Obama says climate change can no longer be denied

Mr Obama, can the environment sustain the golf courses you use? Pumping ground water to keep them green and the fertilizers and pesticides used.....

and since when did you became a scientist Obama? Of course climate change. Look at earth history. Climate is constantly changing and it is all because we are part of the universe, the sun gets hotter than it gets cooler, and then of course some stars collapse or explode bombarding the universe with particles and radioactive matters and may disrupt the earths gravity field resulting to severe changes of weather. Above all, we are just powerless earthlings trying to be great.

Yes, Obama knows all! Just look at the U.S. economy. Record numbers on public assistance. Skewed unemployment statistics.

Look at the state of the world. The Middle East and North Africa are a mess. China is flexing its muscles, Russia invaded the Ukraine.

Look at US immigration....illegals pouring over the boarder and the Border Patrol does nothing.

And this man preaches climate change! Current deserts were once the ocean floor, Pangea is now 7 continents, mass extinctions in Earth history......

Preserve what we have, I'm all in. I am a tree hugger! Force feed unsustaniated "facts" and I look for the motivation and agenda. The preachers of climate change are some of the worst offenders! This suggests liars.

@erbaviva

and since when did you became a scientist Obama? Of course climate change. Look at earth history... of course some stars collapse or explode bombarding the universe with particles and radioactive matters and may disrupt the earths gravity field resulting to severe changes of weather. Above all, we are just powerless earthlings trying to be great.

Wait, ...You can't declare that Obama's opinion is worthless because he is not a scientist, and then go on to give us your own unscientific opinion about the same issue... I think that's what they call hypocrisy, isn't it?!

Keep serving the Cool-Aid, no proof given, just profits to be made in the claim and a diversion of more pressing issues.

While in the Glades was Obama concerned of the deteriorating water quality? Doubtful. Human expansion into the Everglades? Doubtful. Invasive species of flora and fauna in the glades? Not likely!

Roosevelt created National Parks, a concrete conservation effort with concrete results we all can share. Nixon created the EPA, not a concrete benefit with the mismanagement and overly intrusive policies. EPA is a job creation tax beneficiary.

Is HUMAN influenced climate change taking place? It is difficult to prove. Natural climate cycles are historical fact. Should we humans overlook the possibility? No, but many more pressing issues are fact. Regions of the world are abusing the environment. Areas in the USA are pumping ground water thousands of years old out of the ground at alarming rates. We are not eco friendly in general. As individuals we all can be. Mandating industry is not the answer. Nobody like to told what to do. Lead by example. And clearly Gore as well as Obama are not.

Wow the deniers are here too? Sad. Btw the paris cop21 meeting will prove useless , empty, fruitless, business as usual. Our descenants 30 generations from now will pay the price.

I am not a scientist and do not know how much mankind is contributing to global warming/climate change or if the sceintists are even correct (I remember the panic surrounding global cooling in the 1970's) but I do know that giving more money to what we call government will not fix the problem.

Republicans and Tea Party wonks are programmed to deny anything Obama says, including remarks to the effect that the earth is round.

Yes, there is climate change, but the cause it not necessarily what scientists have been talking about. Listen to this scientist's interesting point of view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhCEOnurFuA

I'm not a scientist, and furthermore, I'm going to go against what 90% of the scientists are saying.

Who's with me?

The GOP is a party with many presidential candidates denying evolution and some members claiming the world is less than 10,000 years old. Denying human-induced climate change is a walk in the park for this crowd regardless of any evidence.

I think people that believes CO2 is a great driver of climate should stop exhaling it.

I'm going to go against what 90% of the scientists are saying.

More like 97%.

Florida is not only vulnerable to rising sea levels, its porous ground threatens its fresh water supply, and yet its Republican (duh) governor, Rick Scott, allegedly banned the use of the phrases “climate change” and “global warming” in reports or other documents.

Climate change deniers (or those who admit it is changing but is not anthropogenic) can go ahead and keep banging their heads against a wall, but it will not change the immutable laws of nature. Someday, Gov. Scott or his successor will demand federal dollars to save Miami, but by then it will be too late.

When a politician declares that a scientific issue is settled, and doubters of a hypothesis are "deniers" (Spanish inquisition, anyone), be careful. ESPECIALLY if it is an issue that politicians love, because it is an excuse for open-ended increase of taxation and government interference.

Nuts that predict the end of the world come and go but people with inflated self-importance always believe that some great event happens in their lifetime. These are are the people who think they can control climate and save the world.

Jimizo:

" The GOP is a party with many presidential candidates denying evolution and some members claiming the world is less than 10,000 years old. "

Can you name the presidential candidates denying evolution and claiming the world is less than 10,000 years old? Or did you just make that up?

" Denying human-induced climate change is a walk in the park for this crowd regardless of any evidence. "

Evolution is a theory with a massive amount of evidence backing it up. Human-induced climate change is a hypothesis based on computer models and missing and/or faked raw data. (But with a huge incentive for politicians and the UN to support it.) You seriously compare the two issues?

I thought people weren't allowed to use the term 'climate change' anymore in Florida because it scared Republicans too much in that they might have to address the issue if used in public. What was it they demand it be called instead, "Hydrologically challenged"?

There is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate ‘narrative.’ Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

(Dr. Patrick Moore, Founder of Greenpeace)

One must say clearly that we want to redistribute the world`s wealh by climate policy

(Ottmar Edenhofer, United Nations IPCC)

Ah, Dr. Patrick Moore, PhD. How does he make his money? According to Greenpeace:

Patrick Moore, a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry...

There is more about the good doctor here: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/history/Patrick-Moore-background-information/

He clearly knows who butters his bread. Funny how some will eagerly cite the minuscule and dwindling number of scientists who deny anthropogenic global warming (who are usually in the employ of industry) and ignore the vast majority of scientists whose research indicates that it is happening.

I would like to ask the posters here a question. What in your personal life do you do to reduce the alleged contributors to climate change? I doubt your daily lives reflect future generations concerns. Do many of you spend the extra money up front to reduce usage of utilities? Do you take extra steps to reduce and recycle?

Humanity is destructive and wasteful in general historically. We all should pitch in effort to maintain global health. Human influenced climate change is not fact. Profiteers from such claims are fact. Call me an imbecile if you wish and back it up with proof! Without proof who is the imbecile?

MarkG: Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. "Human influenced climate change is not fact" - well, neither is it that the solar system is heliocentric, but it can be inferred via hypothesis, multiple measurements, and its influence on other hypotheses. Global warming is quite similar.

"tackling climate change"

That's tackling Mother Nature, the main force behind climate change. With today's technology, dealing with it is about all we can do. Trying to stop Mother Nature will require technology way beyond what we have now.

Ah, Dr. Patrick Moore, PhD. How does he make his money? According to Greenpeace:

right, the old ad hominem. "according to greenpeace" lol. spare a minute to see this http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/from-the-oldies-file-george-carlin-on-earth-day.php

your delusions of grandeur is showing. you think you can control nature? i can remember when "97% of scientists " believed the the earth was flat.

Republicans are closer to God serrano. Jesus didn't vote Democrat as we all know.

If the GOP have gay conversion therapy then surely Climate Conversion Therapy is within reach? Or will that mean acknowledging the problem ?

Thankfully Rapture is imminent.

Madverts - Har! Unfortunately neither the Democrats or the Republicans can deal sensibly with the issue.

i can remember when "97% of scientists " believed the the earth was flat.

Wow. And I thought that I was old. Funny thing about the idea that humans "control" nature being hubris is that humans DO have a very significant impact on the climate of the Earth, good or bad and whether you like it or not. That has been true since humans first began deforesting the planet to create agricultural space for our burgeoning numbers, and it accelerated as we took to carbon-based energy and began using the atmosphere as a dumping ground for its inevitable results. Accept it or not, that humans are currently the dominant driver of medium-term climate change is an equally inevitable situation. How we deal with it is the question, not whether it will happen.

"Sorry; it was Mother Nature" is not an excuse I want to give to my grandkids when they point out these facts, as they inevitably will.

"Sorry; it was Mother Nature" is not an excuse I want to give to my grandkids when they point out these facts, as they inevitably will.

lol yeah the old "think of the children" argument. what facts are talking about?

I generally don't have any more problems with President Obama then I have had with any other presdent during my life time but I would like to ask a few question (assuming that's allowed):

"Rising sea water in the Everglades pose a risk to Florida’s $82 billion tourism industry, he said, adding that for every one dollar taxpayers put into the national parks, $10 is returned to the economy."

How high has the water risen in Florida? Do we have a measurement or is this a future projection?

"Obama spent “Earth Day” in the subtropical wilderness to caution that a warming planet is leading to “stronger storms” and “deeper droughts” that risk hurting the economy as much as the ecosystem."

This problem will most likely be solved by the private sector rather than government. As a matter of fact, a group of "climate entrepreneurs" have created a way to reduce the velocity of hurricanes (say, from a Class 5 to a Class 3) by cooling the water in the "Hurrican Alley" before it can cause disasterous storms. The method is so simple---called a hydraulic head---that it will blow you away. Government prefers long, expensive programs that usually don't work very will if at all.

"In December global leaders are expected to meet in Paris to thrash out a binding mechanism for reducing emissions."

Can I assume that all of our world, UN leaders will be kayaking and backpacking to Paris or will they each by flying in their own personal jets which will burn fuel which raises emissions.....but seriously, can these folks at least do something symbolic and Skype or use Google meetings?

what facts are talking about?

Back on that regressive merry-go-round:

What is the evidence?

Well, okay, maybe, but that's only according to scientists.

No, I'm not anti-science, but they likely have ulterior motives that others, like big business, wouldn't have.

Stop laughing. Of course, the climate is clearly changing; it always does, but that doesn't mean it's anthropogenic.

Oh, right: science. Even if it were anthropogenic, people who have drawn up plans to mitigate it are equally culpable, and therefore their plans are worthless hypocrisy.

Plus, we can't afford it. It would be cheaper to relocate the world's major cities than to wean ourselves off of coal.

Wait - did I just say that? Anyway, what is the evidence?

let me just list down a few of your "scientists" predictions:

The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.” Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000 Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.” Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007 arctic will be ice free by 2013 etc... by the way, did you also believe when harold camping said the world will end in 2011? not to mention "global warming" has been the cause of asthma, mideast wars, acne, attack of killer jelly fish, beer shortage, bee infestation, cholera, ...yadayadayada...

I don't think many people are denying climate change. I think the debate is whether its man-made or natural.

let me just list down a few of your "scientists" predictions:

I far less interested in predictions past or present than I am in actual recorded data spanning years and decades. That is where the conversation should be based.

As of April, 2015, it has been 18 years, 2 months, and the temperature has not increased, period. According to "science", this was not supposed to happen, there should have been some warming by now. It hasn't occurred, and "science" still cannot explain why. Before anyone starts getting uppity, you can read about the "Pause", and the various theories the IPCC has come up with to try to explain why the world is not warming. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that global warming is not occurring.

How high has the water risen in Florida? Do we have a measurement or is this a future projection?

It is a future projection, using fuzzy math with large margins of error, exaggerated of course to the positive side. These assume that sea levels will increase as temperatures increase. But since temperatures are not increasing, there can obviously be no increase in sea levels we can measure now.

I looked at the tide gauge at my family's home on the gulf coast of Florida. It has been recording the tidal level since 1964. The average water level is exactly the same now as it was in 1964. Since the 1996 IPCC report on global warming was published, the tide gauge should be showing water levels at least 3 cm higher by now, but it doesn't.

I can easily deny global warming when it is not occurring.

"Many Republicans point to the economic cost of tackling climate change as a reason behind their skepticism."

"This summer the Environmental Protection Agency will unveil rules limiting emissions for coal-fired power plants that are sure to cause controversy."

"In December global leaders are expected to meet in Paris to thrash out a binding mechanism for reducing emissions." article

Brief: GOP-Tea will sacrifice the environment to make themselves rich.

(See: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/20/3417175/koch-brothers-are-largest-land-owners-of-canadas-tar-sands/)

Science? "Deniers" want profits from the destruction of the environment. End of.

In honor of the founders of Earth Day, here are a few of the predictions made on the first Earth Day. Don’t these sound like the predictions today that fail, like the 50 million climate refugees by 2010 followed by the moving of the goalposts to 2020?

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.” • Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” • George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” • Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” • Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” • Sen. Gaylord Nelson

and this classic:

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Just sayin'.

Climate change computer models are relied on to predict the rise in the earths temperatures. Are those climate computers used to predict the upcoming weekend weather? If so its a 50/50 accuracy rate.

Global Climate changing was starting from beginning of the earth and the warmer weather has contributed for developing of life on earth. There's no Global warming in last 17 + years as according the US firm RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) satellite data. President Obama, Climate change experts, UN Climate change commission and pro Climate change supporters are ignoring actual result of scientific research and campaigning with their own delusion version of Climate change theory.

I accepted human contribution for warm weather but not by Carbon dioxide and other gasses as what Climate change experts said. For example, if you have cutting down rainforest in your country and then your country will suffer from temperature raising, flooding, air pollution and drought because without rainforest no tree will absorb heat from sun and without rainforest, it’s impossible to cooling down warm air which carry water vapor for to rain when cloud was passing over land. The rainforest store rain water and prevent flooding. Carbon and other gases in atmosphere do not contribute our earth temperature changing. The earth temperature has been changing since earth was formed. Climate change experts and their followers must accept reality and they must start new useful research for earth and mankind. I don’t want to point out how wrong their past prediction on climate change.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/04/global-temperature-update-no-global-warming-at-all-for-17-years-9-months/

Another day, another speech by Obama. Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

No one denies that the climate changes. Another Obama straw man. Obama continues to deny that all of the science put into the climate models continuously fails to predict the actual climate. So in order to impose socialism on the people he wants to scare them into believing that the sky is falling. Well, it isn't. Although he goes around saying that CO2 is destroying the climate that doesn't stop him from flying around the world in a huge airplane. This presidents' CO2 footprint might be as large as Al Gore's. The wealthy are pushing the poor to give up on having a decent standard of living while they roam around in their multi-million dollar mansions. I will take the president and Al Gore more seriously when they give up their multiple homes and SUV's.

But still many of the members of the Republican controlled Congress deny climate change is real

Don't forget to add the Obama's had something like 27 Christmas trees in the White House last year. Does that fit an ecologically concerned person? More like do what I say, not as I do! Gore is in the same boat. He profits quite nicely pushing this agenda while absolutely and devastatingly leaves his personal carbon footprint. Any 1,000 of us posters here combined won't leave as much carbon footprint as he does.

Don't forget to add the Obama's had something like 27 Christmas trees in the White House last year. Does that fit an ecologically concerned person? More like do what I say, not as I do! Gore is in the same boat. He profits quite nicely pushing this agenda while absolutely and devastatingly leaves his personal carbon footprint. Any 1,000 of us posters here combined won't leave as much carbon footprint as he does.

You're confusing the way things are, with the way things should be. The way things are is that the white house is not particularly ecologically conservative. The way it should be is that they are. It's hard to change things at the drop of a hat, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed. Just because the white house isn't a vegan zero-carbon footprint already doesn't mean that they shouldn't aim to become something along those lines. That's what Obama is working towards.

Well, 27 Christmas trees is a lot. So, why look at dirty coal and heavy pollution tar sands? They have no effect on the environment and that's a fact. Heard it on Fox! So it's true.

Leading by example is a true leader. Telling the common folks to change lifestyle and living in extreme extravagance is a hipocrite. So, let's just listen to the man. Makes no sense at all for me though.

"Makes no sense at all for me" - comments

Me, me no like, me no like stuff, me no like, me no care. Me.

For the 'Me'; The issue of global warming, science and government policy rests on one point. Profit.

The GOP-Tea will spend all of the Koch Brothers money to make money from environmental destruction.

So, sad news, 'Me' is a selfish piece of nonsense where only 'Me' knows why they are urging global destruction. Lucky 'Me', too selfish to care, too dumb to think. A good source for global policy.

Leading by example is a true leader.

A president acknowledging that the problem exists, when there are so many deniers out there, is a pretty good example of leading by example.

Telling the common folks to change lifestyle and living in extreme extravagance is a hipocrite.

Before changes to solve a problem can be implemented, there has to be acknowledgement that there is a problem to be fixed. You seem to be expecting that they should have already fixed everything, even though this is the first time the (any?) president has even acknowledged that there is problem. Your expectations are unrealistic. It's like expecting an alcoholic will have already quit drinking before they accept that they have a drinking problem.

If they don't work on changing their actions now that they have acknowledged the issue, then you have a right to claim hypocrisy. Right now it's just being a naysayer.

Before changes to solve a problem can be implemented, there has to be acknowledgement that there is a problem to be fixed.

That is correct. So when the politicians, journalists, and money men on the Left tell you that they believe there is an existential problem worse than the threat of global terrorism, and then personally do nothing about it insisting that average and poor citizens make sacrifices they are unwilling to make, why should anyone take them seriously?

"insisting that average and poor citizens make sacrifices they are unwilling to make" - comments

The impact of global pollution requires regulation. That is what the GOP-Tea is on about.

"Many Republicans point to the economic cost of tackling climate change as a reason behind their skepticism." - article

As usual, the misinformed are claiming some poor joe six packs is burdened. False.

"This summer the Environmental Protection Agency will unveil rules limiting emissions for coal-fired power plants that are sure to cause controversy." - article

So it's not joe nobody, it's the Koch Bros. who are whining their profits are at stake. Reference again: (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/20/3417175/koch-brothers-are-largest-land-owners-of-canadas-tar-sands/)

Joe nobody is apparently fighting to help the Koch Bros and make the environment worst.

Next time Pres Obama is looking down at the earth from 30,000 in his plush seat in Air Force One he might start thinking seriously about climate change?

The impact of global pollution requires regulation. That is what the GOP-Tea is on about.

CO2 isn't pollution; it's plant food. If the issue was about acid rain, mercury, or some other actual pollutant there wouldn't be any opposition by most people to that. The Progs are really just after control. Blaming people for the contrived global warming alarmism fits the bill. They want to micromanage the lives of every person and the running of every business or other organization. The global warming alarmists want control - plain and simple.

Alarmists must use subterfuge, bullying, intimidation, propaganda, and the undermining of the scientific communities traditional openness to dissenting views and ideas to push their agenda. When the hockey stick was found to be a fraud they ignored it. When the East Anglia emails were made public they pretended it didn't happen. When the climate models always fail to predict the climate they ignore reality. Ground station temperature readings reveal virtually no warming for 17 years. Satellite readings of the atmosphere reveal none for more than 20 years. All of this does not make the alarmists question their beliefs

Obama ignores the facts because the facts are not what he and the Progs truly care about. What they care about is control. Regulation. Opposition is not tolerated. Not because people have different views about the science of global warming. But because opposition to control by the Left's bureaucratic 'experts' is unacceptable. They have a plan. Opposing views of freedom in a democratic society, the science and it's failed predictions, the misrepresentations of the science and the blackballing of dissenters, all of this is not tolerated - even in America.

"TOKYO — Japan is considering cutting emissions of greenhouse gases by around 25% by 2030, up from an earlier target of about 20%, as its contribution to a global summit in Paris on climate change later this year, media reports said on Friday."

Looks like the conspiracy theorists better add Japan to their list of evil doers who don't understand science and have no idea emission of greenhouse gases. So far Obama is Dr. Diabolical, repeated every post, and now Japan is part of the great cabal against the humble but loveable Koch Bros and their tar sands monopoly.

Looks like the conspiracy theorists better add Japan to their list of evil doers who don't understand science and have no idea emission of greenhouse gases.

I doubt the average Japanese citizen will allow themselves be reduced to poverty for the sake of the wealthy and elites to live extravagantly at their expense. The man made global warming propaganda campaign is it's own flaky conspiracy theory.

The man made global warming propaganda campaign is it's own flaky conspiracy theory.

The irony of your being in the throws of a conspiracy theory - that man has made up man-made global warming - and claiming a conspiracy theory, is not lost on me.