White House: Climate change damage happening now

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • B.O. B.S.
    June 20, 2009 11:37 a.m.

    The economy is suffering now. Global warming is the least of our worries. We have real problems to deal with now; don't waste time and money on fake problems that are forecasted to be 666 years away.

  • The U.N. wants your money!
    June 16, 2009 7:53 p.m.

    It doesn't matter that it's all a pack of lies. Whatever it takes, they'll push this through. The U.S. will be the test case and first country to lead out in imposing the first carbon tax. Eventually, the the U.N. be chartered to be the enforcer.

    Did you ever wonder why Al Gore was so agressive in pushing this non-sense? The important question is what did he have to gain personally? Can you seriously trust him or any other politician to actually care about any of this? He's already made millions off of this non-sense.

  • Just another wrong guess
    June 16, 2009 7:11 p.m.

    This is just another wrong guess by the Obama administration and scientists who 'cherry pick' the data they want and ignore the data that says there is no man made climate change. The biggest problem with wrong guesses by this administration is they are VERY,VERY expensive and will all have to be paid for, by our grandchildren.

  • Oregon Ute
    June 16, 2009 5:01 p.m.

    Bull, that's all this article is.

  • Gotta happen
    June 16, 2009 4:49 p.m.

    We've gotta have this big, scary deal to get us to accept things like nuclear power after we spent decades convincing ourselves that it was evil. We need someting bigger and eviler to make us want nuclear power. Oh, and btw, since nuclear power has the potential to be far cheaper and cleaner that many energy sources, we need to want it bad enough to pay way more than its worth. Impending doom sounds like a good enough scare to get the uneducated public riled up and know-nothing politicians (e.g., Al Gore, John Huntsman Jr.) to figure out ways to fix things that aren't broken and do it for twice the price. I say teachers are to blame.

  • Thinkin' Man
    June 16, 2009 3:14 p.m.

    If source of funding creates bias, then "Big Green" is in trouble.

    I've done scientific research funded by grants from private companies before, and never did those come with strings attached. All large private companies give research grants, and they don't stipulate the results. The idea of bias because of "funding" from Exxon sounds appealing, but doesn't hold water when you know how grants work.

    Just mentioning "climate change" in a grant proposal strongly increases the chances of funding these days. But the grant givers don't prescribe the results.

  • @anon
    June 16, 2009 3:12 p.m.

    I also believe scientists, scientists with no political agenda. There are plenty of legit scientists out there that are not on board with the global warming scam. A headline yesterday said " glacier in Argentina growning despite global warming." Will somebody please call this rouge glacier and tell it that the globe is warming, and to stop growing.

  • Anonymous | 1:36 p.m
    June 16, 2009 1:58 p.m.

    Prove who gets paid by exxon. Oh and by the way the tobacco companies hired "scientists" to state smoking didn't cause cancer. Cause anonymouses beleive scientists.

    Scientists developed the theories behind eugenics, the basis of the final solution in Germany.

    One of liberals most vocal supporters of gw is the son of two lawyers, Al Gore cashing in on ignorance.

  • jfs
    June 16, 2009 1:44 p.m.

    Thinkin' Man | 1:21 p.m

    But Obama and the progressive movement have said industry is to blame for all the evils of the world. I would think evils of the world would include earthquakes and volcanoes.

    This is why they want to control all the industries of the world. They want to return the plunderings back to the trodden on working masses. Wait, no they just want to keep trodding on the working masses. As for global tempatures which one is right. I think that anyone posting in support of gw should have to declare the correct global tempature and identify how many species will be either killed by the tempature or, from coming into existence through evolution by maintaining that tempature. If there is no god, how dare you attempt to stop evolution.

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2009 1:36 p.m.

    "Liberals look at this from an entirely incorrect viewpoint."

    I believe scientist. Conservative thinking scares me.

    In the seventies there was the idea of global cooling. Why aren't evil intellectual elitist scientist running around trying to earn 65k a year researching global cooling?

    Global cooling failed peer review like, cold fusion, did.

    Every time, I check conservative sources they go to writers in the employment of Exxon, conservative think tanks and other biased sources.

    If, I'm a researcher, I might net 65k after I use my grant to pay from employees, rent and equipment. Exxon will pay me $10,000 a page to deny climate change. One of conservative's most vocal deniers is a lawyer cashing in on ignorance.

    Conservatives would rather believe someone writing for Exxon that won't be peer reviewed over a scientist. It figures!

    Energy companies hired the same people who once worked for tobacco companies. Once, these people promoted smoking didn't cause cancer.

    Conservative need not fear. Greed will win. Earth will go on spinning without humans. I honestly believe people will destroy the future for their kids over risking sacrifice. It all about me, in conservative minds.

  • Thinkin' Man
    June 16, 2009 1:21 p.m.

    Amazing how global warming alarmists, including the White House, will use anything BUT a thermometer to say mankind is changing the climate. All of their assertions are dubious at best.

    U.S. temperatures show very, very little change over a hundred years, and in fact show cooling the the Southeast. How is that "climate change?"

    Climate varies from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century. Blaming it on mankind is like blaming earthquakes and volcanoes on industry or politics.

  • California Steve
    June 16, 2009 1:20 p.m.

    "They" are getting desperate. The cap and trade legislation isn't doing well in congress.

  • Stupd Now, Dangerous Later
    June 16, 2009 1:17 p.m.

    Liberals look at this from an entirely incorrect viewpoint.

    Sadly, they think that the mankind should serve the earth and not that the earth should be used for our benefit.

    They are incapable of seeing the reality of this truth because so many of them do not even believe in the Being who created them or the earth they live on.

    Should we take care of the earth as best as we can? You bet! It simply isn't right to dump poisonous chemicals into our rivers or to pollute the air via large factories without thinking about the consequences of breathing the air we polluted.

    HOWEVER, does that mean we all need to stop driving cars, using plastic for soda bottles or make our own shampoo and soap? Uh, no....

    Al Gore and other extreme tree-huggers are idiotic. Next will come larger and larger forms of oppression (fines, threats, destruction of non-global warming believers' private property, etc) by the liberals who keep pushing this global warming lie.

  • Total Speculation...
    June 16, 2009 1:16 p.m.

    I can't help but think this liberal thinking is holding us all hostage. What I think we can do to effect our environment now is not littering and keeping our lawns and yards looking nice. I also think by conserving water we will be far better off. We need to take responsibility for ourselves and not be wasteful. I also like the idea of recycling and controlling how much stuff we throw away. All those things are good!

    However I don't agree with the argument behind global warming! It seems it's the only thing that's worked for environmentalists and they are taking it as far as they can, especially with our wallets. It's gotten completely out of hand and we need to be far less concerned with how we are treating the earth vs. how we're treating each other. Our social problems (especially our morality) should be far more concerning than whether more glaciers are melting. The limited research I've done shows there is much to be speculative about. Nothing is conclusive or definitive in this debate!

  • Knowwhat
    June 16, 2009 1:13 p.m.

    Climate Scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite
    Service, past vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and
    Atmosphere and global warming co-author of the 2006 book (LINK) Unstoppable
    Global Warming: Every 1500 Years which details the solar-climate link using hundreds of
    studies from peer reviewed literature and "shows the earth's temperatures following
    variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sunlinked
    isotopes in ice and tree rings." Singer explained on February 14, 2007,
    "Good evidence confirms that current warming is mostly part of a natural climate cycle, most
    likely driven by the sun. The available data show that the human contribution from
    greenhouse gases is not detectable and must be insignificant. It is a non-problem. Trying to
    mitigate a natural warming (or cooling) is futile and a big waste of money better spent on
    real societal problems."

  • Greg
    June 16, 2009 12:58 p.m.

    What hubris! Just thinking that man's activities, regardless of how massive, could change the climate is simply self-importance run amok. I remember head-lines in the 70's proclaiming "The Next Ice Age" was upon us because of green-house gasses blocking the sun or what-ever. Have our "scientists" looked at sun-spot activity? No they are too focused on my mode of transoprtaion and separating me from my money. Has anyone ever read about the Ice Age? Glaciers covered the continental United States about as far south as Provo. What caused all that ice to melt...my Suburban? I doubt it.

  • Aaron
    June 16, 2009 12:39 p.m.

    Wow, what scientific proof or observations do they have to reach their conclusions? According to geological studies, when ever the earth was really warm the deserts of the earth disappeared. So how will the Southwest desert get drier and bigger, when physical geology shows a different observation? Why are some glaciers advancing and some are retreating? Why has antarctica's ice sheet been growing for the past 30 years? Why has the earth been cooling since 2001? May's global temperature in 2009 was .09 degrees Celcius, which was the same as 1979. Why have the oceans cooled for the past 5 years? When was the last continental record high broken? It was 1974 in Antarctica. Why are all of the computer models wrong with respect to our current global temps? The answers to all of my questions are out there, you just have to look int he right places to find them.

  • Total Farce
    June 16, 2009 12:29 p.m.

    Good grief!

    The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

    It's gotten way beyond "silly", not it's just plain stupid. Next it will become destructive to us as humans....