it's not all just talk..

By Tyndel on 11/27/2009 7:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of the NW passage. Seems to me Canada and Russia would want to be higher on the list of carbon emitters. Think of how much more useable land they could open up by pumping a little more C02 into the air.

Its my understanding that the MWP was a myth or localized to only Europe, UK, Iceland, Greenland, Asia, and North America and maybe some parts of the Southern Hem. :P

By McDragon on 11/28/2009 3:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
I believe it was localized, but not a myth...In fact, that's what some climate-fanatics want you to believe because they cannot get it to fit with models.

By SPOOFE on 11/28/2009 3:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
localized to only Europe, UK, Iceland, Greenland, Asia, and North America and maybe some parts of the Southern Hem.

On a galactic scale, that is indeed very localized. :D

By jimbojimbo on 12/1/2009 2:06:42 PM , Rating: 3
It just opened, for the first time since the medieval warm period!
You said it yourself. I guess that warming period ended because all the countries got together to cut down on carbon emissions right? That's the only possible solution! That's the only reason it got warmer right??

Around noon, go outside and look up at the bright round thing in the sky. That's called a sun and it's activity fluctuates over the years and decades. It's spelled S U N.

By TSS on 11/27/2009 8:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
You are adament it is cooling just to suit your own fiscal politics. For that reason, for me, your opinion (and that is all it is) carries very little weight.

Why, substitute cooling with warming and i could've sworn you where talking about Al Gore.

Feel free to post information to the contrary, I'm always open to new evidence.

The bigger continent of ice on the other side of the planet is gaining ice, and has been for as long as the other side has been losing it.

If this is GLOBAL warming, why isn't it GLOBAL?

Because the only thing that's global about it is that it's a global scam. It's all about transferrance of wealth. The cimate has never stayed the same, why should it now?

By William Gaatjes on 11/28/2009 11:03:28 AM , Rating: 2
It's all about transferrance of wealth.

I would have thought you would be beyond such simple thoughts. It is always about ensuring wealth. People want everything for nothing. Oil is cheap when it squirts out the ground by itself. When people have to work for it all of a sudden it is no longer interesting. It is always the same. Everything for nothing. Kill people to take their resources. Not an honest day work. Not enjoying the fruit of your labour. Just everything for nothing. Only for war purposes people will spend in a paranoia delusion everything they have. But when there is no war, people do not want to work. How much people can really enjoy just being busy, constructing something for educational purposes or from a hope to deliver their small contribution to a better, more peaceful and smarter world. Not enough people i am sad to say.

By Amiga500 on 11/30/2009 4:00:48 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the links.

By SPOOFE on 11/27/2009 8:26:43 PM , Rating: 3
If it is cooling, then why are the ice shelves becoming ever thinner/cover less surface area?

Because the climate changes. Nobody disputes this. The ice shelves have been growing and shrinking for a couple billion years now.

Instead of invoking examples of the climate changing and then immediately implying that man caused it, why don't you provide examples of climate change that reach extremes that we haven't seen in nature? One technique for scientific study, after all, is isolation of variables, and demonstrating something that could only happen because of man and industry would go a long way to legitimizing the claims of AGW pushers.

By Amiga500 on 11/30/2009 4:02:55 AM , Rating: 1
Instead of invoking examples of the climate changing and then immediately implying that man caused it

Square that with...

Ultimately I think the human race should be aspiring to climate control, on both local and global levels - as that will help ensure survival of the race. I just think we should be thinking bigger, as in, control over how much energy from the sun gets to the earth. Of course, to accomplish such a feat would require massive mirrors and screens located in space...

Nonsensical argument.

By SPOOFE on 11/30/2009 4:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
So... your retort to a lack of established causation is that we should artificially create that causal relationship?

If you'd like to address the assertion that a connection between man's activities and the overall climatic picture is lacking, go right ahead. If you'd like to debate whether or not man should attempt to achieve the practically impossible, I'd hope you'd at least have the forethought to announce your desired change of subject instead of assuming everyone will know what you're talking about when you spew mindless gibberish

By SPOOFE on 11/27/2009 8:23:21 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not going to say carbon emissions should not be cut.

Me neither; but I'm not motivated by a concern about global warming. Pollution is a nasty thing that should be avoided anyway. Smog? Poisoned water? Blighted soil? Dependence on foreign oil? Concern about electricity prices?

These are all real issues with legit concerns; NONE of them have anything to do with "global warming" as popularly described. It is a travesty that the AGW types have absconded with these issues under their phony umbrella.

I hope we don't
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2009 10:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
President Obama says the U.S. will offer to cut 17 percent of its emissions by 2020

Global Warming is a complete scam, only being pushed by those who want to increase taxes and redistribute the wealth, as well as nations who want us to pay for them to leave the rain forests alone. With this being said, Obama can promise whatever he wants - I just hope he's voted out in 2012, and we cancel any pledge he makes and increase the number of power plants, coal plants, start drilling everywhere, and loosen environmental regulations on the manufacturing industry. We need to grow the GDP, stop allowing China to outpace us. If you are a bleeding heart environmentalist and global warming religious fanatic, there are many places in Europe that should go call HOME.

Just my $0.02

RE: I hope we don't
By Youdumbass on 11/27/2009 11:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah global warming is such a scam!!

I also believe that there is no correlation between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, oh and by the way, Earth is also flat.


RE: I hope we don't
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2009 11:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
The Kool-Aid man loves you. You'll drink anything he gives you as long as its got a lot of sugar in it.

RE: I hope we don't
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/27/2009 11:52:59 AM , Rating: 4
Correlation is one issue, causal relation is another issue altogether.

Just because there is a correlation does not imply cause and effect. Ice cream sales go up in the summer, and so does crime. Simple correlation, but that doesn't mean ice cream consumption causes increased crime.

Smoking and lung cancer have a demonstrable causal relationship.

Innacurately and disputed temperature measurements cannot even be consistently correlated to carbon output, never mind showing a causal relationship. Dumbass.

RE: I hope we don't
By bjacobson on 11/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: I hope we don't
By SPOOFE on 11/27/2009 8:20:05 PM , Rating: 3
You mean UNDERplayed. If it were overplayed, there'd be no need to continually remind people about it.

RE: I hope we don't
By avanst on 11/27/2009 2:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
Where have I heard about ice cream and crime at before...? Oh yeah, it's a logical reasoning question on the LSAT. Very original.

If you're studying the lsat you should also have seen enough smoking and cancer questions to know the person you are replying to is not implying causation, simply correlation. Although a correlation does not imply causation, it does strengthen the argument.

And how you replied is the straw man fallacy.

RE: I hope we don't
By SPOOFE on 11/27/2009 8:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
And how you replied is the straw man fallacy.

Actually, no it wasn't; you cannot misrepresent a position where none was presented. It's hard to distort another's position if their position was a pile of inaccurate sarcasm.

RE: I hope we don't
By JediJeb on 11/30/2009 2:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
There is a lot of evidence out there that temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere are related, but it actually shows that rising temperatures cause rising CO2, not the other way around which the AGW folks want you to believe. Therefore the only way to stop rising CO2 levels is to cool the Earth, so why don't we start proposing laws to cool the Earth...

ugh I should not have said that, the people in power now days honestly think they have to power to cool the Earth by legislation.

RE: I hope we don't
By cmdrdredd on 11/27/2009 12:02:05 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah global warming is such a scam!! I also believe that there is no correlation between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, oh and by the way, Earth is also flat. ....youdumbass.

You want higher taxes? You want to be unable to buy or sell a home and live the American Dream because you have to have it certified "green"? You want to pay 3rd world countries who would kill your family and spit on their graves to further their own ends in order to appease this "global warming" conspiracy? You want to destroy everything that makes the United States the best nation on earth? Then you are no better than the ones who flew planes into the Trade Center, no better than the ones who blow themselves up in a school in the middle east, no better than the drug dealers who intinidate and threaten people beheading them and all down in central and south america, you are no better than the genocidal military dictators in Africa, you are no better than the ones who would love nothing more than to kill a few hundred thousand people with a nuclear weapon.

RE: I hope we don't
By McDragon on 11/27/2009 2:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you've got serious issues...

RE: I hope we don't
By cmdrdredd on 11/28/2009 10:08:12 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, you've got serious issues...

No it's the same thing, the idea of tax everyone, socialize everything, and make apologies to everyone who we retaliated against after 9/11 is going to destroy what made this country great. It's the same as those who are sworn terrorists.

RE: I hope we don't
By lco45 on 11/29/2009 11:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, you have issues. Consider me your second opinion. It's psychiatrist's couch time for you buddy.


RE: I hope we don't
By BruceLeet on 11/27/2009 4:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
Well it pushes the auto market to competitiveness, increasing fuel economy and making vehicles overall safer.

I wouldn't call the scam a "complete" one :P

And as technology in every field of humanity excels I'm sure we'll be just fine regardless of the FUD concerning "global warming".

Thats my $0.02

RE: I hope we don't
By wookie1 on 11/28/2009 2:55:53 AM , Rating: 2
If we sign a treaty, it can't be cancelled without the agreement of all other signatories. Do you think the developing countries would agree to cut off the gravy train? No act of congress can reverse a treaty, the constitution puts treaties above any laws or acts that may be passed, and states that the treaty must be followed. This is why the founding fathers warned against entering into treaties and "foreign entaglements".

By vcolon on 11/27/2009 7:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
Obama is a jackass and so are those who voted for him.

RE: NoBama
By 2 DEGREES on 11/27/2009 8:33:13 PM , Rating: 1
Obama has the support of 6 BILLION people worldwide.
He is the best US president ever.
Top reasons:
1. Obamacare
2. CO2 reductions
3. Starts to get out of Irak

He has already got the Nobel prize, so

RE: NoBama
By SPOOFE on 11/27/2009 9:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
Let's not forget that Obama will cure your leprosy if you touch the hem of his robe.

RE: NoBama
By Kurz on 11/28/2009 10:26:38 AM , Rating: 2

I think you'll be hating him pretty soon.
I see what he is doing with our money.
With our Indrustries.
Healthcare is a big part of our GDP we ship alot of our tech to the world.

If you havent noticed he hasn't kept his promises with anything to date.

If you weren't blind you'd see what he does after he says something.

Actions speak louder than words.

RE: NoBama
By room200 on 11/30/2009 3:44:48 PM , Rating: 1
Your mother is a bitch. So there.

By Smokey48 on 11/27/2009 10:10:20 PM , Rating: 4
From the article:

"The U.S. is the second biggest polluter in terms of carbon emissions..."

Whoa there, pardner. Hold your horses.

First, the majority of people who believe this don't even know the difference between "carbon" and carbon dioxide [CO2], which is a completely harmless and beneficial minor trace gas, as essential to life on Earth as H2O.

Next, CO2 is not "pollution", any more than oxygen is pollution. [Carbon particulates, which the U.S. cleans with stack scrubbers, are pollution.]

CO2 is what we naturally exhale. The CO2 is then used by plants, which strip out the carbon atom to build cellulose, and emit the oxygen atoms for animals like us to breathe. Win win. More CO2 = more and bigger plants. Agriculture thrives. Good news in a world with a billion malnourished people.

Finally, the leaked CRU emails show conclusively that the UN's IPCC – which is composed entirely of political appointees with marching orders – is in on the "carbon" scam.

If it wasn't a scam, Al Gore and the rest of the Elmer Gantry crowd would be willing to debate their beliefs in a neutral, moderated, public, and preferably televised forum. But the last time that was done, the alarmist contingent got their heads handed to them on a platter. So neither Fat Albert, nor any other globaloney purveyor will stand up and publicly argue their position.

That tells us all we need to know about their lack of confidence in the pseudo-science they're trying to sell us.

RE: Globaloney!
By amosbatto on 11/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Globaloney!
By SPOOFE on 11/28/2009 2:20:10 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, CO2 is naturally occurring, but it isn't natural for it to be emitted into the atmosphere at the rates which it is being currently emitted.

Sure it is. CO2 content in the atmosphere has been MUCH higher in the past. To get an accurate view of our climate, one should look at it on the scale of many thousands of years, at least. Most graphs that "show" man causing global warming don't go back more than a few hundred years (mostly, in my view, to avoid dealing with the medieval warming period, which would make recent hot spots look like tiny blips).

Anyway, it is a myth that CO2 levels or temperatures are unprecedented. There is nothing in today's climate that hasn't been seen naturally in Earth's history.

RE: Globaloney!
By Stonewall123 on 11/29/2009 6:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
but, can we still play CRYSIS?

By PorreKaj on 11/29/2009 5:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
"UN climate treaty talks in Copenhagen."

We know that they'll say, what others wan't to hear.. politics 101. after the UN "gettogether" in DK, all we'll have is empty promises based on the "fact" that C02 is the problem. USELESS.

How to fix C02 problems:

1. Go Nuclear

- Coal releases more toxic nuclear waste than nuclear plants ever have. releasing it in the air, and the waste is used to build roads.

- Chernobyl can't happen today. even WITH human errors, there are safety systems that would never allow radiation to get outside the plant

- and whilst were are on Nuclear power. we can focus on fusion projects and things like that. alternate power sources like wind, solar and wave tech, is just stealing the energy from somewhere else. Is there a limmit to how much we can steal from the wind?

- "nuclear waste is killing the nature, dumped in ocean, stored in the ground"
STOP! As we speak, plants are being developed that can use nuclear waste as an energy source.

2. Trees
Tree's converts co2 into o2. so why not go plant some more? thousands of trees are harvested as we speak, put a halt on that.

Don't cut carbon emission on behalf of the climate, humans is one of the smallest producers of carbon. instead. cut emissions on behalf of humans, our health.

As most of you will se, English is not my native lng.

Have a nice day

- Danefag

RE: Publicity...
By SPOOFE on 11/29/2009 6:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
Good post. I'm of the opinion that nuclear power has had such a slow adoption over the past fifty years because of the panicky thoughts people get when they hear the "n-word" (no, not THAT "n-word").

The only solution is constant attempts at education, and in that regard your comments are excellent.

RE: Publicity...
By The0ne on 11/30/2009 12:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
Good effort but there are drawbacks to what you've proposed, not that they aren't good mind you.

1. Go nuclear. We can but other countries won't. China, for example, has a huge coal plant growth. They will not listen to US or anyone, thus we need to bomb the sht out of know to create more jobs and stimulate the economy :) And then there's always the fact that there's always a Homer working in the nuclear plant and the accident is going to happen, it's just a matter of when and how big the boom is :D

2. Trees, You cannot keep up the pace of growing trees to the rate they are being demolish, not including anything and everything that dies along with it. How many plants and animal species were wiped out that could have been a potential cure for known ill-nesses or future ill-nesses? Well, we won't ever know know :D You can't stop the tree-cutting loving industries. Governments protect them :D

RE: Publicity...
By Danish1 on 12/1/2009 2:00:00 AM , Rating: 2
Preach it bro.

By LazierSaid on 11/28/2009 10:44:41 AM , Rating: 2
This administration continues to amaze, albeit no longer to surprise.

The economy is in the worst shape in 75 years. Unemployment is the highest it has been in my lifetime. The USD is in the toilet and flushing fast. The federal deficit boggles the mind.

And confronted with these catastrophes, which a child could tell you are far and away the most important issues of the day, how do they deal with them?

By spending the entire year essentially ignoring the problem and talking about health care and the CO2 bogeyman instead. Both of which will cost trillions and make the economy even worse.

CO2 means spit when you don't have a job.

RE: Priorities
By amosbatto on 11/28/2009 1:50:49 PM , Rating: 1
I hate to burst your bubble, but global warming is going to cause a much larger crisis than a few percentage points of unemployment. Mass migration of billions of people, mass starvation, the disappearance of nations under water, and the threat of wars over increasingly-scarce sources of fresh water, food and other resources. In comparison, the current economic downturn looks like a picnic for the human race.

I think that you need to reexamine your priorities if you think the considerations of the short term outweigh the future survival of the human race. While reevaluating your priorities, I would also advise taking the time to read some of the future scenarios predicted by the scientific models of Global Warming. And if you aren't convinced that they can really happen, I suggest reading about the 5 major die-offs in The Earth's history, which were probably caused by global climate change. I strongly suggest that you read about what happened at the end of the Permian Age when 80-90% of the Earth's species disappeared due to temperatures rising 6-8 degree Celsius. You might have a new perspective on priorities if you did a little research on the subject.

RE: Priorities
By SPOOFE on 11/28/2009 2:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
but global warming is going to cause a much larger crisis than a few percentage points of unemployment.

That's right: It's going to cost a ton of money and do nothing, because they are trying to "stop" something that they don't know can't be stopped. There is no link connecting recent climate changes to man's activity; there is no reason to think halting our activity will make the climate stop changing.

In fact, I KNOW there's nothing we can do to keep the climate from changing; it's been changing ever since this planet had a climate. The only thing global warming legislation will do is cripple our ability to adapt to climate that changes independently of anything we do.

This is a tilting at windmills, nothing more. Look how far that got Quixote.

RE: Priorities
By Stonewall123 on 11/29/2009 6:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
The survival of the human race? Stop drinking the Kool-aid, someone's spiked it with pcp and vodka.

Another ignorant boob
By owyheewine on 11/27/2009 10:50:33 AM , Rating: 2
Further proof that our intrepid leader is another scientifically ignorant boob. Just like the noted expert Algor, he appear to have left science behind in junior high school.
It's a shame that lawyers believe they can practice science and engineering without understanding even the most basic tenants. In the world of energy, a glib tongue is worth a lot less that it is in the political arena.

RE: Another ignorant boob
By amosbatto on 11/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Another ignorant boob
By Davester on 11/28/2009 2:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
The last time I checked, science was about repeatability, and verification. CONSENSUS means 50% plus 1. Not very scientific in my mind. I'm all for trying to keep things as good for the environment as possible, but I don't believe in scare tactics like the "Global Warming" gangs.

You should try to leave Politics out of a scientific debate. Otherwise, you are showing your true nature. Let the science talk for itself, and there shouldn't be any holes in it. Right now, the "Global Warming" supporters are making themselves look really bad.

RE: Another ignorant boob
By SPOOFE on 11/28/2009 2:14:32 PM , Rating: 3
A couple years ago _Nature_ published a study which examined a randomly selected sample of 960+ articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals which discussed global warming or its effects in a wide range of different fields.

And it only takes a single peer-reviewed paper to smash all that to bits. How many PAPERS do those 960+ articles reference? Probably a number in the single digits.

According to the data from the recent CRU breach, at least one of the most prominent climate change institutes actively stacked the peer-review process and isolated "dissenters" from participating in any study or reports. Hell, they deliberately avoided referencing or publishing in any journals they suspected of being skeptical. As such, any "random" survey wouldn't truly be "random" at all; there's been an active attempt by influential institute directors to stuff the box, as it were.

Why does 27% of the American public believe that global warming is a hoax? Partially, it is due to scientific illiteracy

And the rest of America is well-versed in scientific principles? That makes no sense. Global Warming has received overwhelming ACCEPTANCE over the past decade due to scientific illiteracy. It is only now that the truth is starting to catch up; the truth that the claims of AGW pushers are distorted, stretched, exaggerated, or out-and-out falsified.

By iFX on 11/27/2009 12:14:58 PM , Rating: 4
We all see how that turned out...

By lightfoot on 11/30/2009 2:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
The best way to eliminate 83% of carbon emissions is to simultanously eliminate 83% of jobs. By that measure we are well on our way to meeting Obama's goals!

By 2 DEGREES on 11/27/2009 5:19:56 PM , Rating: 1
I am signing this petition to ensure that:
• a global climate agreement is drawn up
• all the countries in the world sign up to this agreement
• developing countries are guaranteed the opportunity to continue to develop
• the temperature will only increase by a maximum of two degrees.

By lightfoot on 11/30/2009 2:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
How exactly does signing a petition ensure anything?

Even if man did not exist on earth there is no way to ensure that "the temperature will only increase by a maximum of two degrees."

But go ahead and sign your piece of meaningless paper if it makes you feel better.

By Danish1 on 12/1/2009 2:09:15 AM , Rating: 2
Well hello there mr. useful idiot, you make daddy Gore proud.

By marsbound2024 on 11/27/2009 1:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
A couple of points.

1) He won't be in office that long. Who knows if whatever he gets passed is reversed at some point in the future.

2) No one can predict the future and while you can strive to try and cut carbon emissions by eighty-some-odd-percent--incredibly difficult if you account for the expansion/growth of our country--you certainly can't pledge to do so.

What he needs to do is focus on the here and now. What can we get accomplished while he is in office so we can see the effects. Extrapolating supposed effects out forty years seems presumptuous if not ridiculous.

thats nice
By SlyNine on 11/27/2009 2:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
Id rather him reduce the deficit 50% by 2012.

By uibo on 11/27/2009 4:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
Insert onion news network theme song here.

By nofumble62 on 11/30/2009 12:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
Gas will be too expensive for people to operate today cars. Even we don't have to do anything, carbon consumption will drop by half because of supply.

Retro thoughts
By wifiwolf on 11/30/2009 11:52:24 AM , Rating: 1
I really don't understand how could you make a green technology statement made by a politic person, a personal politic discussion.

Whereas other countries proved they could be competitive and more nature-friendly at the same time, all previous united states presidents just ignored it because there were too many (rich and influential) people who would get screwed.
Everyone got a bite on their (backs*) then because US was the biggest offender and only recently China has won that title.

There are countries which began this turnaround since the Kyoto protocol. Yes, they had a hit in economy but then it healed and got better.
You want to compare yourselves with China? I'm not even trying to start writing about what makes china products competitive as we all know more than we wanted to.

Yes, I agree that those goals are too optimistic, here in Europe is no different, as long as they're in downward direction that's fine for me.

You get finally a decent president which is coherent and all you do is jump to the other side of the fence.

If you are going to (Unite) for something (may it be for rating me down) at least be coherent and go altogether.

“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki