White House puts out report on Global Warming impact

[SparkyJJO]

Or maybe not - given that some scientists are finding otherwise

409 thousand square miles of polar ice (26&#37😉 increase since 2007. Ocean current shift causing things getting cooler. Possibly caused by practically no sunspot activity. Which, last time this happened, it was known as the mini ice age. Hope you people like it being cold. I was actually looking forward to a little warmer time, this cold is getting old 🙁

So, sorry Obama, but your and you're political party's agenda is flawed, and the scientific data is starting to mount up against you. And public opinion is shifting too. Hopefully, it will be fast enough to stop you from doing some horrible disservice to the country.

 

[soccerballtux]

Is it a crisis yet? Are we in crisis?

This is yet another example of ignoring the people because most people don't believe in this crap.

LOL! Blame bush. That should tell you how objective this entire paper is. It's claiming global warming is going to kill people because it will get so hot (see the part about chicago heat deaths).

One word for you: Climategate.

 

[Patranus]

You're a fucking terrible person. How does it feel?

Grrrreat

 

[palehorse]

If this is so important then funding research to economically viable non-greenhouse gas producing power should have been Job #1.

We spent how many hundreds of billions of dollars on bailouts over the last year?

They should have given MIT and other institutions a fraction of that and said "go to it"

Nope.

this.

 

[glenn1]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-obama-report

"The Obama Administration on Tuesday released a report showing climate disruption is already leaving deep imprints on every sector of the environment and that the consequences of these changes will grow steadily worse in coming decades.

I support taking measures to prevent climate change; we should take away cars from anyone who lives in an urban area with public transportation, enforce mandatory density codes for urban areas (10,000+ per sq km), and tax subsidies for rural areas (all those trees).

 

[nick1985]

Grrrreat

haha

 

[Jaskalas]

This is yet another example of ignoring the people because most people don't believe in this crap.

No, this is an example of bald face lies.

 

[AMDScooter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYj5baVfB0Y&feature=player_embedded

 

[woolfe9999]

The technology wasn't there at the time. Right now solar electric is close, but not quite economically. It shouldn't take 30 years to tweak it.

If the only thing done was make solar more economical than being on the grid, then that would be a big thing, and I know that there's a lot more being done than just that.

But of course, the administration isn't serious about this. It's all talk once again.

You're wrong. Obama has already increased funding for alternative energy sources, including solar.

- wolf

 

[palehorse]

You're wrong. Obama has already increased funding for alternative energy sources, including solar.

- wolf

chump change. I want to see him fund the largest and greatest alternative fuels research in the history of mankind. I want to see the "Manhatten Project" of Energy alternatives.

Make it happen.

Also, in the meantime, redirect the stimulus funds to build a dozen nuclear reactors across the continent.

 

[nick1985]

Also, in the meantime, redirect the stimulus funds to build a dozen nuclear reactors across the continent.

He wont. Obama is scared of nuclear power because he is an uninformed pussy.

 

[woolfe9999]

chump change. I want to see him fund the largest and greatest alternative fuels research in the history of mankind. I want to see the "Manhatten Project" of Energy alternatives.

Make it happen.

That will come when Congress undertakes an energy bill, IF it has the votes to pass. In the meantime, he *has* provided additional funding for alternative energy. It was alleged he has done nothing, and I felt it reasonable to correct that statement.

Nuclear plant building as part of stimulus? Bad idea. Too much lag time on those projects for it to have an immmediate economic effect. Building more nuclear plants in general? I agree on that.

- wolf

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're wrong. Obama has already increased funding for alternative energy sources, including solar.

- wolf

How much is being spent? Half a trillion? A hundred billion?

How much?

 

[charrison]

That will come when Congress undertakes an energy bill, IF it has the votes to pass. In the meantime, he *has* provided additional funding for alternative energy. It was alleged he has done nothing, and I felt it reasonable to correct that statement.

Nuclear plant building as part of stimulus? Bad idea. Too much lag time on those projects for it to have an immmediate economic effect. Building more nuclear plants in general? I agree on that.

- wolf

Any large project has too much lag time to be effective stimulus. OF course $800B would have purchased alot of nuke plants down the road.

 

[woolfe9999]

How much is being spent? Half a trillion? A hundred billion?

How much?

Half a trillion you say? Surely you jest. When could he have gotten that and the new taxes to pay for it past a fillibuster?

He has more than tripled funding for clean energy from about $3 billion to about $10 billion. Also, if memory serves, there has been an increase in DOE funding and additional stimulus money to energy projects since this article was written last year, but don't quote me on that:

http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-m...-federal-spending-for-research-on-clean-fuel/

You want big money for this? Like I said above, wait for an energy bill and see what they have the votes to pass. I guarentee it won't be a half trillion though. Maybe $100 over 10 years.

- wolf

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Half a trillion you say? Surely you jest. When could he have gotten that and the new taxes to pay for it past a fillibuster?

He has more than tripled funding for clean energy from about $3 billion to about $10 billion. Also, if memory serves, there has been an increase in DOE funding and additional stimulus money to energy projects since this article was written last year, but don't quote me on that:

http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-m...-federal-spending-for-research-on-clean-fuel/

You want big money for this? Like I said above, wait for an energy bill and see what they have the votes to pass. I guarentee it won't be a half trillion though. Maybe $100 over 10 years.

- wolf

He didn't have to spend half a trillion dollars, but if he did we'd probably be selling technology to the rest of the world while we try to figure out what to do with the petroleum and coal we have.

We hear how grave the warming issue is, yet we spent many times more on bailing out GM. TARP money? You know how much that was. AIG?

I can go down the list of things Obama and Congress pushed for, yet when something with far more serious potential comes along we haven't nearly the commitment.

Even if warming is bogus, being independent of countries which whip teen girls for using cell phones seems a good thing.

If funding is a measure of how serious politicians are about a particular issue, I'd have to say that the current administration and Congress aren't convinced by their own reports either.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I for one welcome the coming balmy Arkansas weather and trips to the Iowa seashore.

 

[woolfe9999]

He didn't have to spend half a trillion dollars, but if he did we'd probably be selling technology to the rest of the world while we try to figure out what to do with the petroleum and coal we have.

We hear how grave the warming issue is, yet we spent many times more on bailing out GM. TARP money? You know how much that was. AIG?

I can go down the list of things Obama and Congress pushed for, yet when something with far more serious potential comes along we haven't nearly the commitment.

Even if warming is bogus, being independent of countries which whip teen girls for using cell phones seems a good thing.

If funding is a measure of how serious politicians are about a particular issue, I'd have to say that the current administration and Congress aren't convinced by their own reports either.

Meh, it's a glib way to argue the point. It begs the question, first of all, of whether we really did or did not need to pour money into TARP or the stimulus (part of which went to energy BTW) to keep our economy from totally collapsing. If the answer is yes, obviously the money had to be massive to have any effect. And with a collapsed economy, there is no tax revenue to increase energy funding or anything else. Comparing money that you pump into the economy in the short run to solve an economic crisis to money for energy and measuring it as priorities based on dollars spent is a bit apples to oranges, since the economy is the base from which we are able to fund anything at all. You can't even compare two ordinary spending items in that way, since different problems/issues/sectors demand differing amounts of money. It's like saying if the federal government spent $600 billion last year on defense and $20 billion on education, Obama must value defense 30x more than he values education.

The other major point is, how much money will he be allowed to pump into energy? He isn't the King of the United States, right?

In the campaign, Obama said his priorities were first, fixing the economy, second, energy, third, healthcare. He reversed priorities 2 and 3, because the conventional wisdom was that healthcare was the tougher issue and since his political capital would dwindle while the economy lagged, he should do HC first. In hindsight it turned out to be a HUGE miscalulation. We ended up with no real HC reform, and now we'll probably get a weaker energy bill than we would have if he had done that first. Thems the breaks.

- wolf

 

[drebo]

chump change. I want to see him fund the largest and greatest alternative fuels research in the history of mankind. I want to see the "Manhatten Project" of Energy alternatives.

Make it happen.

Also, in the meantime, redirect the stimulus funds to build a dozen nuclear reactors across the continent.

We don't need alternative fuel. We have plenty of crude oil on our continent to fuel our own needs and export it for the next 30 years. On top of that, we have enough oil shale within the US to fuel our needs and export for 100 years after that.

Combined with nuclear power and our natural gas reserves, we are nowhere near an energy crisis. There's no reason we need to pour money into less efficient "alternative" fuels.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Seeing as you seem to wanna C&P the same story w/o comment I'll simply C&P my response again.



Story hits all the MMGW faithful talking points offering a big ole goose egg on substance to support the title's premise. Could there possibly be a reason the story fails to point out that we've only been able to track said ice with satellites for about 30 years? Or that recorded observations made by early arctic explorers saw a similar lack of ice in said passage way before the industrial revolution? Naw... keep moving..

The claims about the Northwest Passage the BBC and other outlets were forced to backtrack on..

The surprising real story about this year’s Northeast passage transit: The media botched it

The polar bears declared "endangered" despite the local's actual observed data that shows the populations booming and getting fat. But don't try to harsh the faithful's mellow with facts and actual data, you'll be shown the door..


Polar bear expert barred by global warmists
Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’ , reveals Christopher Booker.


But hey.. what do I know. It must be MMGW.

Why would I need to add comment? The story speaks for itself. All you've provided is a blog to counter it.

And for your link on polar bears, interesting that the same source would publish this article several months later:

Polar bears 'face extinction in less than 70 years because of global warming'

 

[WHAMPOM]

Or maybe not - given that some scientists are finding otherwise

409 thousand square miles of polar ice (26%) increase since 2007. Ocean current shift causing things getting cooler. Possibly caused by practically no sunspot activity. Which, last time this happened, it was known as the mini ice age. Hope you people like it being cold. I was actually looking forward to a little warmer time, this cold is getting old 🙁

So, sorry Obama, but your and you're political party's agenda is flawed, and the scientific data is starting to mount up against you. And public opinion is shifting too. Hopefully, it will be fast enough to stop you from doing some horrible disservice to the country.

What cold are you talking about? :\ I am having a warm winter right after a cool summer. That jet stream bringing Artic cold down to Florida just warmed me up. But then that is local weather not global. 😀

 

[palehorse]

What cold are you talking about? :\ I am having a warm winter right after a cool summer. That jet stream bringing Artic cold down to Florida just warmed me up. But then that is local weather not global. 😀

Florida is a great example:

Cold inflicted major toll on fish in Florida
A deep freeze in the shallow waters of Florida Bay and Everglades took a heavy toll on snook and other native fish
http://www.miamiherald.com/573/story/1432724.html

Fish in every part of the state were hammered by this month's record-setting cold snap. The toll in South Florida, a haven for warm-water species, was particularly extensive, too large to even venture a guess at numbers. And despite the subsequent warm-up, scientists warn that the big bad chill of 2010 will continue to claim victims for weeks.

Cost of Florida cold: Hundreds of millions
http://www.pnj.com/article/20100120/BUSINESS/1200346/1006/RSS01

The freeze was unprecedented, not for its low temperatures, but its duration, Bournique said. Growers recorded below freezing temperatures for 13 days in some parts of the state.