Obama: No time for 'flat-earth society' on climate change

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

PapaG

Banned User
BANNED
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
32,870
Likes
291
Points
0
Will somebody tell this childish name-caller that the "flat earth society" was once the scientific consensus? The only reason he does it is because it further divides people.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...for-flat-earth-society-on-climate-change?lite

President Barack Obama laid out a far-reaching set of proposals meant to address the driving causes of climate change, headlined by a new directive to begin limiting carbon emissions for new and existing power plants and the announcement of high environmental standards for the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline to be met before his administration signs off on the project.

The president outlined a series of climate proposals he intended to advance through executive action, sidestepping a Congress mired in gridlock in its handling of most matters, let alone politically touchy energy and climate issues.

“The question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science, of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements, has put all that to rest,” Obama said in a major policy address at Georgetown University. “So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it's too late.”

While delivering a speech on climate change, President Obama tells the audience that how we choose to respond to climate change will have a profound effect on the world we leave to our children and grandchildren.

He later added, addressing those who deny climate change science: “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society.”

To that end, Obama issued a presidential directive to the Environmental Protection Agency to begin drafting new rules governing carbon emissions from power plants.
 
Um, I think he's referring to the modern day Flat Earth Society. You know, the crowd that chooses to believe that the Earth is flat despite some pretty compelling scientific evidence that it's not. Not so different than the crowd of folks with poor science education backgrounds who don't believe (or understand) that human-influenced global change is real. I guess it's a refreshing change from the "we don't believe in evolution" whining.
 
Um, I think he's referring to the modern day Flat Earth Society. You know, the crowd that chooses to believe that the Earth is flat despite some pretty compelling scientific evidence that it's not. Not so different than the crowd of folks with poor science education backgrounds who don't believe (or understand) that human-influenced global change is real. I guess it's a refreshing change from the "we don't believe in evolution" whining.

Oh. So you're a flat-earther, despite the lack of a CO2/warming causation, or even correlation, the last 40 years of "recorded" history.

Welcome to your dumbshit post.
 
It's no different than calling someone a retard.

They most certainly may be a retard, but it's really bush to call them one if they really are.
 
Oh. So you're a flat-earther, despite the lack of a CO2/warming causation, or even correlation, the last 40 years of "recorded" history.

Welcome to your dumbshit post.

You're a Flat-Earther if you're banging pots, shouting out your strong opinion about a topic you have a poor understanding of. I get it, you read this and that in a newspaper or Newsweek magazine.
 
It's no different than calling someone a retard.

They most certainly may be a retard, but it's really bush to call them one if they really are.

Or maybe it's just meant to say "We don't have time to deal with nonsense."
 

westnob,

You never answered my question from the other climate change thread:

You believe man is influencing climate change.
You believe it is warming and causing the ice caps to melt.

Therefore you believe man can influence warming of the earth.

If the earth started to cool, and headed towards a cyclical ice age, would you be in favor of doing what we can to warm the earth, since you feel we have the ability to do so?
 
Everyone deserves due process, if you really think someone is egregiously polluting the air take them to trial. Otherwise leave them alone. It can't just be a vague correlation.
 
Ok, you win! I'm a dumb, naive liberal.

Uh, ok.

I'm actually curious why you are ok with human induced manipulation of the global temperature in one direction but not the other. It is a reasonable question.
 
man..this is such an unimportant issue. The value of this is to further divide and divert attention from actual ongoing events. Typical banter, bluster and bullshit.
 
Assuming climate change is being influenced by human activities, it wouldn't even matter if everybody all of sudden got a pang of conscience and decided to "go green." We've got far too many people for the resources we possess on this planet and it's not going to get any better, especially as China and India become far more energy intensive economies/societies.

2 meters of sea level rise by 2100 (assumed to be a sort of "worst case" scenario by the IPCC) could be a minor annoyance compared to the contests we may see over a dwindling supply of cheaply gotten fossil fuels, arable land and potable water.
 
westnob,

You never answered my question from the other climate change thread:

It's a funny question to ask. You're talking about it like a thermostat in your home. Influence isn't control. And the important point in the debate isn't warming, it's the rate of warming.
 
Assuming climate change is being influenced by human activities, it wouldn't even matter if everybody all of sudden got a pang of conscience and decided to "go green." We've got far too many people for the resources we possess on this planet and it's not going to get any better, especially as China and India become far more energy intensive economies/societies.

2 meters of sea level rise by 2100 (assumed to be a sort of "worst case" scenario by the IPCC) could be a minor annoyance compared to the contests we may see over a dwindling supply of cheaply gotten fossil fuels, arable land and potable water.

No shit. You think the Blazers-Lakers rivalry is nasty? We're just seeing the start of it, like Farmers vs Fishermen for water rights. Country vs country, states vs states, industry vs industry. It'll be a mess. And they'll all have guns!
 
Uh, ok.

I'm actually curious why you are ok with human induced manipulation of the global temperature in one direction but not the other. It is a reasonable question.

I see one as correcting our own error.
 
I see one as correcting our own error.

I don't think I quite understand.

Are you saying we should reduce our impact to the point where the temperature increase is stopped? Or should we put in efforts to try to lower it back down to some other temperature?
 
I don't think I quite understand.

Are you saying we should reduce our impact to the point where the temperature increase is stopped? Or should we put in efforts to try to lower it back down to some other temperature?

We should try to remove whatever negative influences we caused that we can act upon.
 
If we are causing a problem, we should try to fix it. Either direction.

I know you're aware that the Earth, well before we were significant, went through times of significant cooling and ice ages. My question is whether or not we should try to slow / stop the cooling if that were happening now.
 
I know you're aware that the Earth, well before we were significant, went through times of significant cooling and ice ages. My question is whether or not we should try to slow / stop the cooling if that were happening now.

This feels like entrapment, but if we know what the cycle should be roughly, then no, we shouldn't try to supersede it.
 
This feels like entrapment, but if we know what the cycle should be roughly, then no, we shouldn't try to supersede it.

It's not entrapment, I'm trying to understand your position.

People are going to suffer whether the earth warms or cools dramatically. And we know that either can happen regardless of whether humans are contributing or not. I'm just curious why you think we should only do what we can to not have people suffer if the earth is warming, but if people are going to suffer from cooling we should let it happen.
 
It's not entrapment, I'm trying to understand your position.

People are going to suffer whether the earth warms or cools dramatically. And we know that either can happen regardless of whether humans are contributing or not. I'm just curious why you think we should only do what we can to not have people suffer if the earth is warming, but if people are going to suffer from cooling we should let it happen.

I agree that ALL of your statements are accurate, but I believe you are leaving out the rate of change. That is an important factor.

Directly addressing your last point, if we knew the earth was cooling caused by man, then we should stop it.
 
I agree that ALL of your statements are accurate, but I believe you are leaving out the rate of change. That is an important factor.
Directly addressing your last point, if we knew the earth was cooling caused by man, then we should stop it.

Can you explain why it matters whether or not the cooling is cause by man? People will suffer and die regardless of the cause of the cooling.
 
That's not true.

It's not? Maybe you're not paying close enough attention. It's just like extinction. Species go extinct all the time. No big deal. It's the rate of modern day extinction that is alarming (compared to historical rates). Same story for climate change. We're not worried about a warming trend, but we are worried about an accelerated rate of warming.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top