Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’

reply to post by AkhenatenII

Hey skeptics...... when your are up to your knees in salt water get back to me.

If you, or I, are alive 1000's of years from now, it's a date.

reply to post by Indigo5

Not the survival of the human race at large, nor the earth....just a quality of life that doesn't involve ever more severe natural disasters, rising sea levels, draughts, famines and poluted air and water, and wars for oil..

Fair enough argument....but when a large number of Americans are trying to figure out how to meet their bills, it is NOT the right time to make decisions that could lead to the destruction of industries and further unemployment, especially when the science the decisions are based upon, is flawed. Our children will live like rats not because of some disaster, but because they simply can't afford to do otherwise.

Going green should be based on rewards, not penalties for those who aren't green because the concept didn't even exist when their business started.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Right lets not talk about any of that, heh?

Right, and they wont....because AGW / Climate Change is a wealth redistribution
scheme.

Admitted by one of the leads on the IPCC....
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.



Look at the hypocrites leading the movement, that is all one needs to do.

They dont even show an interest in faking it in their own personal lives. What,
is Obama going to take one less vacation, is Michelle going to take two less?

Is Gore going to take public transportation, or scale back his energy use?

Is Obama going to take the coal tar color out of Kraft Mac and Cheese so little
children are spared from Yellow color made from coal tar?

Nope.

How about the pesticides that are killing the birds, the bees and the butterflies?
Nope....GMO toxins for everyone! Wheee!


I guess some people just need something, anything to believe in that will still
make politicians look they really give a damn when they dont.

Originally posted by Gazrok

Going green should be based on rewards, not penalties for those who aren't green because the concept didn't even exist when their business started.

Corporations that pollute unchecked are already heavily subsidized. They are subsidized everytime that pollution contributes to health issues of the population that relies on the air and water that they pollute. Those populations pay for the healthcare, or the government does. People pay for thier drinking water, asthma inhalers...cancer treatments.

Polluters already collect a huge margin of profit that does not belong to them, a profit margin that would be less if they were forced to factor in the end-expenses of what it costs to manufacture that energy or product. Handing off the cost of pollution (health, water etc.) to populations. Free money.

It is misplaced expense, an unwarranted subsidy, an inflated profit equal to the pollution that people and government pay to be addressed in health, clean-ups etc.

That expense always exists...it is just about who pays for it. Hell, my economics professor in college was a conservative and still he could run an analysis on a given corporation or plant and come up with very accurate numbers as to the pollution subsidy a facility or company recieved by not being accountable for thier pollution. A number that was paid by the "people" that were impacted or the government that cleaned up the pollution.

Climate Change is irrefutable. Look outside, no Ice-Age.

What is up for debate is how much of an influence mans activities over the last three centuries have had on Climate Change. If at all.

There is so much rhetoric and political posturing on either side of the human-impact on the changing climate that it is hard to get reliable information.

Originally posted by burntheships

Look at the hypocrites leading the movement, that is all one needs to do.

Does monsato protection act ring any bells?

Does half the democrats voting AGAINST gmo labeling ring any bells? Sure its better than what the republicans did, voting 100% against gmo labeling.

The same administrators that want franken-foods also pretend to want to 'protect the enviroment'. Yeah thats a good joke uncle sam.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Ghost375

 

Looked at the science?

How does destroying Us business save the planet?

The Us the only 'industrialized' country in the world?

I pay 37 dollars per month to have solar panels on the roof of my house. www.solarcity.com

People had to develop the technology for those panels... jobs

People had to make those panels... jobs

People had to market those panels... jobs

People had to install those panels... jobs

People have to bill me for those panels... jobs

People had to develop the applications that process my solar credits and usage with my electric company... jobs

Now... why is it soooooo horrible to promote efficiency by finding alternate inergy sources?

By the way... before I had those panels installed, I paid on average $50.00 more in electricity per month. I'm using less man made energy and I'm saving about $13.00 per month. I don't get what's so bad about this at all...

reply to post by Indigo5


Actually the Permian extinction was due to mass bubbles of methane being released from the Ocean floor.. but you can think what you want.. Perhaps you are not thinking about the Triassic period and instead one of the other many mass extinctions that has occurred.

Also to imply that I am not a believer in scientific concepts such as gravity is a real jerk move on your part.. You are over-reaching in that aspect in order to discredit someone that is simply pointing out that the "Man made climate change" concept is inconclusive.

If you can conclusively prove that humanity is responsible for climate change, perhaps I will listen..

Seeing that one volcanic eruption releases more carbon into the atmosphere than man ever has in their entire history.. I would be inclined to disagree....

Again to each their own.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


It is quite the joke, the jokes on us.
Look at the lemmings, they still bow down to the masters,
as they put on a good dog and pony show.

Free GMO popcorn!
Free entertainment!
Free fake tears!

Yes, the joke is quite literally on us!

reply to post by SilentKillah


I bet star trekish free energy devices like zero point energy have existed for decades but big oil keeps suppressing it because they bought-up those specialised markets. Buy up the patents and then use the republicans as controlled opposition to claim neoconservatives don't allow it.

Lots of rumors of inventors disappearing or having accidents. Its not for lack of money or lack of interest.

You think OPEC and big oil really want fuel efficient cars, among other things?

Then they claim climate change and tax credits will fix everything. *SIGH INDEED*

Originally posted by neo96

President Obama angrily blasted climate change skeptics during his energy policy speech Tuesday at Georgetown University, saying he lacked "patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real."

thehill.com...

For those who are paying attention the US government is the greatest 'danger' we face not some marriage of 'science' and politics to push his agenda of global domination.

Because that is what 'climate change' is all about GLOBAL DOMINATION, and corporate cronyism making up things like carbon tax's and credits.

We don't have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society," Obama said. "Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm."

The standard line 'Government is here to save you! '

De Fuhrer's will be done!

Guess we don't live in a Democracy where things are 'debated' they are done by those who 'know what's best for us 'little peons'.

More BS:

"We know that the costs of these events can be measured in lost lives and lost livelihoods."

So what about the livelihoods of these people the miillions of jobs, and trillions of wealth lost?

They don't matter because 'saving the planet is more important!'.

Like these folks here:

indianapublicmedia.org...

Coal produces 49% of all US energy production but who cares right save the planet!

www.epa.gov...

The people be damned!

WH Climate Adviser: 'A War on Coal Is Exactly What’s Needed'

www.weeklystandard.com...

Then the largest coal producers is not even America to begin with:

www.investmentu.com...

So how does putting Americans out of work that does nothing but kill jobs, and wealth that move to other countries 'save the planet' ?

I dunno least they can pat themselves on the back mocking anyone who questions science that has been hijacked by political agenda that some could attribute to the Cloward and Piven strategy.

No jobs means mean need more welfare!!!

Do people really have no clue how many trillions of wealth are lost, jobs lost because of 'green legislation'?

Guess what energy source makes most 'green products' btw because alternative doesn't generate enough, oh and then there is that other fossil fuel petro that delivers them etc.

Yeah that hot air is dangerous the hot air coming from Obama. and the save the planet crowd,.because people can take it to any fiat currency bank saving the planet is not saving the money in your wallet.

Hey Obama I will get 'my head out of the sand' when you get yours out of your posterior.

edit on 25-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

IMO
Obama probably knows little to nothing about the evidence for and against climate change.
He is just a patsy like most political figures..
Limbo

reply to post by burntheships


I forgot that they also support fluoridation of water while 600 scientists claim its bad for us.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You would think after they cooked up the data with pseudo-input recording the highest temperatures in extremely selective areas and then classifying it to keep folks in the dark, and then have hackers reveal their misdeeds EVERYONE would have seen the bull# by now.

reply to post by Indigo5


Is that so?

Obama and left wing politicians and their supporters lost all credibility pushing a technology that is dependent on CLIMATE, in the same breath they say 'climate is changing'.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I guess we are doing our part then, keeping that flouride waste out of the landfills.


Well, my prediction is there will not be flooding around our knees, but we will
be wading knee deep in new news headlines, are they going to try and put
that halo back on top of Obama's head in the new illustrations?

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I guess we are doing our part then, keeping that flouride waste out of the landfills.

Well, my prediction is there will not be flooding around our knees, but we will
be wading knee deep in new news headlines, are they going to try and put
that halo back on top of Obama's head in the new illustrations?

I don't really have a problem with fluoride in the toothpaste, since fluoride does contain germs better than non-fluoride toothpaste, but fluoridating the water is severe overkill. Its like drinking suntan lotion rather than applying on the body.

Fluoride dumbs down people, just like the NSA spies on people to blackmail them in the future, if and whenever they want.

reply to post by SilentKillah

By the way... before I had those panels installed, I paid on average $50.00 more in electricity per month. I'm using less man made energy and I'm saving about $13.00 per month. I don't get what's so bad about this at all..

You're only saving $50 or $13 a month on electricity, with solar panels? Does that savings factor in the purchase of all the equipment and mounting, etc.?

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Actually the Permian extinction was due to mass bubbles of methane being released from the Ocean floor.. but you can think what you want..

Actually no..Either Volcanic event or Meteorite, with the most recent science leaning toward the eruption of the SIberian Traps in Northern Russia.
www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by DaMod
Also to imply that I am not a believer in scientific concepts such as gravity is a real jerk move on your part

Glad you are on board with Gravity...now let's move on to your Volcano theorey...

Originally posted by DaMod

Seeing that one volcanic eruption releases more carbon into the atmosphere than man ever has in their entire history..

Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Humans Dwarf Volcanoes for CO2 Emissions
news.discovery.com...

In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.

news.discovery.com...

Myth No. 9: A single volcanic eruption, such as Mount St. Helens, releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than humans ever have.
prism.texarkanacollege.edu...

Hell I could go on forever...

"Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day."

Is he correct? No, he is not even close!

www2.sunysuffolk.edu...

Scientific American

Dear EarthTalk: Could it really be true that a single large volcanic eruption launches more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the amount generated by all of humanity over history?
-- Steve Schlemmer, London, England

This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Wow...Just wow...BS much?

reply to post by SilentKillah


You do make quite a post and point there about panels and jobs. It's a fair one, too. It's just lost deep in idealism and not reality. That's not a slight or insult. It's really not. Our own national leadership is suffering the same very short thinking cycle.

Solyndra and others we could get into by name were funded on that EXACT line of thought. 'Make them and buyers will come', being the underlying thought to it. On paper, that's exactly how it work (and a great many other good ideas that turn to calamity off paper). What that doesn't take into account is that demand cannot be MADE. It sure cannot be forced by law and regulation to create a whole new market. Mandates of solar energy replacements to business upgrades just insure no one upgrades or go out of business first. It's been happening in some cases.

To solar power specifically? I'm glad it worked for you. Are you 100% and TOTALLY off the grid or is your solar home more of a hybrid home? I know some entirely solar projects exist. I've seen them and walked through one. Very impressive. Very George Jetson ...and most of what I have for plug in electronics would need trashed at the door. Collectively, they'd over-AMP the system in short order. Special gizmos for a special power grid was what I saw in the pure systems. Hybrid? Well... Half a solution does not a solution make.


When Solar, Wind, Thermal or Hydro reach the big time of being repeatable on scale to compete with Nuclear and Coal, then a very good day will have arrived. Trying to FORCE that square peg into a round hole will lead to our national ruin. The market cannot be dictated ..and the attempt to do that in various ways across decades is how we're now in a "Free Market" mixed with just about everything else to include outright Marxist theory all rolled into one big fur ball.

No where is it more evident as a pure 'Do Gooder" inspired mess than the green sectors.

"Green" is a business - "Greed" is it's business model - "Gullible" are it's proponents

AND, might I add (Yes, I might) - The same lefty, anti-God, anti-religion worm-food that cries and whines and moans about global warming, follows, to the T, the same level of insanity of that of the zealot.

You are TOLD, then you follow, then you die. Sucks to be any of you...

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Is that so?

Obama and left wing politicians and their supporters lost all credibility pushing a technology that is dependent on CLIMATE, in the same breath they say 'climate is changing'.

edit on 26-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

I shouldn't be suprised that a Science Denier does not understand the concept of a Battery. Psst...they store energy. Your lights don't go out on a cloudy day.