Obama Addresses Guvs on Global Warming
President-elect Obama delivered a video message to the Bi-Partisan Governors Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles, Calif., today.
The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear," Mr. Obama says. "Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season."
Obama says the White House has often failed to show leadership on the issue. "That will change when I take office," he says. "My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process."
He proposes a federal cap and trade system to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and an additional 80 percent by 2050; an annual $15 billion investment in private sector efforts to build a clean energy future; solar power, wind power, next generation biofuels, safe nuclear power, and clean coal technologies.
"Delay is no longer an option," he says. "Denial is no longer an acceptable response."
- jpt

Email
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
I love it! I live in Iowa and it is a great pleasure to drive down the Interstate and watch trucks one after another carrying wind turbine parts up to the north. The future at a glance. It is a great feeling.
Posted by: becky (the real one) | November 18, 2008, 3:45 pm 3:45 pm
He is so smart. And perceptive. I was at the coast the other day and didn’t EVEN NOTICE how high the sea levels have become.
Why couldn’t he have run for president 20 years ago? Oh yeah, he had not yet learned ALL wisdom from Reverent Wright.
Posted by: Keepyourheelsdown | November 18, 2008, 3:51 pm 3:51 pm
And isn’t it great the way Barry just makes up lies as he goes along? What a feeling!
“Beyond dispute”. Does he think we ALL are fools?
Posted by: Keepyourheelsdown | November 18, 2008, 3:53 pm 3:53 pm
Already off message! Remember Jimmy Carter and his goal to bring peace to the Middle East. This is the same type of behavior. It’s a futile goal that is unachievable and will end up wasting valuable time and effort. It’s how people who think they are smarter than everybody else end up being the biggest losers on earth. Can’t say I’m surprised.
Posted by: Joe | November 18, 2008, 3:57 pm 3:57 pm
Now if he can stop Bush’s Midnight regulations and the changing of Federal employees to civil employees, entrenching the very people who have allowed Bush to harm the environment I will rejoice even more. Bush needs to stop destroying this country and impacting the world by his dangerous ignorance if not arrogant stupidity.
Posted by: bckrd1 | November 18, 2008, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
That gives me hope.
It’s about time an American President stepped up to the plate and admitted what the rest of the world has been admitting for over a decade. Now the problem is getting India and China to step up as well.
Global initiatives are the right way but I’ll take restraint from the US on the path to sanity.
Posted by: len | November 18, 2008, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm
I’m sure glad we have him in charge of our national science funding, we are going to see a lot of humdingers go through!
“Science is beyond dispute”
The facts is that Science is never beyond dispute and it’s this type of arrogance that gets inexperienced people with too much power into deep s..t.
Hope he brings his paddle.
Posted by: Joe | November 18, 2008, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
I hate to tell you, len. But HOPE based on things that arent true is not real useful.
Posted by: Keepyourheelsdown | November 18, 2008, 4:08 pm 4:08 pm
Keepyourheelsdown:
President elect Barack Obama is listening to actual experts from academia rather than “think tanks” funded by politically motivated individuals. Do you have data from peer reviewed sources that overturns fundamental physics?
Posted by: Mark Schaffer | November 18, 2008, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
I think this is crazy talk already. It is beyond dispute. Denial is not an acceptable response. So I am an idiot basically. Good luck trying to cap the rest of the world. If he didn’t know, most of the worlds population lives outside the U.S. China, Russia and a whole host of others are gonna act like they are on board and never do a damn thing about it. Good luck is all I can say, well besides that I think its well overblown at this point. Today we are 20 degrees below normal, not so warm here. Oh and the 1930′s was the warmest decade of record. Seems the climate shifts up and down throughout history.
Posted by: Eric | November 18, 2008, 4:10 pm 4:10 pm
Too bad nothing he said was true.
Posted by: Ken | November 18, 2008, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm
“Denial is not an acceptable response. So I am an idiot basically”
In the words of Joe the Biden
“Yes.”
Posted by: Ryan C | November 18, 2008, 4:23 pm 4:23 pm
I hate to tell you, len. But HOPE based on things that arent true is not real useful.
Posted by: Keepyourheelsdown | Nov 18, 2008 4:08:12 PM
—————-
And, these things aren’t true because of what again? Oh, I forgot the extremists always know better, right? I wonder from what school you get your wisdom.
Posted by: D | November 18, 2008, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm
Global Warming is nothing more than this: A way for our pathetic government to extract more money from its subjects. Its an easy path to a world tax and control. Think about it, about how much power over industry a cap-and-trade system puts not only in the hands of the US government but also in the hands of world governments. I for one am sick of it. At what point will the American people wake up and see this for what it is? Its time for a revolution
Posted by: sdmike | November 18, 2008, 4:33 pm 4:33 pm
I like it when these people claim that some other past years were warmer than today. They will tell you that we don’t have any concrete proof that global warming is real. It is as if we have to wait for the proof before we do anything. You know what, I’d rather be lied to by the experts than perished with the ideologues.
The scary thing is they almost drive the country into hating educated people. That’s why you have words such as snob, elitist, and others that have become bad epithets. No wonder people like Rush Limbaugh have such following.
Posted by: D | November 18, 2008, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm
“Global Warming is nothing more than this: A way for our pathetic government to extract more money from its subjects. Its an easy path to a world tax and control”
Global warming is a plot of the new world order……the mind boggles
Can we send all the lunatic right wingers to their own state so we can watch what complete screwups they are?
Posted by: Ryan C | November 18, 2008, 4:39 pm 4:39 pm
D, I dont understand what you mean that you would rather be lied to by “experts” than die with ideologues. Who says you have to die, just because global warming might or might not be true?
Posted by: Keepyourheelsdown | November 18, 2008, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm
D, check this out from earlier this year.
WASHINGTON (AP) — New measurements show the ice in West Antarctica is thickening, reversing some earlier estimates that the sheet was melting.
Your extremest friend
Posted by: Keepyourheelsdown | November 18, 2008, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
“D, check this out from earlier this year.
WASHINGTON (AP) — New measurements show the ice in West Antarctica is thickening, reversing some earlier estimates that the sheet was melting.”
That article is from January of 2002.
The lesson as always?
Posted by: Ryan C | November 18, 2008, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm
“I like it when these people claim that some other past years were warmer than today.”
So what are we discussing here? “GLOBAL WARMING”?? Sounds to me that the globe should be warming. Seems the 1930′s was the warmest on record. But I am not allowed to state the past and the facts involved in it? Seems the ice shelf is not down to Kentucky anymore? Wonder how that happened without natually warming events. Now they say the earth is cooling, but how is that possible in “GLOBAL WARMING”?? I also haven’t heard of anyone complaining about the sea levels either. Lets get some measurements on that why we are at it. So whats the rise so far? I want facts people, not just some hypothetical analysis from a scientist that has a “ideaology” just like you and me. It wasn’t too long ago that scientist claimed another ice age. Talk about bi-polar.
Posted by: Eric | November 18, 2008, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm
Scientists have analysed more than 100 years of temperatures from the Arctic and 50 years in the Antarctic and they have discovered without humans the polar temperature would not be rising.
It had already been confirmed that our modern way of living is affecting wildlife, humans, the size of the ice sheets and global sea levels in continents around the world.
But until now it could not be proven that human life is hitting Antarctica.
Dr Alexey Karpechko, head of the unit that carried out the research, said: “Especially in the Arctic, warming has been observed for a while. Many people were thinking it was to do with human activity, but nobody formally attributed it to that before.”
Posted by: Ryan C | November 18, 2008, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm
“According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, in the past 50 years, the western Antarctic peninsula has undergone the biggest temperature increase on Earth: up .9 degree Fahrenheit, or .5 degree Celsius, in each of the past five decades.”
Posted by: Ryan C | November 18, 2008, 4:58 pm 4:58 pm
“U.S. Annual Temperature timeseries
The last eight 5-year periods (2002-2006, 2001-2005, 2000-2004, 1999-2003, 1998-2002, 1997-2001, 1996-2000, 1995-1999), were thewarmest 5-year periods (i.e. pentads) in the last 112 years of national records, illustrating the anomalous warmth of the last decade. The 9 th warmest pentad was in the 1930s (1930-34), when the western U.S. was suffering from an extended drought coupled with anomalous warmth. The three warmest years on record are 1998, 2006 and 1934. In 1998, the record warmth was concentrated in the Northeast as compared with the Northwest during 1934. In 2006, much above average temperatures were present across most of the U.S. The West Coast and parts of the Ohio Valley and Southeast were above average. No state was near or below average for 2006.”
The lesson as always?
Posted by: Ryan C | November 18, 2008, 5:00 pm 5:00 pm
How about we clean up the earth for our own health and not focus on global warming. I am more concerned about my environment with things like clean drinking water and clean air to breath. Don’t muddy the water with something that can’t be proven. We know bad air and bad water is bad for our health. Lets focus on things we know for sure and have hard evidence about. This global warming thing just makes things worse and waste more time on the road to the future. Wake up people this is all about politics.
Posted by: Eric | November 18, 2008, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm
If the science is beyond dispue, why must Doktor Hansen make up data?
Posted by: Mesquito | November 18, 2008, 5:02 pm 5:02 pm
The same people who swear global warming isn’t real are the same people who swear Iraq had WMDs.
Posted by: Ryan C | November 18, 2008, 5:07 pm 5:07 pm
For years now, Big Oil has sponsored a multi-million dollar propoganda war against science on this issue. As a result there are many people, including some legislators, who “know” global warming is a myth, just as they “know” that evolution is a lie and being gay is a choice.
It’s a fact of life; you can’t use science to prove anything to a person who doesn’t have both the capacity and the desire to understand science. The best you can do is counter their misstatements and try to keep them out of public office.
Funny, isn’t it, how some of the very forces responsible for the denial of global warming are in the process of planning shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean once the ice cap melts?
Posted by: Yukon Sam | November 18, 2008, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
“I hate to tell you, len. But HOPE based on things that arent true is not real useful.”
Do the basic science. Despite everything you think you know from the tea leaves of a little over a hundred years of data, basic science tells you you cannot pump that much carbon dioxide into the air and not change the balance.
The data is just that: data. Data are not facts. They are samples in some time series. Data has to fit a model to be of any predictive benefit and the model has to account for short term forced couplers (short term forces with noticeable effects that are not relevant over the long term of the model). Any sober person looking at the problem of anthropogenic forcing understands that short predictions are meaningless. It is only a longer series that reveals the patterns. The single events are meaningless.
Global warming is real. Understand it or get out of the way of those who do and will be able to do something about it. Your children’s children will thank you.
Posted by: len | November 18, 2008, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm
Now, unless I am wrong, Obama cap and trade plan will result in higher electric bills, gasoline costs and pretty much higher costs for anything sold or made by any companyt that uses electricity or ships a product.
I wonder if all the people who voted for Obama have considered this. I am not sure many have. I think many assume that that will “get something” from Obama, not that they will be asked to actually pay for things.
But, when they get their post cap and trade electric bills, they may be in for an awakening!
Posted by: Heather | November 18, 2008, 7:26 pm 7:26 pm
And just a comment on global warming in particular.
There was a time when the entire northern United states was covered in glaciers. Those glaciers melted, for that to have happened there had to be “global warming”. But humans had nothing to do with it.
Now show me anything, any reduction in ice caps or glaciers that can even come close to the melting of glaciers covering the northern United states?
So, why is it that people act like the world is ending, when we see much smaller changes in the global ice and snow?
We are looking at small changes and screaming that the world is ending, when we know for a fact that huge changes in glacier coverage occured without any help from humans!
So why is it that a glacier covering the Northern United states melting is a natural event, yet much smaller changes in glaciers has to be caused by humans and signals the end of world?
On animal extinction. 90% of all forms of life to have evolved on earth are now extict, with little help from man.
Extinction is a natural part of elvolution. But it seems humans think that the world is somehow supposed remain in a way that we dedice it should, even though we can see from history that the one thing the earth never does is remain as it is.
I think this is more about people thinking that they are so unique, that they are the center of nature and that everything should remain as we want it; and also that if it does not, it must be due to us.
Man once thought he was the center of the universe. I think some have found a new way to once agian think that!
Posted by: Heather | November 18, 2008, 7:36 pm 7:36 pm
There was a time when human beings were minor players in the ecology of the planet. Not any longer.
Posted by: pefros | November 18, 2008, 8:48 pm 8:48 pm
President-elect Obama was very explicit in his intention to implement a carbon cap-and-trade system to reduce CO2 emissions, with an 80% reduction goal by 2050, and it should be mentioned that John McCain also deserves credit for supporting cap-and-trade. To me, these developments are a clear sign of how far the world, following the universal lead of science, has moved past arguing whether CO2 reduction is necessary, and is discussing how to accomplish it. It’s probably unrealistic to expect that all voices resisting a transition from fossil fuels to an economy reliant on renewable energy will immediately fall silent, but those of us who want our voices heard rather than ignored would be wise to engage in the discussion of carbon remediation options. The upcoming meeting in Poland will be another important step, although it’s regrettable that China will not be participating from what I understand. Even so, China has already begun to match rhetoric with some constructive actions to reduce the magnitude of its CO2 emissions while it continues to promote its industrialization efforts, and its desire to receive help from the West in implementing carbon control.technologies deserves a favorable response from the industrialized nations.
Fred Moolten
Posted by: Fred Moolten | November 18, 2008, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm
The pagans are restless mommie earth is on fire.
Posted by: Hippie Smasher | November 19, 2008, 12:05 am 12:05 am
What a relief to have an administration that’s willing to rely on science and intellectual curiosity instead of superstition and religious pandering.
Posted by: Brooklyn Democrat | November 19, 2008, 8:57 am 8:57 am
Sorry Ryan, len and others. On this subject you’re way out of your league. Unfortunately the big loser in the catastrophic, man-made global warming debate is the scientific process itself. I challenge you to do what I did a few years ago and ask yourself a few questions (especially you, Ryan, because I feel you’re a very bright young man):
1) How does one take the earth’s temperature?
2) How does one determine how warm/cold the earth was with any degree of accuracy before the days of temperature measuring instuments?
3) Why would NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have more faith in an incomplete system of disparate, unorganized, ground based weather stations across the globe, prone to human error, siting issues, decay, etc. to collect temperature data than a satellite based system (MSU)?
4) How much have sea levels risen in the past 100 years?
5) What is the current extent of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice compared to average values over the last 30 years?
6) How well do the Global Climate Models (GCMs) perform when provided real world data from years past to predict the current climate?
7) What would happen to the global climate if we did indeed reduce our carbon emissions to 1990 levels, or even 1950 levels? Be specific.
Try to get your answers from sites other than Realclimate.com, sponsored by none other than Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and other Hockey Team members. If you stick to the science, there is absolutely no way anyone can definitively say the current warming over the last century or so, about 1 deg F., is unprecedented, catastrophic or the result of mankind’s influence.
Switching to the political front of this debate, and that’s really what’s driving this issue, a few more questions.
1) What is the IPCC? Is it a scientific body or a political one? Have you read their reports, like the AR4? I have, and would be happy to debate any section with anyone.
2) Why did Al Gore turn down the Climate Czar (perfect name!) position? I’ll give you a hint: Global Investment Management.
3) Who wins and who loses politically by the implementation of an aggresive climate change agenda?
4) How many nations have upheld their Kyoto treaty pledges?
Also, the fruitless cap-and-trade system adopted by the EU is already being abandoned there. The carbon credits issued to energy providers are already worthless on the open market.
I know I’ll be labeled a denier and flat-earther, and that’s fine. Ad hominem attacks have no place in science. Catastrophic AGW is a political debate, the science was abandoned long ago.
“If you believe in things you don’t understand, then you suffer.” – Stevie Wonder
Posted by: Woody | November 19, 2008, 10:25 am 10:25 am
“Catastrophic AGW is a political debate, the science was abandoned long ago.”
Try again, Woody, because it is you who are out of your league. No credible climatologist disagrees with the long range predictions or the effects of increasing CO2 emissions by a third in the last century. Any sophomore math student can explain why using force models can’t forecast precise events and any sophomore chemistry student can explain Le Chatelier’s Principle to you.
The problem is not a single predicted event but the observable acceleration in the data and the effect of that in the models. Glacial melting is normal. Glaciers are melting at a rate faster than anytime in the last 5000 years (see World Glacier Monitoring Service records). The amount of snow falling has been reduced by a global temperature increase and it has fallen below the replacement rate.
Sorry Woody, but there isn’t enough space here to explain non-linear dynamic systems to you, but the sudden acceleration onset means a forcing factor or several small ones coupled (positive feedback with multiple inputs to the same value) have kicked into high gear. Whether it is the methane released from the permafrost or the carbon cycle sources such as reductions of the Amazon rain forest, the effects are real, observable, and predictable over short enough ranges to tell us we make our moves now or consign our grandchildren to the pain.
Posted by: len | November 19, 2008, 11:39 am 11:39 am
Dear len,
Thanks for the typical and unsurprising condescending response. Care to answer any of the questions I posed? I would like to add another a few more:
1) Who determines who is a “credible climatologist” and who is not?
2) Where does one obtain a degree in climatology?
3) Where is the CO2 warming signature in the lower tropical troposhere?
Sorry but there is no scientific basis to support CO2 as the DRIVER of climate change. Atmospheric CO2 is just one small cog in the giant climatic machine.
Posted by: Woody | November 19, 2008, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
One more thing, len. I have an engineering degree so please enlighten me with your knowledge of non-linear dynamic systems. I’m all ears.
Posted by: Woody | November 19, 2008, 2:09 pm 2:09 pm
“1) Who determines who is a “credible climatologist” and who is not?”
The “scientists” who are bought and paid for by the companies are not credible.
Hope that helps woody.
Posted by: Ryan C | November 19, 2008, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm
I looked at the World Glacier Monitoring Service website to satisfy my curiosity and I could find no mention of melting occuring faster than any time in the last 5000 years. While researching I did however find an interesting article in the Anchorage Daily News about how the brutal winter of 2007-2008 caused most of the glaciers in Alaska to have a positive mass balance for the first time in over 200 years.
Very interesting.
Posted by: Woody | November 19, 2008, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm
The “scientists” who are bought and paid for by the companies are not credible.
Hope that helps woody.
——
Hi Ryan. Good to hear from you. However, this was not your best effort. Are we to dismiss the findings of scientists based on how they are funded? There is no bigger financer of global warming research than the US Government. Schmidt, Mann and Hansen, the NOAA and GHCN are all “bought and paid for” by us taxpayers. They have a vested interest in keeping themselves on the front page. Is that why they come up with the results they do? I certainly hope not, but by your reasoning that must be the case.
Please do yourself a favor and find the answers to the other questions I’ve posed, particularly the technical ones. But be warned, you may not like what you find.
Posted by: Woody | November 19, 2008, 3:08 pm 3:08 pm
And yet, it doesn’t even matter what Woody’s opinion on the matter happens to be. The rest of the world is moving ahead with the plans while Woody can sit and steam about it in his hut in the mountains of the Ozarks.
Hope you like it up there, Woody!
Posted by: Failin Palin | November 19, 2008, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
why are the commentors so negative? this a great idea. Its time to wake up and face the problem instead of ignoring it like George Bush did. Yeah it may not work at first but it will open up new doors to things that will. Its too late to stop it but we can slow it down. People say its just climate change & global warming is not real. There are billions of cars, hundred of thousand of planes, hundred of thousand of trains, and millions of factories. to top that where are cutting down large amounts of forests in Africa and Indonesia. Just because of $. You really think all that doesn’t affect our planet?
Posted by: hope is up | November 19, 2008, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm
And yet, it doesn’t even matter what Woody’s opinion on the matter happens to be. The rest of the world is moving ahead with the plans while Woody can sit and steam about it in his hut in the mountains of the Ozarks.
Hope you like it up there, Woody!
——-
I’m just asking questions. Aren’t you the least bit interested in the foundation of this so called movement? Or are you just looking for something to believe in? Are you at least interested in the social and economic ramifications of unilaterally reducing our carbon emissions to pre-1990 levels?
Question time!
1) Which country is the largest emitter of atmospheric CO2? Hint: They’re bringing a new coal-fired power plant online every week.
2) Conituation question: Why would this country invest so much in an energy source and then voluntarily decrease its usage over the next few years? Trick question. They won’t!
“Don’t stop – believing” – Journey
Posted by: Woody | November 19, 2008, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
To hope,
I agree there are real and severe ecological problems that need our attention, like preserving the rain forest and controlling dangerous pollutants. The US is far and away the leader in industrial pollution control. CO2, however, is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas essential to all life on this planet. We’re wasting valuable time and resources by focusing our attention on a non-issue. Want to think globally and act locally? Recycle. Rake your leaves instead of using a blower. Walk to the store. Turn down your thermostat. Inflate your tires! Car pool. Use rechargable batteries. All good things. But a carbon tax that will harm the US economy to save the planet? Pure nonsense.
Posted by: Woody | November 19, 2008, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm
Facts: global warming is a non-issue. Climate change is a natural phenomenon.
Cleaner air is a good thing. But let us not force more manufacturing out of the country with overzealous and very costly regulations.
What we really need is a global reduction of humans by 50% or more.
Posted by: Giverson | November 21, 2008, 7:27 pm 7:27 pm
The Scientific data is there! Read it people! Just because you choose to ignore and deny the problem, it doesn’t mean it is not real or that it will go away. A theory in general is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific theory is something that you cannot disprove or dismiss. It cannot be proven true because Science cannot prove anything to be true. Science can only disprove information. A theory is a proposed explanation. It is tested and generally accepted. Do you not think that the “theory” of gravity is true, or the theory of relativity, or the quantum theory, or the theory of evolution? It tends to perturb me to see so many people base their opinions on their own so called “common sense.” If you are going to formulate an opinion, then why not research it and use Scientific evidence to back up your claims. Better yet, leave it to the Biologists and Climatologists that have done so already! Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring and needed gas, but even naturally occuring things are only favorable in moderation and Carbon is not even the largest greenhouse gas problem. It is only one of the many gases responsible. The glaciers are indeed disappearing in the Alps and throughout the world. In response to the post on here that claims that the temperature changes being observed today are small compared to the previous temperature changes that melted the large glaciers of the northern United States, you’re right! Lets keep changing the temperatures. They’re relatively negligible anyway right? Wrong! A little change in average temperatures can create large problems. There was only a 5-9 degree difference in average temperatures during the last ice age that caused those glaciers of the Northern United States that you mentioned. Shall we just continue to act irresponsibly, take our chances, and hope for the best? We know what the average temperatures were before instruments that recorded them were available due to ice core samples and tree rings. Obama’s statement is absolutely correct! I wouldn’t go as far as to say I am in agreement with the Kyoto Protocol due to the detrimental economic effect it would have, but I think that we should rely more on renewable and sustainable energy resources.
Posted by: Concerned | November 22, 2008, 5:32 pm 5:32 pm
The Scientific data is there! Read it people! Just because you choose to ignore and deny the problem, it doesn’t mean it is not real or that it will go away. A theory in general is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific theory is something that you cannot disprove or dismiss. It cannot be proven true because Science cannot prove anything to be true. Science can only disprove information. A theory is a proposed explanation. It is tested and generally accepted. Do you not think that the “theory” of gravity is true, or the theory of relativity, or the quantum theory, or the theory of evolution? It tends to perturb me to see so many people base their opinions on their own so called “common sense.” If you are going to formulate an opinion, then why not research it and use Scientific evidence to back up your claims. Better yet, leave it to the Biologists and Climatologists that have done so already! Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring and needed gas, but even naturally occuring things are only favorable in moderation and Carbon is not even the largest greenhouse gas problem. It is only one of the many gases responsible. The glaciers are indeed disappearing in the Alps and throughout the world. In response to the post on here that claims that the temperature changes being observed today are small compared to the previous temperature changes that melted the large glaciers of the northern United States, you’re right! Lets keep changing the temperatures. They’re relatively negligible anyway right? Wrong! A little change in average temperatures can create large problems. There was only a 5-9 degree difference in average temperatures during the last ice age that caused those glaciers of the Northern United States that you mentioned. Shall we just continue to act irresponsibly, take our chances, and hope for the best? We know what the average temperatures were before instruments that recorded them were available due to ice core samples and tree rings. Obama’s statement is absolutely correct! I wouldn’t go as far as to say I am in agreement with the Kyoto Protocol due to the detrimental economic effect it would have, but I think that we should rely more on renewable and sustainable energy resources.
Posted by: Concerned | November 22, 2008, 5:33 pm 5:33 pm
I live in Mason County Michigan where a proposal is under consideration to give British Petroleum nearly 10,000 acres of national forest, to level, so they can erect a wind farm. This forest borders Lake Michigan and the lower peninsulas only designated wilderness area- The Nordhouse Dunes. There is also a proposal to give part of a national forest away to a Spanish wind company in the Green Mountains of Vermont. I believe big business has found ” the goose that lays the golden egg”. With only 13% of our forest system east of the Mississippi how long can it take before it is decimated. Why would our government be so protective of ANWAR, a place few Americans will ever visit,yet even consider chopping up the forest system?
Posted by: Steve | November 23, 2008, 9:08 am 9:08 am
Restoring America’s leadership on global warming is no easy task. US leadership has been lost over a sustained period as the current Administration has failed to make progress on global warming. (Sadly this is time we don’t have.) So, becoming a leader isn’t something that can be done overnight, but it will need to start from day one. President-elect Obama has already signaled that he will Restore American Leadership on Global Warming. So, what more does he have to do?
Well, a coalition of groups — including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) — has just released a detailed plan Transition to Green which outlines actions for the new Administration and Congress on environmental issues.
Posted by: Jake Schmidt | November 25, 2008, 2:12 pm 2:12 pm
“President elect Barack Obama is listening to actual experts from academia rather than “think tanks” funded by politically motivated individuals. Do you have data from peer reviewed sources that overturns fundamental physics?”
Unlike the Obama/Gore/liberal “settled consensus science” viewpoint on Global Warming, physics is still peer reviewable.
The “actual experts”; are you in fact referring to his meeting with Al Gore this week?
Posted by: rick g | December 13, 2008, 8:01 am 8:01 am
The is no scientific proof that global warming is caused by CO2. NONE. That’s real science.
The global warming consensus reminds me of the flat earth consensus.
Posted by: Realist | December 14, 2008, 7:36 pm 7:36 pm
I hope we can get some cleaner air to come about in LA!
Posted by: Layla | January 22, 2009, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm
No one organization can give him the answers he needs to create a board of people that analyze the problem.
Posted by: dangerous | January 22, 2009, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm
I think it’s great Obama has implemented a plan to reduce or slow down global warming, but it is on the citizens to do their part as well! And I feel it is very important to get young individuals involved! That’s why I feel this 99problems.org is a great organization to see what problems are going on in our nation.
Posted by: hope | January 22, 2009, 5:29 pm 5:29 pm
Obama can only do so much.. i agree with everyone else, the people of the US need to take a step in the right direction as well.
Posted by: sara | January 22, 2009, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm