In Second Inaugural, Obama Makes Clim...

In Second Inaugural, Obama Makes Climate A Priority

There are 14 comments on the WNED story from Jan 22, 2013, titled In Second Inaugural, Obama Makes Climate A Priority. In it, WNED reports that:

"We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations," President Obama said during his second inaugural address on Monday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WNED.

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

formerly Nuneaton

#1 Jan 23, 2013
Hmm Looks like I will have to change my description & avatar pic soon.

Will probably add a new one and retire the old with avatar pic as a ref.

Will stop confusion & vigilante attacks from enthusiasts,(the labour party still refuse to apologise for giving me that goddamn stupid nickname).

have a nice day: Ag
SpaceBlues

United States

#3 Jan 23, 2013
Adrian Godsafe MSc wrote:
Hmm Looks like I will have to change my description & avatar pic soon.
Will probably add a new one and retire the old with avatar pic as a ref.
Will stop confusion & vigilante attacks from enthusiasts,(the labour party still refuse to apologise for giving me that goddamn stupid nickname).
have a nice day: Ag
Can you sue them?

I understand you don't have a constitution but you must have some rights promised to you even in UK.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#4 Jan 23, 2013
You should fit in real well there. Are you going to move?

Since: Jul 07

Newport News, VA

#6 Jan 24, 2013
"...let's address the three horsemen of the climate apocalypse that Mr. Obama mentioned.[fires, drought. storms] Historical analysis of wildfires around the world shows that since 1950 their numbers have decreased globally by 15%. Estimates published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences show that even with global warming proceeding uninterrupted, the level of wildfires will continue to decline until around midcentury and won't resume on the level of 1950—the worst for fire—before the end of the century.

Claiming that droughts are a consequence of global warming is also wrong. The world has not seen a general increase in drought. A study published in Nature in November shows globally that "there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years." The U.N. Climate Panel in 2012 concluded: "Some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia."

As for one of the favorites of alarmism, hurricanes in recent years don't indicate that storms are getting worse. Measured by total energy (Accumulated Cyclone Energy), hurricane activity is at a low not encountered since the 1970s. The U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century—the last Category 3 or stronger storm was Wilma, more than seven years ago.
While it is likely that we will see somewhat stronger (but fewer) storms as climate change continues, a March 2012 Nature study shows that the global damage cost from hurricanes will go to 0.02% of gross domestic product annually in 2100 from 0.04% today—a drop of 50%, despite global warming.

This does not mean that climate change isn't an issue. It means that exaggerating the threat concentrates resources in the wrong areas. Consider hurricanes (though similar points hold for wildfire and drought). If the aim is to reduce storm damage, then first focus on resilience—better building codes and better enforcement of those codes. Ending subsidies for hurricane insurance to discourage building in vulnerable zones would also help, as would investing in better infrastructure (from stronger levees to higher-capacity sewers).
These solutions are quick and comparatively cheap. Most important, they would diminish future hurricane damage, whether climate-induced or not. Had New York and New Jersey focused resources on building sea walls and adding storm doors to the subway system and making simple fixes like porous pavements, Hurricane Sandy would have caused much less damage."

Bjorn Lomborg
SpaceBlues

United States

#7 Jan 24, 2013
GoodNewz wrote:
"...let's address the three horsemen of the climate apocalypse that Mr. Obama mentioned.[fires, drought. storms] Historical analysis of wildfires around the world shows that since 1950 their numbers have decreased globally by 15%. Estimates published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences show that even with global warming proceeding uninterrupted, the level of wildfires will continue to decline until around midcentury and won't resume on the level of 1950—the worst for fire—before the end of the century.
Claiming that droughts are a consequence of global warming is also wrong. The world has not seen a general increase in drought. A study published in Nature in November shows globally that "there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years." The U.N. Climate Panel in 2012 concluded: "Some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia."
As for one of the favorites of alarmism, hurricanes in recent years don't indicate that storms are getting worse. Measured by total energy (Accumulated Cyclone Energy), hurricane activity is at a low not encountered since the 1970s. The U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century—the last Category 3 or stronger storm was Wilma, more than seven years ago.
While it is likely that we will see somewhat stronger (but fewer) storms as climate change continues, a March 2012 Nature study shows that the global damage cost from hurricanes will go to 0.02% of gross domestic product annually in 2100 from 0.04% today—a drop of 50%, despite global warming.
This does not mean that climate change isn't an issue. It means that exaggerating the threat concentrates resources in the wrong areas. Consider hurricanes (though similar points hold for wildfire and drought). If the aim is to reduce storm damage, then first focus on resilience—better building codes and better enforcement of those codes. Ending subsidies for hurricane insurance to discourage building in vulnerable zones would also help, as would investing in better infrastructure (from stronger levees to higher-capacity sewers).
These solutions are quick and comparatively cheap. Most important, they would diminish future hurricane damage, whether climate-induced or not. Had New York and New Jersey focused resources on building sea walls and adding storm doors to the subway system and making simple fixes like porous pavements, Hurricane Sandy would have caused much less damage."
Bjorn Lomborg
So what? A denier is bs-ing his way through reality.

He's the one who's "exaggerating" without facing the cause, human-induced global warming by excessive greenhouse gas emissions.

His helpful solution remains a science fiction without a head-on with the cause, fossil fuel burning.

Since: Jul 07

Newport News, VA

#8 Jan 24, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>So what? A denier is bs-ing his way through reality.
He's the one who's "exaggerating" without facing the cause, human-induced global warming by excessive greenhouse gas emissions.
His helpful solution remains a science fiction without a head-on with the cause, fossil fuel burning.
baloney. he says it is human-caused. he suggests that the proposed solutions are tantamount to global economic meltdown. and would they even do any good? perhaps you did not read the post before swinging wildly about "deniers"?
SpaceBlues

United States

#10 Jan 24, 2013
GoodNewz wrote:
<quoted text>
baloney. he says it is human-caused. he suggests that the proposed solutions are tantamount to global economic meltdown. and would they even do any good? perhaps you did not read the post before swinging wildly about "deniers"?
Did you write it? He does not say those things but deserves what I published.

Go prove to yourself that he's right; I know otherwise. You should catch up.

As to the name-calling, stalking troll above, it never makes any sense.

Since: Jul 07

Newport News, VA

#12 Jan 24, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Did you write it? He does not say those things but deserves what I published.
Go prove to yourself that he's right; I know otherwise. You should catch up.
As to the name-calling, stalking troll above, it never makes any sense.
is this supposed to make some kind of sense? if this is how your mind works, i seriously doubt you can follow any kind of scientific concepts. have a nice life...
SpaceBlues

United States

#14 Jan 24, 2013
GoodNewz wrote:
<quoted text>
is this supposed to make some kind of sense? if this is how your mind works, i seriously doubt you can follow any kind of scientific concepts. have a nice life...
It takes one to know one.:-)

Why should I "follow scientific concepts?" You published copy/paste that you can't defend. Now you are hurt because you don't know science.

Have a nice life, too.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#16 Jan 25, 2013
More usless babble from the copy and paste commander of scientific science fiction. Will it ever end?

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

formerly Nuneaton

#17 Jan 28, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Can you sue them?
I understand you don't have a constitution but you must have some rights promised to you even in UK.
Under the gi-normous political majority of the Blair/Brown years, the law was changed to allow a communist state.

As a result in the classic Orwellian "Animal farm" style, their quote... "all people are equal but some are more equal than others."

That said, if I were to find evidence of the blacklist written down with a name on top, then the person responsible would be sued until they were turned into a bum on a street corner (once they got out of jail).

The labour party's unionised finest operatives communicated by word of mouth making this bit rather difficult. The other thing is that the all singing all dancing Capita database with the NI number of all UK citizens is under USA ownership (ouch), as a result of a soft touch from Blair & Mandelson offloading all UK businesses able to make a profit.
The other problem is that a lot of what was done is known as "Hostile takeover" which put the educayed & skilled of the UK up agains the wall & shot while they were in university still completing the course.

Evidence of "blacklist" is now appearing in the construction sector with Brownite approved companies building the olympic site. 300 names, with me (a geologist) not on it.

No doubt other blacklists will appear in the archives.

Oops. almost forgot...

A very high profile personal targeting for annihilation with 30 year burial under the officiel secrets act also involves blacklist of individuals. The person in charge was the former home secretary "David Blunkett" whom could not see the papers he was signing as he needs a seeing eye dog. No doubt there, the Braille text is completely different to the text he signed and the page went through the roller mill after he signed it.

I AM glad the labour party were voted out of office, but bthe communist state they left behind will take several decades to find & correct.

I continue to emigrate from the country formerly known as the UK.

Have a nice day: Ag
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#18 Jan 28, 2013
More usless babble will it ever end?

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

formerly Nuneaton

#19 Jan 28, 2013
Line over here is still a mite chaotic.
Several typos appeared in the above post which were not in the original sent text.

Have a nice day: Ag

ps.
Also noticed a spam putting a notice up of an expiry of an e mail account and a copy of the sign in text & password. This may account for the mess & may result in also a rapid change of my incarnation & avatar pic as a result of abandonment of my old e mailer account.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#20 Jan 28, 2013
Take your meds with a long nap.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Environment Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Birds a key cause of fecal contamination at Lak... Aug 12 cookoo coutu 7
News California official sues EPA over records on ad... Aug 11 Xstain Mullahs 1
News Tonawanda Coke environmental impact study kicks... Aug 10 Robert J Miskines 1
News Princeton researcher explores Southern Ocean pa... (Oct '13) Aug 9 Madison 6
News US scientists contradict Trump's climate claims Aug 9 Trump is a joke 2
News Global warming made Paris floods far more likel... (Jun '16) Aug 8 Climate Not Weather 153
News Bridgeport, Fairfield beaches show drop in wate... Aug 7 WorkAvoider 9
More from around the web