Finally!
I applaud President Obama's proposed reduction in greenhouses gases plan:
via Daily Kos:
The Boston Globe: THE NEW regulations on power plant emissions announced yesterday by President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency mark the nation’s first truly serious assault on climate change. [...]
Almost all credible reports suggest the world is passing the point where it can reverse, or eliminate, global warming. But that only means it’s more urgent than ever to push for historic carbon reductions. Nonetheless, many politicians — including the usual global-warming deniers and those from both parties in fossil-fuel-producing states — rushed to claim the new rules would cause steep economic damage.
Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of coal-state Kentucky laughably warned of a “unilateral dismantling of our own economic supremacy.” That’s refuted by the entire history of environmental protection, in which self-interested businesses and doomsayers predicted huge economic costs to the landmark clean-air and clean-water regulations of the ’70s, only to see more jobs created in the technology boom that followed the new regulations.
The New York Times: The greenhouse gas reductions required by the Obama administration’s proposed rule on power plants will not get the world to where it has to go to avert the worst consequences of climate change. But they are likely to be enormously beneficial: good for the nation’s health, good for technological innovation, good for President Obama’s credibility abroad, and, in time, good for the planet and future generations. The proposed rule — and the importance of this cannot be overstated — signals the end of an era in which polluters could dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without penalty. It would set new emissions standards for America’s existing power plants, which generate 38 percent of the emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, and one-third of overall greenhouse gas emissions. The broad goal is to cut these emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. This means that many of the nation’s roughly 550 coal-fired power plants, which are much dirtier than plants powered by natural gas, will have to close or undergo expensive upgrades.
Obama Just Did What No Other President Before Him Has Done
h/t Boomer Bob
15 comments:
Boston Globe supporting obama, what a revelation for a non-biased source
"Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change".
"31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming"
Guess you are a true believer in the non-proven. Did he make this announcement to divert attention away from his administration of scandal.
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
Climate Myth...
There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...".
Skeptical Science's 2013 'The Consensus Project'
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.
SOURCE
Your assertion is 31,000 scientists that humans contribute to climate change/global. Of those 31,000 scientists, how many are climatologists? And how many of them have had peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals?
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so do
NASA AGREES
If 97% of mycologists told you not to eat a particular mushroom because it would kill you, and hundreds of ethnomusicologists told you to not believe the mycologists, you'd eat the aminita phalloides and die. You'd also make it into the Darwin Award annual contest.
Shaw,
Do you "think" is not a scientific basis but an opinion. What opinion would anyone who makes a living on the climate change have. If they said humans have no affect on climate change they would have little to do.
Now there is irrefutable evidence that humans are responsible for pollution so if that is your definition of climate change I am all in.
Well Skud, conservatives are not real big on pollution control either, especially if it involves government initiatives, or spending.
As for climate change, the larger question might be, can humans make lifestyle changes that would be better for the environment and possibly reverse global warming.
Again, I keep coming back to this...
We have global climate change. Anyone who denies it cannot be taken seriously. Regardless of the cause, if we can, it seems prudent to do what we can to mitigate the effects.
The problem is that many conservatives cannot, or will not say that the climate is changing as it would infuriate many of their primary voters.
Generalities work great.
All ministers are like jim baker, take tax deductible money from people and spend it on their lavish lifestyle.
When global warming was being disputed the name was changed to Climate Change. No one disputes that we have climate change. We also have pollution which is man made and needs to be cleaned up.
Even if there were no evidence the earth's climate might be changing it makes sense to do something. Fossil fuels will run out eventually, there isn't an unlimited supply Skud.
To be frank, I'd be more enthused if he officially cancelled the Keystone pipeline.
These limits have a way of being circumvented.
But I will try to be optimistic.
The deniers are going to be out there in full force to shoot the messenger once again.
Skud, it is absolutely true that some have profited from promoting climate change. Many who have are reporting it in a perfectly responsible fashion.
When you compare that activity to the coal industry or the oil industry it absolutely pales.
Be careful who you call a true believer.
Really Skud? you think no one disputes climate change?
“First of all global warming is not taking place it’s kind of laughable right now with all the records that are being set,” Inhofe, R-Okla
"There is no science in global warming. What science there is, is not settled. Beside that, we all know that it's a hoax now." Rush Limbaugh
“The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened.” Ted Cruz, R-TX
"...global warming is a beautifully concocted scheme” Rick Santorum
Clearly, these people would disagree with you on the validity of climate change. All of them have made these, and more statements in denial of climate change.
And that is before we ever get to a solution, if it is attainable.
David,
All the references you mentioned are Global Warming not climate change, big difference but nice try to misrepresent the issue.
RN, I agree with you that is the reason my wife drives a Hybrid. Gives us that touche feelie sensation,
Scud lied. His wife doesn't drive a hybrid; she drives ONE OF THESE. It explains why scud likes to have it both ways.
Legs,
I do like that one better, that's what we get for not waiting.
Skud, when people are asked about Climate change, and they respond with Global warming rhetoric, it's telling.
There are even folks who when asked about Climate change, or global climate change, respond with the "I'm not a scientist man" canard.
There are indeed people in the GOP, and maybe even the Dem party, that deny climate change, under whatever name.
Post a Comment