Obama's Inaugural Address: "We Will Respond To The Threat Of Climate Change"

Another dumb move by Obama. There is simply no need as change is the nature of the Universe. Actually, trying to keep things the same is UNnatural and dumb.

Evolution grinds to a halt when you try to keep things the same. Those who live near the shore just have to move as simple as that.

It's frustrating how simple change could be. For starters, give every home owner a voucher to install Solar panels and properly insulate their homes. This would cut drastic use of natural resources. Instead of seeing a savings on their bills each month, charge them the same average price until those vouchers were paid off.

The only caveat to this is rental properties, they are the bane of the US right now. Renters have no interest in upgrading the property they are renting because they get no long term benefit. Rental companies see no benefit in upgrading because they don't pay the utilities. It's a vicious circle.

Maybe if we gave the renter a voucher and the balance would decrease over time no matter which company or home they were renting, as long as the home they were renting had been upgraded.

Obviously this is just a rough idea, and needs to be examined more, but rough ideas are what we need right now to see what sticks.

before I saw the bank draft four $7906, I didnt believe that...my... friends brother was like actualy taking home money part time at there labtop.. there brothers friend started doing this for less than eight months and at present repaid the debts on their cottage and bourt a gorgeous BMW 5-series. I went here...Daily.Buzz70.com

Obama says: "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science..."

What he means: "Some may disagree with my non-scientific opinion..."

Obama says: "America cannot resist this transition (to 'sustainable' energy resources); we must lead it."

What he means: "I didn't learn my lesson from the Solyndra debacle. I'm going to keep spending your money on my pals in the 'green energy' industry regardless of any scientific or economic merit."

It never occurs to extreme progressives like Obama that America has already been leading the sustainable energy industry for decades. American private industry is on the leading edge of developing the technology, along with private industry in other countries. However the technology isn't widely USED yet because it's not economical. It will be eventually. Be patient.

Progressives have an irresistible need to change the rest of the world RIGHT NOW rather being patient while the world changes all by itself without their intervention.

Max Benn said it best: "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Sorry, that's Ernest Benn, not Max Benn.

Gizmowiz is right (as always). We should just burn as much fossil fuels as we'd like because change is natural. Even if that change is negative and could be avoided....

And the Greek chorus decides to chime in with the parroting of "Solyndra! Solyndra!" as pushed from Faux "news". You should investigate the other loans that didn't fail instead of just pointing to failure.

His "non-scientific opinion" is a consensus within the scientific community. AGW/Climate change is fact. It's so easy to understand even a Faux viewer could understand it, if Faux would tell them to. "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion"-wiki.

mjsd555 - What are the unintended consequences you are ignoring? What happens to the grid when the sun is covered by a cloud? What happens at night? Have you given any thought at all about the negative consequences of putting solar panels on every rooftop? Are they hotter that white roofs? Is it actually a good idea? Or, is it just a "green" idea?

Frosttty - The theory you believe in so completely has been disproven in detail. From the current warm period being the warmest ever, to the sun playing no part. Most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer. Most of the predictions of the GCMs (Global Climate Models) have failed, especially the temperature trends. Not that you will even be convinced by even continental glaciers coming back. You would blame even that on "Climate Change."

A modern version of FDR's depression ending New Deal building nuclear plants would solve the US energy needs in 15 years or less.

2500 new mass produced nukes scattered around the US at $2500B financed by the $800B paid every year into the coffers of Big Oil/Coal for their deadly products would carry all US energy needs. No need even for transmission builds.

Add the carbon cost to it and the payback is in the first few months.

Unlike normal state expenditures like military and bridges etc a massive nuclear build has a immediate direct return to the economy, using $2500B in mass produced nuclear to replace the $800B in annual fossil fuel cost and at least $100M in health related costs - payback 3 years ROI 40%, unemployment rate close to zilch. No a single large scale state investment which has this kind of potential return.

Factory produced Nuke power is by far the least expensive form of energy at less than 2.5 cents a kwh . Many Republican Senators like Alexander and McCain see the need for 200 new factory produced nuke plants over the next 15 years in the US basically a trivial exercise requiring a tiny portion of recession freed industrial capacity. In fact the construction of 2500 nukes by a federal agency like FDR's Bonneville or TVA over the same time to replace all fossil fuels would be quite feasible ending the recession and generating 40% rates of return on investments to the nation as a whole for a carbon to nuclear conversion.

GTL plants like Shell's new Qatar plant using natural gas to make diesel at $35 a barrel and easily adaptable to nuclear hydrogen/atmospheric CO2 as feedstock, would provide liquid fuels.

The effort to replace all fuel sources with nuclear would be similar to the industrial effort required to produce Liberty ships or Sherman tanks in WW2 - easy since our economy today has ten times the industrial capacity 20% idle. The rate of return on that investment is over 40% per annum to the nation as a whole.

Obviously Big Oil is agin this and has purchased pretty well all our politicians, organizations like Greenpeace, Sierra, and WTF and the mainstream media to make sure it doesn't happen.

Be nice if Obama gave the low information wind/solar/fossil fuel lobbyists now running the White house, the boot and started representing his countries interests for a change.

Here's advocate Stephen Kirsch begging the nuclear obstructionists betraying their country in the White house to build the the best in the world, blue printed ready to build Idaho National Labs integrated Fast Reactor cancelled by Clinton after some Big Oil payoffs in 1996.

Google "why-obama-should-meet­till"

Global warming is a nice experiment I would like to see continue. Lets see if those methane hydrates really will melt and bump up the methane content. Lets see how high we can get the sea levels. Call Guinness when done!

Depending on where you live the warm up can be quite beneficial. If you live in the equator region not so much.

If that's a bummer--then move.

You ignore the fact that we'll see more dynamic weather as we'll have more energy in "the system".

Lauren, feel free to post some peer-reviewed climatology data that you say exists disproving the overwhelming consensus on the matter.

We have more CO2 in our atmosphere now than we've had at any time in 800,000 years. This somehow isn't a concern to you? We've taken carbon that's been buried in the Earth and have been burning it to the tune of Billions of tons a year and put that in the atmosphere. That doesn't concern you. This carbon took millions of years to bury and we've been introducing it to the atmosphere in less than 200 years. Do you not understand the nature of CO2 as a "greenhouse gas"? How about the acidification of the oceans because of the absorption of CO2?

Laurenra7 denies global warming, thinks creationism should be taught as science, and that you can stop being gay if you really really try. Yeah, you seem like the voice of reason.

No one President via one or two terms can stop this train wreck of climate change cause from human industrial revolution. In addition, if the goal is to maintain our current state of living in the world with and ever-growing population, the industrial revolution will continue will march forward as well as climate change cause by CO2. In addition, CO2 is just the catalyst the explosive power of change when methane is release upon the climate with is changes!

I predicted gloom and doom with a chance of hope, if you keep your religion close to your heart. Death is near, but with God, there is a path of hope!

Of course, the Annunaki\a alien intervention might return and save the day too!

Oh geez, proponents of the man-made global warming theory have to be some of the most ignorant people I've ever had the displeasure of meeting.

"We should just burn as much fossil fuels as we'd like because change is natural."

Strawman argument... next.

"Even if that change is negative and could be avoided."

Arg! Do you even understand the scientific method?

Here's the problem with YOU... you have no where near a scientific mindset. You don't see things in terms of the scientific method, so you answer questions of science by appealing to authority. A person with the mindset of a scientist doesn't accept appeals to authority. What the scientist does is make a thesis then develops tests to disprove that thesis. If the thesis is disproved, then the scientist goes back to the drawing board to develop a new thesis to explain the conditions observed.

The man-made global warming theory, just as all theories, rests on a set of premises that make up the thesis. For global warming some of the major premises are;
1. The base line global average temperature increases with CO2 and decreases with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
2. The majority of annual increases in CO2 concentrations are primarily due to humans.
3. Any increase in the global average temperature is bad for most everyone and everything on the planet.

In an enclosed box, exposed to light of consistent intensity, increasing CO2 concentrations in the box does increase the temperature of the air inside. When a global warming proponent talks about "settle science", that's REALLY all they're talking about. Past that, there's not a correlated relationship between CO2 increases since 1850 and temperatures. As CO2 continued to rise from 150 ppm at the beginning of the industrial revolution to over 300 ppm today, the average temperature did not consistently rise in sync with CO2; there were still fluctuations in temperatures attributed to natural variation.

While it may seem logical to assume all CO2 increases are due to humans, much of the "science" behind the claim relies upon correlations, which as we all know, doesn't equal causation.

The biggest unproven aspect of the whole global warming theory are as to the consequences. When a horticulturalist wants to increase plant growth he increases CO2 in the greenhouse. Those pushing the global warming theory either paint over the fact that increases in CO2 will increase the growing season, as well as increase plant size, or they totally ignorant of this fact. Increases in temperatures will increase evaporation, which will increase rain, and that will increase the total land area suitable for farming. This is a POSITIVE consequence of a warmer globe, but that's not what the proponent of the theory push. They deny any information that disprove the theory, and cheerlead thing they think does prove the theory.

That's not science.

Kehvan,
Pltzzzzz! LOL

Funny stuff, Frosttty. I didn't realize I denied global warming, think Creationism should be taught in public schools, and that you can stop being gay if you really try. Care to back up your spurious claims with some evidence? Specific quotes? I don't remember holding any of those views. I DO however deny that global warming is anything other than natural, that it is a problem, that it is mostly caused by humans, and that humans can do anything reasonable to change it. You have a very black-and-white viewpoint. Try a little critical thinking, starting with this question:

Why do YOU choose to believe that humans are causing global warming when there is abundant evidence that the warming of the 20th century (that has stopped for the last 16 years by the way) is completely natural? For example, see ice core data on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

You will note that if we're following a natural cooling/warming cycle similar to the last 4 over about 400,000 years, we still have a ways to go before we reach the hottest temperatures. You will also note what every climate scientists has observed: that CO2 saturation LAGS warming by hundreds of years. In other words, warming CAUSES increased CO2, not the other way around as the global warming "consensus" claims. You may even become aware that much of the northern hemisphere has spent most of the last 400,000 years covered in ice, which as we all know, sucks for like, you know, agriculture. We are living in a brief and balmy period that is not the norm, and will--if the ice core data is right--end eventually and revert back to another ice age.

So, the BIG question is, do you always accept the "consensus" viewpoint without questioning the data, the methods, the hypotheses? Are you another one of those lemmings packed into shiny metal boxes? Do you think that all those climate scientists are so smart and unbiased that their pronouncements don't need to be challenged? I don't.

I'm not going to post a bunch of links to peer-reviewed studies because it wouldn't change your mind. That's up to you. There are lots of peer-reviewed studies refuting the "consensus" on global warming. Look them up yourself like I did. You would be surprised to discover, if you took the time to, that the entire consensus on human-caused global warming rests on only one flawed study by Michael Mann. It's all about the tree rings on that one magical pine tree, and a statistical analysis method that will generate a temperature "hockey stick" even from random data. All the rest of the so-called supporting evidence--glacier mass balance, satellite telemetry, sea-level data, CO2 saturation of the atmosphere and oceans, arctic minimum sea ice extent, etc.--shows nothing other than natural warming (and cooling) and its effects.

All of the information is available online thanks to the freedom of the Internet. Go look it up.

And Frosttty, CO2 saturation may indeed be at its highest in the last 800,000 years, but so what? It's nowhere close to the highest it's ever been when the earth was hospitable to animal life. CO2 is a minor contributor to warming and its effect on temperature is logarithmic, meaning it takes a doubling of CO2 to achieve a moderate global temperature rise. CO2 is a beneficial atmospheric gas that increases plant production.

Contrary to James Hansen's hysterical claims that CO2 increases warming "feedbacks," studies show that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is neither strong, nor direct; that the relationship is complicated and appears to actually DECREASE feedback as CO2 saturation increases. In fact, as noted above, CO2 increase lags global temperature increase which means, if you're paying attention, that CO2 does't drive global warming, warming drives CO2 increase. But if you're really concerned about it, you'll be happy to note that the CO2 output of modern, post-industrial nations is increasing very slowly or declining. However, in emerging nations like China and India, CO2 output is increasing rapidly. The good news is, when they reach the peak of their growth (sometime in the next few decades) and when global population begins to decline (in the next few decades), CO2 output will naturally decline. Problem solved.

U.S. CO2 declining:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/us-co2-emissions-may-drop-to-1990-levels-this-year/

Graph of world CO2 output estimates:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/23/a-graphical-look-at-worldwide-co2-numbers/

Thanks Laurenra for your input. You saved me voicing a similar opinion myself. As you say, even if the developed world drastically reduces their CO 2 output, the BRICS countries will make more than up for it over the coming decades. I do support sethdayal's idea of going nuclear, mainly because I would prefer a cleaner environment. It would be a positive if the "Beijing cough" would convince the Chinese that the environment can not sustain that much pollution.
President Obama is obviously a clever man, and I admire his skills as a speaker, but what does he really know about the climate?

laurenra7,
Well done and said! Hu-RAY!

Finally, A pointless war where no soldiers and children have to die!
Yaay Obama!

Ah, Kehvan... Makes great claims about what he knows and what others do not. Marches out claims of logical fallacies and then provides false dichotomies of his own to add to the list. By the way, learn what sarcasm is...

Laurenra7, your comments in the past support what I said about you. Anyone can go and look at that.

I must be one of these "lemmings" packed into a box as you mentioned because I do trust the scientific method. It works pretty damned well. What you have to go on doesn't appear to be scientific method. It appears to be cherry picking data to support a claim when that data has been considered already. Yes, there will be benefits to warming, that's not denied by those who accept the fact of global warming. The concern is whether or not the net balance of effects will be negative. It appears it will be negative. Climate change is of great concern to the Pentagon and the military. It ranks among our threats to national security.

Yes, CO2 is needed for plant growth. Our rainforests are being cleared out in great numbers. That's reducing the Earth's ability to take in all of the carbon we're putting into the atmosphere.

Frosttty is pretty much dead on about you laurenra7. Do you think we don't read your other ridiculous posts? You have the same problem so many on the right have. You believe that you know better than 97% of the world's scientists. A great example of this is the creationism meeting they just had in Louisiana. The Tea-bagging congresswoman kept doubting all the people with "little letters" next to their names. In other words, "PHD", and these weren't just your average scientists, these were Nobel laureates. Even these heavy-hitters in the scientific community were dismissed by the GOP creationism nuts.

Like Frostty, I encourage you to post your source. The reality is yes, there are some pseudoscientists who have faked data to support their agenda. But let's say they didn't fake them, and that they honestly believe they have something. You're still comparing a few thousand papers to several million.

There is NO debate for climate change. 97% of scientists agree. This is what is called a CONSENSUS. When you have a consensus, that means there is no longer valid debate. Americans have simply got to stop believing they know more than scientists. We are falling behind the world because of it, and any of you who have friends overseas knows that the rest of the world laughs at us.

And gizmowiz, I shouldn't even try to respond to a habitual troll like yourself, but yes, even a 2 degree change would be devastating. I know you deniers love to say "awesome, it will be a little warmer", but since you obviously have no grasp of science, you have no idea the catastrophic effects this would have. Since I actually have sources, here's a link to just one of thousands to a site that will explain how destructive even a 2 degree change would be: http://www.livescience.com/17340-agu-climate-sensitivity-nasa-hansen.html

Whatever Frosty, it's pretty obvious you wouldn't know the scientific method even if it were to theoretically bite you on the arse. Worse still, it seems you have less of a handle on what does and does not constitute a logical fallacy.

To wit, a false dichotomy is a retort that presents an either or situation when in fact more than two possible outcomes exist.

But hey, wait, isn't that just what the global warming proponent do when they present their dire warnings?

LOL. No need to answer, because those of us who have dug deeper into this already know the answer.

I feel like this addresses the "CO2 lags behind temperature" issue mentioned previously. What concerns me even greater now is that if warming of the oceans release CO2, then we're in for even more atmospheric CO2. Currently the colder waters absorb CO2. All of that absorbed CO2 is going to rapidly release back to the atmosphere when it warms up.

How is it that people don't seem to understand that we can greatly affect our atmosphere? There seems to be a misconception that the atmosphere is this enormous blanket around the earth. It's more like a sheet of paper. I'm a pilot; I see how thin the atmosphere is on a frequent basis. I also see the layer of pollution in the atmosphere. This is an issue humans have created. The only reason there's "doubt" from certain people is because is because of politics and the nature of propaganda. Why is there any surprise this issue is almost identical to that of the Theory of Evolution? The lines are drawn the same as well. Overwhelming scientific consensus versus outliers who think they know better than everyone else. The dissenters are overwhelmingly conservative for both issues. Their motivations are political and religious ideologies.

Don't think too much on it Frosttty. The trolls who frequent this site like gizmowiz or laurenra7 don't understand science or the scientific method enough to even fathom actual facts. They either have nothing to say besides insults like gizmowiz or Kehvan, or they post these long paragraphs like laurenra trying to show you some new "breaking news" that disproves what the overwhelming scientific community has agreed upon. They believe climate change and evolution are simply "guesses" or "opinions", because they don't understand what a scientific theory actually is. They believe that "philosophy", such as creationism should be taught in science class, even though it has not a single shred of scientific evidence. Basically, these people just "believe". They don't need facts or reality, all they need is their "beliefs". As Carl Sagan said: "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." They do not have credible evidence. They do not have scientific knowledge. All they have is their belief.

"The only reason there's 'doubt' from certain people is because is because of politics and the nature of propaganda."

See frosty, THAT is a false dichotomy.

The fact is the scientific minded critics of the man-made global warming theory base much of their criticism, not on the notion the temperatures are warming, cooling or staying static, but that the changes observed, the historical measurements, and the predictions given don't align with what should be seen given the premises of the theory.

Your problem, syfyguy's problem, and the problem with all your layman compatriots who aren't actually scientist, never studied physics, and are equally obtuse on chemistry, is that you subscribe to what "feels" right instead of what's correct based on empirical evidence and observation.

You mouth the notions of scientific scrutiny, but you don't actually practice it. What you do is engage in a litany of ad hominem attacks on those who don't agree. Instead you need to educate yourself on the true reasons for the critics... It's studies such as this one that was just recently released from NASA -- http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

For the entirety of the debate in global warming, the "skeptic" scientist has repeated raised caveats such as the study I linked to above, but people like you downplay, deny it and/or ignore it in favor of your Malthusian world view.

Hahahaha! I'm a nuclear physicist you moron. Did you even read the study you posted? Here are some quotes from your article: "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years."

Here's another: "However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate." Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.

Lol! You deniers crack me up! You think you find some smoking gun that says climate change is caused by something else, and you don't even pay attention to what it says past the title. Or sometimes you come across something that says, "this place is getting cooler", and you're too ignorant to know that weather is different than climate. Let me paint the picture: 97% ... that's the percentage of the scientific community, the people whose job it is to know, agree on anthropenic climate change.

You Kehvan, are the absolute worst kind of troll. You have an excellent grasp of the English language, so you use vocabulary and links you know your believers won't even read to sound like you know what you're talking about. Give it up. This is a SCIENCE site. That crap only works on your Facebook buddies.

anthropogenic...oops

Poor boy... read the study and shutup -- http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

I'm a meteorologist and all the climate change deniers irk me, but sadly I doubt however many studies come out on the subject it will never make an impact with certain people and even more sadly at this point I don't think it matters a whole lot.

A) With the stalemate politically and developing countries around the world I give us little chance to slow down climate change much less stop it. So the best we can do is adapt.
B) Nobody really knows what changes climate change will bring. What bad (or what good) will come out of a 3,5,7 degree rise? Long-range climate models have no handle on this.
C) Operational Meteorlogists lament the fact that millions are being spent on these long-range models while short-range modeling is in dire need of updating. It might be nice to know the earth is going to warm 5 degrees in fifty years, but I'd rather know if surpercells are going to form in my area next Tuesday.
D) Whatever you think of the climate debate it's vital for our national security interest to lessen our dependence on oil and foreign oil. Trillions of dollars of our wealth is being used to build skyscrapers in the desert and America is weaker for it.

Poor moron who thinks he's a scientist because he had a class in high school...I read the study. I quoted your study. Your study says several places that this is NOT evidence that solar variance has a significant effect on climate change. Did you read it? I'm guessing: no.

That's what I was thinking to syfyguy. It seems Kehvan was using the sun spot research to prove something other than man is causing climate change. According to that study the sun is in it's weakest cycle in the past 50 years. That doesn't square with that line of thinking...

Yeah, he's the kind of troll that presents information that sounds relevant, but then when you actually read it, it often has nothing to do with what you were talking about, or often even proves your point instead of theirs. It's because he's banking on his ignorant fan base not doing any research for themselves. This is the typical right-wing stance: tell any lie you want because no one will even look it up! This has been a common tactic for Kehvan, and over half of his "posts" are just intellectual-sounding trolls on climate change.

Breath of fresh air, fellas. That's what you, Syfyguy and Wxman, have provided. Unfortunately a part of why people won't or can't change their minds once they've decided a side; ego. There's an aspect of these deniers thinking they're in on some kind of information or smoking gun as Syfyguy rightly mentioned earlier that others aren't aware of. "Oh, these poor souls are fooled, but not me. I am so much more informed." And it's always just this little cherry-picked bits of information.

These people think there's some kind of conspiracy among climatologists to make this crap up so they'll get grants. Their jobs wouldn't just go away if they were to discover that there indeed was not global warming or climate change. They'd still get grants to continue studying climate.

Wxman, I agree with you that we're kinda screwed. We can slow down our production of greenhouse gases, but it won't help much. You hit it on the head that we'll need to learn to adapt. When the fit hits the shan, there's going to be a lot of fighting over resources. I think we'll see a lot of food shortages at first. Energy independence is the first thing we need to get into place. Going "green" isn't going to stop climate change in the near term, but it will give the US a better foot to stand on. If you don't believe me, look at China. They've HEAVILY invested in "green" energy sources. Look at the rooftops in some Chinese cities. A great deal of them have solar appliances. They don't care that it's "green". They see it as a smart investment; it is.

Current dogma states we have a heat gain
because the atmospheric gas ratios.
Hence a green house effect.
And though there might be some merit to the claim.
It does not necessarily constitute the entire scheme.

Man made structures capture and retain heat.
Magnitudes more efficiently then nature turf.
Roads convert solar energy and store that energy,
into the ground .
Coupled with stone beds a heat sink by design.

With the last few of Decades and suburban
sprawl.
Blacktop was laid down in gigantic swaths.
Transplanting natural insulating fauna for
Black heat absorbing rock.
A foot print Global in size ands its properties.
Has pushed the balance of heat retention and loss.

The problem is we are collecting more heat
then the system can bleed off.
The up tick is in effect any time there is solar
input.
And because of the planets mass a slow and steady
build up.
Demonstrated by an increase in temperature under the Siberian
permafrost.
I am afraid that the green house effect is less an issue.
Then the steady transformation of the Earths surface.
And the science of it all being over whelmed by a single
proposition.

Yeah griffsr the heat island effect certainly does add into warming. Especially as the "islands" expand. Somehow the Greeks and others figured this out awhile ago by whitewashing all their structures. Yet I live in the deep south driving on black asphalt, driving by homes with black shingles on the roofs...
It wouldn't be hard to increase the albedo of these structures and our cities with paint and a few building codes. That probably should be part of the debate as well, but could you imagine the "I'm not going to let the goverment tell me what color to paint my home!"

@ wxman,
You admit here what everybody knows. With all the input and modelling you can not predict the weather for next Tuesday. You have to make an educated guess.
So how can a climatologist predict the climate for the next fifty years? There is no reasonably accurate data much older than 150 years, they are relying on guesses and ice cores, tree rings, sediments etc. From that and from general history we know global warming started more than 10 000 years ago and with fluctuations has not abated so far. Some studies suggest, that the temperatures increase first and then Co2 follows.
Obviously we do not know enough to determine that we actually have an influence on the climate, which I think we do to a very minor extent. The Climate has always changed, and mans activities could only have had an influence on it in the last 200 or so years.
Having said that, I strongly feel that the world should get away from burning polluting fuels including wood and corn alcohol and work to satisfy most energy needs with mainly nuclear power.
@ Frosty
"The Chinese have heavily invested in green energy sources"
ha bloody ha. Have you read the news lately? They run a competition here, the winner gets one week in Beijing when the fog is on and the second price is three weeks. Supply your own oxygen.

As much as I support Obama, I wonder:
"Was that really necessary?"
And then I realize that in politics, trying to be Mr. Nice Guy never works out.
As for climate change:
I live in Canada, which is (emphasize with sarcasm) sooo much colder than America. I hate it every time we have green Christmases. I hate it when the temperature reaches double digits in the middle of January. To avoid an army of trolls and flamers from breaking down my door, I'm not going mention whether I believe in Climate change or not. The rest of you can argue over that. All I'd like is a proven, undisputed explanation for why my Canadian winters are unnaturally warm.

African Rover, do you just respond based on partial information? You should read all of the posts and their full message. Yeah, China is polluted like crazy, but they're going "green" in the sense that they use a lot of solar energy sources. Not because they want to clean up the air, but because it's a good investment into their future. It is financially a good investment, but it'll also result in less pollution as well. Their interests are in the financial side. They recognize the need to augment their sources of energy. How can America not be leading the way on this? Oh yeah, republicans. They see progression as anti-'murican. They want us to be stuck in the good old days... Time to move forward or otherwise we'll end up like some of these backward theocracies we see around the world.

Frosttty, here's China and America's energy consumption by source for 2009, the most recent year we have data for both:

U.S.: 10.5% renewable, 11.5% nuclear, 78% fossil fuels
China: 6% renewable, 1% nuclear, 93% fossil fuels

Details of what makes up "renewables":
U.S.: 37% hydro, 5.5% biomass, 1% wind, 0.13% solar, 0.27% geothermal
China: 6% hydro, all other sources are negligible

93% of China's energy comes from burning fossil fuels. No wonder they have so much pollution. China produces a lot of solar panels, but they get sold to other countries. The 6% of energy that comes from renewables is almost entirely from hydroelectric. Solar, wind, biomass and geothermal are negligible, although China uses biomass to produce ethanol for automobiles, accounting for 20% of the fuel used.

Including nuclear (which doesn't emit CO2), America produces 23% of our energy from "green" or renewable sources. China? 7%.

And America is continuing to move to renewables, especially when it makes economic sense. As of 2011, 11.8% of our energy comes from renewables (compared to 10.5% in 2009). Apparently America IS leading the way.

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=CH

Economic growth, prosperity, and "progress" is fueled by inexpensive energy. Inexpensive energy also lifts people out of poverty. Next to a liberalization of their markets, it's the main reason for China and India's growing prosperity. When energy is expensive, it's the poor who suffer most.

Apparently you grew up believing the dogma that most public school teachers lavish on their students: Republicans are evil, impeding progress; Democrats are good and encourage progress.

Conservatives, many of whom are Republican, recognize that the private sector is the generator of technological advancements, prosperity, progress, and the more efficient use of resources.

Progressives ("social progressives") or liberals ("social liberals"), many of whom are Democrats, favor more government control and regulation of business and markets, and more government programs to redistribute wealth.

Which approach do you think leads to more "progress"? Hint: Contrast the growth of Russia, China, India, and South Korea with the U.S., Germany, Japan, and North Korea in the 20th century, before and after Russia, China, and India liberalized their markets. Compare their poverty rates. Which countries have cleaner air and water, more protected natural resources, and a higher standard of living?

BTW, Frosttty and syfyguy, your comments have a lot of ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments; not very persuasive.

OMG yes wxman C on your list. I remember when i was forecasting for Iraq and Afghanistan we had a weather model so bad i used it to tell me what wasn't going to happen. It didnt help that those models where created to forecast for the American Midwest.

Also I do agree that the warming and cooling of the earth is a natural event on earth. But with global warming the rate of warming has increased that could cause problems.

-BIP

Actually, Lauren, China produces more renewable energy than the U.S. China produces almost 800 terawatts a year, while the U.S. produces about 500 terawatts a year. And if you want to look at it from a percentage, Sweden produces half of its energy from renewable sources. The U.S. isn't even close to the leading producers by percentage.