Obama's bid to save the world

a reply to: neoholographic

Nowhere does it say that Bush had nothing to do with it. That's your left wing nonsense.

Left wing. That's a good one.
But you're right. It doesn't say Bush had nothing to do with it.

If that drop that occurred from 2006 to mid 2008 would have occurred under Obama, there would be climate fanatics pushing to make Obama king.

I don't hold much truck with fanatics of any sort. I prefer reason.

a reply to: Phage

I don't believe Earth is warming or cooling any differently than it did for millenia prior to humans. I believe the data attempting to connect human activity to climate change is manipulated, disingenuous data.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't believe Earth is warming or cooling any differently than it did for millenia prior to humans.

That's your privilege. But the data says something different.

I believe the data attempting to connect human activity to climate change is manipulated, disingenuous data.

That's your privilege. But perhaps you should actually try to understand the data instead of dismissing it. Or not.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Phage

I don't believe Earth is warming or cooling any differently than it did for millenia prior to humans. I believe the data attempting to connect human activity to climate change is manipulated, disingenuous data.[/quote

exactly. Weather man can't tell me with any certainty what the weather will be two days from now, but we are supposed to uproot our entire economy based on some climate models predicting the weather 50-100 years out.

a reply to: Edumakated

Weather man can't tell me with any certainty what the weather will be two days from now,

Weather is not the same thing as climate. Weather changes fast. Climate, not so much.

but we are supposed to uproot our entire economy

No. But changing some things wouldn't hurt. Tell me, did cleaning up water pollution uproot the entire economy?

Doing something about climate change is better than denying it exists, which is what the Republicans like to do. I think that strategy lacks intellect. The scientific evidence points to climate change. Deciding what to do about it is a big issue that should be talked about, because, in less than 100 years, our economies will be affected based on the decisions we make today.

There could be opportunities involved for new ventures and there could be things to look out for, like rising sea levels and extinctions. It might be a good idea to develop proactive counter-measures to climate change or take measured efforts to counteract pollution that won't hurt the economy as much. But the Republicans can't even participate in the conversation until they accept the basic facts involved.

Make no mistake, not much that happens in international politics is done outside of what the oligarchs want. For example, look at the conflict the west had in Vietnam. It started under French, then we sent advisors with a Democrat in office. It escalated under a Republican. With that in mind, do we really think that a "conservative" president would have different results? Remember, the oligarchs do as they will, dragging the rest of us along, like it or not.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: neoholographic

Transcanada's Keystone XL pipeline withdrew its application after a seven year "review".

www.zerohedge.com...

Yep, so instead of letting them try to reapply under a new administration that would be friendlier to it, he killed it. After all, you don't say no to HIM. HE says no to you.

He's like a shallow teen who found out her boyfriend was going to break up with her so she dumps him first.

originally posted by: darkbake
Doing something about climate change is better than denying it exists, which is what the Republicans like to do. I think that strategy lacks intellect. The scientific evidence points to climate change. Deciding what to do about it is a big issue that should be talked about, because, in less than 100 years, our economies will be affected based on the decisions we make today.

There could be opportunities involved for new ventures and there could be things to look out for, like rising sea levels and extinctions. It might be a good idea to develop proactive counter-measures to climate change or take measured efforts to counteract pollution that won't hurt the economy as much. But the Republicans can't even participate in the conversation until they accept the basic facts involved.

Get it right.

No one denies the climate changes. What we argue over is how much it is changing and what is causing it. And if any changes are actually as detrimental or as catastrophic as the pop science propaganda wants you to believe given that those projections are largely based on computer models that are wrong ... again ... and again .... and again ...

a reply to: ketsuko
You mean like... some of us may deny that the poles are ice free, right this minute, as AL Gore predicted?

a reply to: butcherguy

You mean like... some of us may deny that the poles are ice free, right this minute, as AL Gore predicted?

No. He didn't.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: butcherguy

You mean like... some of us may deny that the poles are ice free, right this minute, as AL Gore predicted?

No. He didn't.

He made predictions.

a reply to: butcherguy

He made predictions.

So what if he did?

a reply to: butcherguy
He did not predict that the poles would be ice free today.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: butcherguy
He did not predict that the poles would be ice free today.

I said some of us would deny that he predicted it.
Anyway, he hasn't been wrong yet, I suppose?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: butcherguy

He made predictions.

So what if he did?

Good point.
He is an arse. A politician raking jn money.

Obama has been a vast improvement on the former president.

a reply to: butcherguy

I said some of us would deny that he predicted it.

No. That is not what you said. This is what you said.

You mean like... some of us may deny that the poles are ice free, right this minute, as AL Gore predicted?

Pretty disjointed. I suppose you could have meant that the poles are ice free and some are denying it but I don't think anyone is saying they are, so how could anyone deny it if no one is saying it?

No, it's pretty clear that you were claiming that Gore said the poles would be ice free, right this minute. He didn't.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: butcherguy

I said some of us would deny that he predicted it.

No. That is not what you said. This is what you said.

You mean like... some of us may deny that the poles are ice free, right this minute, as AL Gore predicted?

Yeah, but that's not what I meant... the commas are typos.

But, the question mark at the end was not a typo...
I asked a question
See that?
I haven't done an edit on that post.

a reply to: butcherguy

So then, what did you mean? And please, take the time to properly punctuate so we can understand.