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

Not a single word of your rambling negates the fact that skeptics of climate change are wrong.

Are they?

For every paper that rings the alarm, there's another paper that says it is all bunk. Since the whole subject is based on statistics, and these can be skewed greatly if you have an agenda, nearly all of the data analysis on it is flawed from the get-go, based on what they sampled, and the accuracy of that information (which is highly inaccurate when you rely on decades old temperature records, and different methodologies, etc.).

And even if there is climate change, it is nearly impossible to prove our actions are causing it. (or that ceasing certain practices will have any effect). Flat Earth indeed.

I don't know how Climate is changing, but Man is Affecting the nature. You can pull weather semantics however you like to justify your political party.

reply to post by Gazrok

And even if there is climate change, it is nearly impossible to prove our actions are causing it. (or that ceasing certain practices will have any effect). Flat Earth indeed.

There is a natural cycle of climate change that does occur. However, it's painfully obvious that if one cuts down trees, that's less carbon dioxide that can be effectively removed from the atmosphere. It's painfully obvious that if you dump waste into water it will cause fish die offs and make that water undrinkable. It's painfully obvious that flammable water caused by fracking isn't very good for you. It's painfully obvious that smog isn't healthy to breathe.


In a closed circuit ecosystem such as Earth, if you take away the tools for the Earth to repair the damage we cause, it will have a harder and longer time repairing that damage.

reply to post by jibajaba


Gore, his financers and cronies were the ones that concocted the idea of selling "global warming" to profit from, sadly the "global warming" didn't sell very well so they changed to "Climate change", I tell you if you drill enough in a granite wall you will make a dent eventually and that is what is happening now, you sell enough data by pay out scientist debunk the real science and you got yourself a crowd that will believe you



If earth wants to eliminate all life in the planet is going to do it regardless and is nothing we can do to stop it.

Earth will do its think no matter what and the strongest of the species will survive just like those species before us, religion has managed to portrait humans as a divine entity from a GOD, guess what we are just another species in the animal kingdom and bound to suffer just like any other species in earth

reply to post by marg6043


Unlike animals, who are balanced, the Human suck a resource dry, not looking at consequence, and expect earth to fix itself.

Earth can fix, damage done by natural disasters, not chemical atrocities. Humans delay the repair more by slowling down the healing ability buy cutting trees and polluting natural cycles.

Give me a second, while i pour Hydrofluoric acid into the water, but calm down, the earth will fix it. Brb.

Obama runs the "FLAT BROKE" society,,,Im sure he is doing this because there is some money in it for him.

It was the people who believed the earth to be round that were prosecuted and ridiculed by the establishment of their time. I'm undecided on climate change and believe that the more we learn the more we know but regardless of my views I would never ridicule my opposition. Anyone who has an open mind regardless of their current beliefs is my friend. People who are rigid and believe in absolute truths not so much.

Would it be perceived as presumptuous to be naïve in believing the infallibility of science?

When science is still mapping and understand the universe and the "Big bang theory"

Comet Ison discovered in 2012 was observed for years but scientist "did not know" what was recorded in their data.

They now discover a system 22 light years away with 3 super earths.

Man is not perfect and prone to error, which makes their research in the field of science susceptible to their ways or agenda if one needs to be pushed forward.

Which does not mean it has to be one or the other the world revolves on cycles, we are apart of this world and effect it on a daily bases, any time we drop a nuke.

Because the world revolves on cycles, we therefore can not stop it from happening but we can influence it enough through our activities and daily livings to either slow it down or speed it up

Originally posted by Gazrok

Not a single word of your rambling negates the fact that skeptics of climate change are wrong.

Are they?

For every paper that rings the alarm, there's another paper that says it is all bunk.

Oh, really? There's a one-to-one on those? Now *that* is bunk.

Since the whole subject is based on statistics, and these can be skewed greatly if you have an agenda, nearly all of the data analysis on it is flawed from the get-go, based on what they sampled, and the accuracy of that information (which is highly inaccurate when you rely on decades old temperature records, and different methodologies, etc.).

And what, pray tell, is the agenda of all these thousands of scientists who've come to a consensus that AGW is indeed a real phenomenon? If the agenda is not science, then what? The reality of what's going on, whether you like it or not, is that there is a vast majority of scientists telling politicians that AGW is real and it's a freight train. Politicians, for good or bad, are trying to take action based on that information. There isn't some grand conspiracy by "TBTB" (whatever the hell that is) and it isn't some big scheme to try to bilk more money out of the people. A large number of people see a real threat to our planet and are trying to take action on it. Is it 100% certainty that the dire predictions will come to fruition - no, of course not. But at this point, based on the all the data, based on all our observations, and, yes, based on all the science, the chances are far greater than a coin flip.

Hadn't seen this thread and posted a response on a newer one.... so here is what I wrote:

What a sanctimonious PoS he is!

It's not that people "deny" that climate changes. Anyone with an ounce of sense freely admits that and the physical evidence from many fields of research proves that it changes. I have yet to see ANYONE deny that climate does indeed change and that it remains static.

What most people object to, and quite rightly question, is the whole "man-made" climate change theory that is being pushed by politicians and bankers as a huge profit generation exercise, at the expense of everyone. Of course, Obama and all the others pushing this, and the whole "denier" nonsense, know this but won't miss a trick in smearing those who question the fudged data and outright fabrication and distortion going on to push this "for profit" exercise.
Those questioning the data and unproven "facts" that are presented, often care as much about the planet as everyone else, myself included. Yes, our governments SHOULD be looking at ways to reduce pollution as it's crazily out of hand. Ironic too that Mr. Obama's military adventures are the producers of much of the worlds pollution!

Despite all the talk from the politicians, I have yet to see one measure they have come up with that benefits the planet and the people on it, other than those well placed to reap huge financial rewards in fraudulent carbon taxing and trading schemes. I also seem to remember that Obama was involved with such a scheme before becoming the president, and so likely still has a financial interest at stake.

reply to post by redtic


The consensus on AGW is as skewed as the computer models they use to back it up!

There is no consensus on AGW and that too has been shown to be bunk. The IPCC was even found to be using the names of scientists opposing the AGW theory in it's pro-AGW papers!

There are so many unknowns, such as emissions from land based and under-sea volcanoes and vents, that without factoring these in, they cannot positively say it's man-made or otherwise and is all just guesswork, or in this case propaganda to tax us all into oblivion and make some folks even richer than they are already.

Consider this...

There are thousands of peer reviewed and not peer reviewed scientific papers and various other reports and statements saying that man made greenhouse gasses are effecting the earth in a negative way. To say that someone who believes in man made global warming is an idiot, doesn't make sense. There is too much "evidence" . You have to try to persuade with other evidence.

We know that coal is dirty energy and causes a lot of pollution. That industry needs to be cleaned up.

We know that oil, coal and natural gas companies have paid for scientific research and paid to have the scientists conclude whatever those companies wanted them to conclude.

These three facts need to be addressed.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by bigyin

 

It pointed out that scientists have only recently discovered that sun spots affect the earth's climate. The last time there was a low number of sun spots was during Victorian times, the Thames froze over and the period became known as the Little Ice Age.

Uh, no.

Obviously you didn't pay any attention to that program or what it had to say.

en.wikipedia.org...

The solar minimum (attributed to fewer number of sunspots) and the solar maximum (higher number of sunspots) have little to do with earth climate (remember, I didn't say nothing to do with earth climate, I said little). What they have to do with earth is the possibility of solar flares and CME (Coronal Mass Ejections). These high energy particles often hit the Earth, which typically get caught in the Earth's magnetosphere traveling to the poles and ionize the atmosphere causing aroras.

This, and this probably had more to do with the little ice age than decreased electromagnetic radiation from the sun.

But nice try.

I refer you to 55:30 min in the program where the scientists says the reduced sun spots may cause an ice age.

Obviously you didn't pay much attention to the program.

reply to post by Gazrok

For every paper that rings the alarm, there's another paper that says it is all bunk.

Completely untrue. The very few papers that refute the consensus on what is causing our planet to warm thus drive the climate to change, have been ripped apart in the peer review process. Most contrarians don't bother writing papers, just cherry picking papers that support AGW theory.

reply to post by neo96


To 1 Obama and other global leaders may know and see more sensitive data related to EA*RTH climate behavior and so could be attempting to alert the MASSES & thanks for doing sO ... Notice it switched from GOAL WARMING to CLIMATE CHANGE, perhaps something is going on, but as understood Fear can cause denial... in some so patience for them must remain in hopes that better/greener ways come into existence here on EA*RTH.

LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******

Obama just repeats what the globalist hierarchy want him to say,

Weather extremes tied to jet stream a river of air above earth that dictates much of the weather for the northern hemisphere has been unusually erratic, hence the 94 temperatures in Alaska,

Scientist don't know why it is doing this they have never seen it before, but Obama assured us it was global warming, everything is global warming, if it is unusually cold, if it is unusually hot, if it rains, if there is drought.

www.weather.com...

Not that I don't think we are caretakers of the planet.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Are they?

For every paper that rings the alarm, there's another paper that says it is all bunk. Since the whole subject is based on statistics, and these can be skewed greatly if you have an agenda, nearly all of the data analysis on it is flawed from the get-go, based on what they sampled, and the accuracy of that information (which is highly inaccurate when you rely on decades old temperature records, and different methodologies, etc.).

And even if there is climate change, it is nearly impossible to prove our actions are causing it. (or that ceasing certain practices will have any effect). Flat Earth indeed.

Doesn't the fact the Earth had no global warming since 16 years bother any Global Warmers?

Doesn't the fact that the Sun is behaving weird and affecting ALL planets, not just Earth, bother any Warmers who then blame it on us?

Doesn't Politics's heavy involvement in science introduce a MASSIVE bias?

Doesn't the fact that sea level doesn't rise bother any Warmers?

Doesn't the fact that as CO2 went up after 1939, temperatures went down for a while INSTEAD OF WARMING, thus showing the absence of correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and Global climate, bother any Warmers?

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Obama just repeats what the globalist hierarchy want him to say,

Exactly. A couple of years ago members of the CFR publicly complained about Obama's position on that subject. Suddenly, Boom, out of nowhere, Obama comes out and raves against skeptics. Seems to me as if someone was angry people didn't buy it, and gave B.O. a speech.

TRUE SCIENCE IS BASED ON SCEPTICISM. You're not supposed to give full credence to a THEORY until it has been proven 100% right!

reply to post by marg6043


Al Gore is slobbering all over himself right now, and Obama too.
He loved O's speech!



Poor guy had to take his lumps and did a no show a couple of times
shamed faced after Climate Gate, and the no increase over the last 15 years...

Britguy and swanne have already stated my reply better than I can sum up...

As for motive....grant money for more research of course....i.e. it's their livelihood.

I'm not saying there isn't some climate change, and I'm not saying that our activities aren't contributing to it. I do however, feel that most of the studies produced are flawed, biased, and just plain wrong, mostly because we simply don't have enough recorded history to make accurate predictions and models for changes over even 100's of years, let alone over 1000's. The problem isn't even in the analysis (if it were, then peers would have ripped it apart), the problem is in the conclusions without enough historical data to back it up.

I'm all for going green as much as the next guy, but when you've got double digit unemployment in areas, and a struggling economy, it is NOT the time to go killing industries on a "what if" or "maybe".....or even a "likely"......