CHANGE: President-elect Barack Obama has compiled a list of about 200….

December 18, 2008

MSNBC FRONT PAGE

Obama positioned to reverse Bush actions

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.

"The kind of regulations they are looking at" are those imposed by Bush for "overtly political" reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration’s Office of Management and Budget. The list of executive orders targeted by Obama’s team could well get longer in the coming days, as Bush’s appointees rush to enact a number of last-minute policies in an effort to extend his legacy.
Stem cell research
A spokeswoman said yesterday that no plans for regulatory changes had been finalized. "Before he makes any decisions on potential executive or legislative actions, he will be conferring with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as interested groups," Obama transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said. "Any decisions would need to be discussed with his Cabinet nominees, none of whom have been selected yet."
Still, the preelection transition team, comprising mainly lawyers, has positioned the incoming president to move fast on high-priority items without waiting for Congress.
Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush’s controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson’s.
Bush’s August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.
But Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said that during Obama’s final swing through her state in October, she reminded him that because the restrictions were never included in legislation, Obama "can simply reverse them by executive order." Obama, she said, "was very receptive to that." Opponents of the restrictions have already drafted an executive order he could sign.

Click for related content

The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.
"We have been communicating with his transition staff" almost daily, Richards said. "We expect to see a real change."
While Obama said at a news conference last week that his top priority would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies, including some — such as the embrace of new environmental safeguards — that Obama has said will have long-term, beneficial impacts on the economy.

The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration’s decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.
California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California’s rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation’s automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.
"An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Carbon dioxide emissions
Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.
Robert Sussman, who was the EPA’s deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and is now overseeing EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding. Others in the campaign have depicted it as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with scientific advice.
Some related reforms embraced by Obama’s transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled "Change for America," being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.
The center’s influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff has been swept into planning for Obama’s first 100 days in office.
The National Energy Council would be a counterpart to the White House National Economic Council that Clinton created in a 1993 executive order.
"It would make sure all the oars are rowing in the right direction" and ensure that climate change policy "gets lots of attention inside the White House," said Daniel J. Weiss, a former Sierra Club official and senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Click for related content

The center’s new book will also urge Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama’s transition team have already embraced the idea.
Other early Obama initiatives may address the need for improved food and drug regulation and chart a new course for immigration enforcement, some Obama advisers say. But they add that only a portion of his early efforts will be aimed at undoing Bush initiatives.
Striking a balance
Despite enormous pent-up Democratic frustration, Obama and his team realize they must strike a balance between undoing Bush actions and setting their own course, said Winnie Stachelberg, the center’s senior vice president for external affairs.
"It took eight years to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out of it," she said. "The next administration needs to look ahead. This transition team and the incoming administration gets that in a big way."
Staff writers Juliet Eilperin, Spencer S. Hsu and Carol D. Leonnig and staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

kick ass

stem cell research funding and regulation of automobile carbon emissions FTW

the great messiah comes through even before he sits on his heavenly throne

Some copy-pasta on CO2:

Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

Regulating new inventions into existence FTW.

And for his next trick, regulating water into wine.

Regulating new inventions into existence FTW.

And for his next trick, regulating water into wine.

Mass production of desalination stations + water distribution would be

Some copy-pasta on CO2:

Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

CO2 also traps radiant energy from the sun, and too much of it could cause the net-global temperature average to rise and icecaps to melt and climates to radically change. That means less land for people to live on, and extinct plants and animalz.

Regulating new inventions into existence FTW.

And for his next trick, regulating water into wine.

A lot of the technology already exists. Somehow cars average 40mpg in Europe where the gas is fairly expensive, about 32mpg in Japan and 21 mpg in the US.

Bear in mind the average for Europe takes into account a lot of vehicles made by US manufacturers, who make different variants for the respective markets.

Lots Europeans and Japanese drive micro city cars that don’t work well for our purposes, what with all our vast expanses of land and highways.

I do think we should have more clean diesels which is also a major factor in European car efficiency, but for that to happen we would have to reduce some of our emissions standards. Somehow I don’t think a guy who wants to slot in CO2 below arsenic on the dangerous pollutants list is likely to go that route.

And as you note, gas is "fairly expensive" in Europe (actually about three times as expensive), meaning that normal people simply cannot afford to operate anything larger than a Mondeo. They would if they could — witness footballers driving Escalades — but most can’t. As long as gas remains cheap here, most people won’t downsize because they don’t have to. (That leaves aside people like me who are always in search of smaller and lighter, because they just enjoy driving small cars and hate land yachts.)

Did you think the car companies are just not making high-mpg cars that would sell in huge numbers out of… what? Hearts of eeeeviiiil?

A good chunk of the reason those cars don’t sell here is because the last presidential administration cast them in the light of "pussy" and "unpatriotic."

I think Obama can go far in reversing this paradigm.

A good chunk of the reason those cars don’t sell here is because the last presidential administration cast them in the light of "pussy" and "unpatriotic."

I think Obama can go far in reversing this paradigm.

they did? When?

patriot act?
habeas corpus?
iraq?

he voted for the Patriot Act, brah

change.
this just in, Obama has signed a bill that mandates regulation of the sun’s output with heavy fines should it not stay constant.

Tomorrow we expect to see bills on forcing the orbit of the planet to go to a circular one and the planet to right itself by making planetary tilt illegal.

Most of the same "micro" cars you see driving around the city, you’ll also see out on the autobahn.

And as you note, gas is "fairly expensive" in Europe (actually about three times as expensive), meaning that normal people simply cannot afford to operate anything larger than a Mondeo. They would if they could — witness footballers driving Escalades — but most can’t. As long as gas remains cheap here, most people won’t downsize because they don’t have to. (That leaves aside people like me who are always in search of smaller and lighter, because they just enjoy driving small cars and hate land yachts.)

Expensive gas isn’t the reason people are forced into smaller more efficient vehicles. It’s the sales tax on the vehicles that makes them significantly more expensive than what they are sold for in the north america.

Did you think the car companies are just not making high-mpg cars that would sell in huge numbers out of… what? Hearts of eeeeviiiil?

Nice selective editing. I just said that US companies do make higher mpg versions of a good number of their vehicles, they just don’t sell them in the U.S.

this just in, Obama has signed a bill that mandates regulation of the sun’s output with heavy fines should it not stay constant.

Tomorrow we expect to see bills on forcing the orbit of the planet to go to a circular one and the planet to right itself by making planetary tilt illegal.

more

this just in, Obama has signed a bill that mandates regulation of the sun’s output with heavy fines should it not stay constant.

Tomorrow we expect to see bills on forcing the orbit of the planet to go to a circular one and the planet to right itself by making planetary tilt illegal.

the earth’s rotation is only slightly elliptical

Bullshit. He’ll slice & dice that bitch.

Why are law-abiding citizens in his home city denied their rights?

Bullshit. He’ll slice & dice that bitch.

Why are law-abiding citizens in his home city denied their rights?

because obama wants to take all of your firearms away and leave you defenseless against the commie reds. durr

It’s true. The rights of the people were infringed upon multiple times during the last 8 years.

Yes, and you hit on something. Ford, GM and Chrysler all have more fuel efficient and diesel cars over in Europe right now. Problem is, our government regulations keep them from being sold here in the US.
We don’t need a mandate to make NEW designs, we need government to step back and let existing vehicles in.

This is something that we don’t focus on and should. Politicians sit up there saying we need to change our vehicles and our power sources but what many fail to understand is that those same politicians have created barriers for those alternatives to be used.

Way to put words in my mouth.

So, why are his consituents denied the right of self-defense? The ban predates his service, but if he was such a "defender of the Constitution", he would have worked to end it.

Way to put words in my mouth.

So, why are his consituents denied the right of self-defense? The ban predates his service, but if he was such a "defender of the Constitution", he would have worked to end it.

because i already knew where you were heading with this.

So, answer the question.

The one I asked, not the one you ASSumed I was asking.

Well, he did vote yes on this one…

1
AN ACT concerning criminal law.
2
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, 3
represented in the General Assembly:
4
Section 5. The Criminal Code of 1961 is amended by adding 5
Section 24-10 as follows:
6
(720 ILCS 5/24-10 new)7
Sec. 24-10. Municipal ordinance regulating firearms; 8
affirmative defense to a violation. It is an affirmative 9
defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, 10
regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if 11
the individual who is charged with the violation used the 12
firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another as 13
defined in Sections 7-1 and 7-2 of this Code when on his or her 14
land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.

When was Obama ever in charge of the city’s legislation?

He worked in the city for years, and in the state Legislature. Besides he’s proficient in Constitutional law (at least the parts of the Constitution he agrees with).

So, it’s safe to say he had some ‘pull’.

sweet, you don’t like it you can leave the country.

nah, rather stay and fight.

No comment on the bill and his support of it though? or just a "I resign but refuse to acknowledge it" comment.

He worked in the city for years, and in the state Legislature. Besides he’s proficient in Constitutional law (at least the parts of the Constitution he agrees with).

So, it’s safe to say he had some ‘pull’.

he’s not pro guns deal with it.

everyone doesn’t like the idea of millions of retards stocking up on assault rifles. i’ll tell you like i told the other guy, you don’t like it you can leave as well.

he’s not pro guns deal with it.

everyone doesn’t like the idea of millions of retards stocking up on assault rifles. i’ll tell you like i told the other guy, you don’t like it you can leave as well.

sorry, I’m one that’s already stocked up. Again, I’m not leaving, I’d rather stay and fight it out.
you may not like it, but there are 90+ million gun owners and that number is growing.

he’s not pro free speech deal with it.

everyone doesn’t like the idea of millions of retards stocking up on ideas and talking about them. i’ll tell you like i told the other guy, you don’t like it you can leave as well.

Fixed for future reference after the 2nd is gone.

Because 90% of the Patriot Act is good.
President Bush, is the only president to fund stem cell research with Federal aid!

We know the Libs are against free speech, unless it’s speech they agree with.

Fairness Doctrine, video game censorship, and Political Correctness in general.

considering the ability to clone and reproduce HUMAN embryonic stem cells only came about in 2001, it would be a little hard for Clinton or Carter to fund it

Might I suggest that the rest of you refrain from challenging Lukkie on stem cell issues? Just a suggestion, but I think it might be a bad idea.

(although, Lukkie, I do believe I once punked you on whether your specific facility benefited significantly from federal funding)
Hooray for stem-cell research!

Maybe he’ll do something about these unconstitutional marriage bans too.

make no mistake, it will continue to happen.

hooray for forcing people to fund things they may not agree with - be their reasons good or no.

sorry, I’m one that’s already stocked up. Again, I’m not leaving, I’d rather stay and fight it out.
you may not like it, but there are 90+ million gun owners and that number is growing.

Fortunately, the vast majority are not paranoid nut jobs.

Just because people own cars does not mean they all want to drive like idiots. Food for thought.
I remember him saying this in a primary debate. I was wondering if he would keep his word.

Might I suggest that the rest of you refrain from challenging Lukkie on stem cell issues? Just a suggestion, but I think it might be a bad idea.

(although, Lukkie, I do believe I once punked you on whether your specific facility benefited significantly from federal funding)

I vaguely recall it and you’re probably right. I’m mostly focused on the science end and admittedly my knowledge of the financial backing of everything is not up to par although I have been studying it a bit lately.

Although I would enjoy discussing federal funding of research with you but I think that would be better suited to a new thread.

To be perfectly honest I could give a rats ass whether some idiot who’s wholly ignorant on even the basics of stell cell research, is upset with baseless moral outrage about being ‘forced’ to fund it.

He worked in the city for years, and in the state Legislature. Besides he’s proficient in Constitutional law (at least the parts of the Constitution he agrees with).

So, it’s safe to say he had some ‘pull’.

WHEN WAS HE IN CHARGE OF THE CITY’S LEGISLATION? Or are you going to speculate more about the "pull" he may or may not have had."

A lot of the technology already exists. Somehow cars average 40mpg in Europe where the gas is fairly expensive, about 32mpg in Japan and 21 mpg in the US.
.

Everyone drives shopping carts with a motor though.

of course not. you’re a thug.

but how would you like being taxed to fund something you don’t agree with?

And you’re an anarchist.

how would you like to be taxed to fund a program you don’t value?
how many of you, who are for the taxation of people to fund stem cell research, have actually donated to stem cell research on your own?

what i’ve come to think is that you dont value it enough to donate money to it, just enough to make everyone else have to pay for it, and then so what if you have to, also? at least everyone else is.

Might not be enough to feign outrage. If I do actually care, I make sure to vote and call my Congresspersons.

ok.
Well those are all dumb grandstanding.

Global Warming is fake and there was never a ban on stem cell research.

Well those are all dumb grandstanding.

Global Warming is fake and there was never a ban on stem cell research.

1. Global "warming", maybe, but climate change is real and accepting that is the first step to doing something about it.
2. I never said there was a ban. But I do believe that Bush barred the use of any federal money for it.
climate has been changing for millions of years

there is nothing we can do about it

climate has been changing for millions of years

there is nothing we can do about it

i leave my door open so my a/c will cool some of the area around my house too

climate has been changing for millions of years

there is nothing we can do about it

.

The earth has been around quite a few years before Humans start roaming the worlds.

1. Global "warming", maybe, but climate change is real and accepting that is the first step to doing something about it.
2. I never said there was a ban. But I do believe that Bush barred the use of any federal money for it.

1. The environment is precious - but believing a lie will not help - GW has already been used for many scams that hurt the environment and people and just get someone rich. The truth is needed, not some bullshit reason to "do the right thing."
2. Like I said, grandstanding. Bush stopped any new specimen lines, not funding.
Hey let’s bypass checks and balances just like Bush, but with a Dem slant!

climate has been changing for millions of years

there is nothing we can do about it

There is a scientific consenus that we have an affect, you can’t just cry conspiracy theory. Global warming is not all because fucking al gore and other and other people cry and suppress evidence, it’s been debated for years and shown we have an effect. Obviously dissenting opinions should be encouraged and explored but right now the body of evidence suggests that we should consider behavioral changes and that it will make a difference. It could be wrong, but right now that has not been shown.

Most people who dissent against it just say "it doesnt make sense to me that we have an effect, they don’t really understand the science behind it", our gut feelings can not replace science.
science makes a comeback over religion

neocons cleaning sand out of their vaginas

seriously

There is a scientific consenus that we have an affect, you can’t just cry conspiracy theory global warming is not all because fucking al gore and other and other people cry and suppress evidence, it’s been debated for years and shown we have an effect. Obviously dissenting opinions should be encouraged and explored but right now the body of evidence suggests that we should consider behavioral changes and that it will make a difference. It could be wrong, but right now that has not been shown.

Most people who dissent against it just say "it doesnt make sense to me that we have an effect, they don’t really understand the science behind it", our gut feelings can not replace science.

Consensus is a political idea, not scientific. It has no bearing on the truth how many people agree or disagree.

only because hes the first blafrican

otherwise, hell be the redirect to miserable failure

Yeah that bothers me too.
i just lol’d when obama was talking about american made environmentally friendly vehicles.

Of course it’s real. The climate has been changing constantly for 4 billion years.

2. I never said there was a ban. But I do believe that Bush barred the use of any federal money for it.

He can’t undo that with an executive order. The budget is an act of Congress, and the President has no direct authority over it. There’s a reason why Bush vetoed stem cell funding bills instead of just using an executive order.
Organisms have had an effect on our atmosphere and climate before, and scientists obviously have taken solar output and other contributors into account in their calculations. Unless you fully understand the chain of argument for humans contributing to warming you should continue to look into it before you lock in your opinion.

Right back at you.

Science is just as political as any other human endeavour - and you saying that someone has obviously looked at effects and that we should take that on blind faith is dumb.

Perhaps you should look at some of the evidence?
It is clearly a complicated and inconclusive issue though.

There is a scientific consenus that we have an affect, you can’t just cry conspiracy theory. Global warming is not all because fucking al gore and other and other people cry and suppress evidence, it’s been debated for years and shown we have an effect. Obviously dissenting opinions should be encouraged and explored but right now the body of evidence suggests that we should consider behavioral changes and that it will make a difference. It could be wrong, but right now that has not been shown.

Most people who dissent against it just say "it doesnt make sense to me that we have an effect, they don’t really understand the science behind it", our gut feelings can not replace science.

Don’t bother trying to use logic

Yes I’m sure the effects of 6 billion peoples’ worth of CO2 and other waste is just a tiny speck in the overall climate.

And those geologists and scientists saying that the ice caps are not reforming in winters like they used to has no bearing at all.

He can’t undo that with an executive order. The budget is an act of Congress, and the President has no direct authority over it. There’s a reason why Bush vetoed stem cell funding bills instead of just using an executive order.

Bush used an executive order to limit federal funding for stem cell research. Obama can overturn that, and in all likelihood will. He will also likely pass or even write a new bill increasing the amount of funding.

Because every American needs a castle on wheels(SUV), amirite?

No.

THAT would be a huge McSteak

Shut up - TracerBullet and a few of us were having a decent discussion on OT and you have to come in with this crap insinuating that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is not logical.

Global warming is one of the few topics that I can get trolled into trying to have a real debate about on OT, and it always leaves me wanting to bash my head against a wall.

America voted in a dictator

That is true - that is why I am afraid that this is being used as a power and money grab by a lot of asswipes.

Already we have bullshit like BP changing their name to Beyond Petroleum even though almost all of their money comes from oil.

We can and should do a lot to protect the environment without going nuts on something that should be more thought out.

no need for any car to have over 100hp either.

Yeah it’s not like Presidents have been using executive orders since 1789

Fucking moron. I hope Obama issues Executive Order 66 to hunt down the Jedi.

That is true - that is why I am afraid that this is being used as a power and money grab by a lot of asswipes.

Already we have bullshit like BP changing their name to Beyond Petroleum even though almost all of their money comes from oil.

We can and should do a lot to protect the environment without going nuts on something that should be more thought out.

Simple solution…ready?

1. Cut the huge handouts to oil companies like Exxon.
2. Fast-track nuclear power.
3. Offer very lucrative tax incentives to car companies that make alternative-fuel cars. Emphasis on electric or fuel cell.
4. Do the same for companies that build geothermal plants, wind farms, and large-scale solar panels.
5. Send a nice "fuck you" letter to Saudi Arabia, and stop sending them money.

Well those are all dumb grandstanding.

Global Warming is fake and there was never a ban on stem cell research.

There was a ban on using federal funds for any research using cells from post 2002 (not positive on the year). That resulted is absolutely fucking asinine laboratory conditions in places doing stem cell research as well as other federally funded non-stem cell research. EVERYTHING right down to the stationary had to be separate, so the place wouldn’t risk losing their funding for everything that wasn’t stem cell research. It was a poor policy that impeded all kinds of research, and essentially said it was better to throw away embryos than use them for science.
cool move…brb gonna go get a coffin so i can bury this thread

how many of those things did he vote for?

Completely depends on what it is, and why I disagree with it.

Bear in mind im shamelessly pro scientific research by nearly any means necessary, provided the research in question is based on sound principles.

So me disagreeing with funding something is not at all equivalent to someone who disagrees with funding stem cell research because of a religious/quasi-moralistic perspective.

Actually, yes he can. There’s more to it than just the budget authorized by Congress. He can make it so labs already receiving federal funds for other projects don’t have to worry about losing all their federal funding because they used a federally paid for pencil to write a stem cell report.

how many of you, who are for the taxation of people to fund stem cell research, have actually donated to stem cell research on your own?

what i’ve come to think is that you dont value it enough to donate money to it, just enough to make everyone else have to pay for it, and then so what if you have to, also? at least everyone else is.

i believe in taxation to support a military yet ive never donated to it

all I need is a vehicle powered by Hope and Change.
the amount humans have an effect on the climate is a very minimal percentage.

yes we cause maybe 1-2% of climate change

Dumbfucks..even Bush the retard admits global warming is real at this point. Welcome to 2008.

Whether or not human activity is having an effect on the climate isn’t open to debate anymore. The only thing we are talking about now is to what degree and what can be done about it.

the amount humans have an effect on the climate is a very minimal percentage.

yes we cause maybe 1-2% of climate change

Link?
The second executive order from Obama should be to have himself cloned 10,000 times so he can piss the haters off 10,000 times as much

of course not. you’re a thug.

but how would you like being taxed to fund something you don’t agree with?

Like a war that bankrupted our country? I’m sure God is printing the $$$ to pay that right now. Thank God we had such a MORAL leader for the past 8 years.

the amount humans have an effect on the climate is a very minimal percentage.

yes we cause maybe 1-2% of climate change

If only we had an isotope geochemist here to explain whether or not this is true to us.

If only we had an isotope geochemist here to explain whether or not this is true to us.

come on, give "KneeGar" a break

If only we had an isotope geochemist here to explain whether or not this is true to us.

Someone send the PM!

Simple solution…ready?

1. Cut the huge handouts to oil companies like Exxon.
2. Fast-track nuclear power.
3. Offer very lucrative tax incentives to car companies that make alternative-fuel cars. Emphasis on electric or fuel cell.
4. Do the same for companies that build geothermal plants, wind farms, and large-scale solar panels.
5. Send a nice "fuck you" letter to Saudi Arabia, and stop sending them money.

Obama was for handouts to Exxon and is against nuclear power.

not sure what point you think you’ve made

climate has been changing for millions of years

there is nothing we can do about it

forest fires have been raging for millions of years

there is nothing we can do to prevent them

i have the feeling that you for some reason think i’m a bush supporter.
you’d be mistaken.

As much as this may offend your "common sense"… yes, it might just be a tiny speck.

Ever seen a picture of the earth from space? You can’t see any signs of human civilization.

Fun fact: it’s estimated that the insect population of the earth outweighs the human population by a factor of 12 to 1.

We are not so great as we imagine.

oh

.

Bullshit. He’ll slice & dice that bitch.

Why are law-abiding citizens in his home city denied their rights?

better av for you

the amount humans have an effect on the climate is a very minimal percentage.

yes we cause maybe 1-2% of climate change

No.

Satellite observations of tropospheric and stratospheric temperature show that the troposphere has warmed while the stratosphere has cooled over the past 35 years. This observation is wholly inconsistent with an external forcing, such as the sun (which would warm both layers of the atmosphere).

An internal forcing must therefore be responsible for the observed warming of the troposphere. In other words, heat has been trapped within the lower atmosphere, and increasingly so over the past 35+ years, such that less heat has been able to escape into the stratosphere (and space). The IPCC has compiled all known internal forcings and has quantified them using our current understanding of atmospheric physics. The most prominent positive internal forcing by far is atmospheric CO2. The calculation of this forcing is based upon radiative physics equations and concepts that go back over 150 years. Humans are, with almost 100% certainty, entirely responsible for rising CO2 levels. We know this from several lines of evidence:

1) Calculations of the global carbon budget and humanity’s estimated contribution to this budget. The calculations are, of course, bolstered by observations of carbon fluxes (from the oceans, volcanoes, forest fires, etc.).

2) Observations of how the stable carbon isotopic composition of CO2 has changed over the past 100+ years. Fossil fuels are depleted in C-13, while natural sources (such as volcanic eruptions) are strongly enriched in C-13. The C-13/C-12 ratio of atmospheric CO2 has dropped precipitously over the past 100+ years… coincidentally in step with rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

3) Diminishing atmospheric oxygen levels, which are consistent with an increase in anthropogenic combustion

4) Diminishing atmospheric C-14 levels (in CO2), which are consistent with dilution by a carbon source that contains no C-14 (e.g. hydrocarbons, which have lost their original C-14 due to radioactive decay that has far exceeded 10 half lives).

With this in mind, it would be foolish to dismiss anthropogenic CO2 as a non-player. The only tenable objections to atmospheric CO2 being unimportant are:

1) We have misunderstood the radiative behavior of CO2, such that we have severely overestimated its effects
2) There is some other major internal forcing that we have overlooked and is the true culprit of global warming

In fact, BOTH conditions must be true for your objection to make any sense. Let us address point #1 first. There is NO reason to suspect that we have seriously overestimated the radiative trapping behavior of CO2. Our understanding of CO2’s greenhouse gas properties is grounded in fundamental principles such as infrared spectroscopy. Now, our understanding of CO2 radiative trapping in a layered atmosphere requires complex calculations (often performed by computers) that require one to take into account effects such as pressure/density changes, convection, advection, etcetera. However, such calculations were made without the aid of computers in the 1960’s (by Manabe, Wetherald, and a host of others), and subsequent calculuations have been consistent with earlier ones.

For the above reasons (and others) we are very much convinced that the climate sensitivity due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is between 2-4.5 degrees C, with a ‘best fit’ at 3 degrees C. There is a near-zero probability that climate sensitivity is <1.5 degrees C (although Richard Lindzen is one of the few scientists to suggest that it may be lower). In contrast, there is a non-zero, albeit substantial, probability that climate sensitivity could be >4.5 degrees C.

Where does that leave us then? Well, if we (arbitrarily) reject the aforementioned, fundamental constructs of chemistry and physics, then we must propose an alternative internal forcing. Many folks (who aren’t well-informed on the subject) point to water vapor as the culprit and criticize scientists for ignoring it. We have not ignored it. In fact, the issue of water vapor as a greenhouse gas was largely settled in the 1960s by the world of Manabe and others… and subsequently by Ramanathan and others. They demonstrated that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a feedback, not a forcing. That is, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere depends upon the temperature of the atmosphere itself. It cannot be implicated as the cause (forcing) of temperature change, but rather should be regarded as an amplifier (feedback) of temperature change. In fact, we can verify this to some degree by observing how relative humidity, averaged over a given hemisphere (e.g. north, south) changes from summer to winter. It turns out that relative humidity does not change with the seasons (in a hemispherically-averaged sense) in any significant way. This insight happens to be consistent with the intuitions that many atmospheric physicists had during the 1960’s. Since then, we have built a more comprehensive observational network with which to verify these early findings. Guess what? Nothing has changed in any substantial way since then.

So I guess that what I am saying is that if you are going to claim that human activity only accounts for 1-2% of global warming, then you are going to need to propose an internal forcing (or forcings) that have been overlooked by the greater scientific community in a major way. Remember, that solar forcing is wholly inconsistent with observations of stratospheric temperature change. In fact, the net contribution of all solar and volcanic forcings over the past 50 years should have produced a cooling rather than a warming. It is thus quite possible that humans have been responsible for closer to 100% of global warming since 1950.

Good luck coming up with an alternative forcing. If you do, you’ll be instantly famous and the recipient of a hefty scientific prize.

No.

Satellite observations….

bookmarking

key words:
expert, carbon, warming, geologist, bowdown

better av for you

I agree w/that pic (see usertxt), but no, I like mine better. Thnx anyway.

No.

Satellite observations of tropospheric and stratospheric temperature show that the troposphere has warmed while the stratosphere has cooled over the past 35 years. This observation is wholly inconsistent with an external forcing, such as the sun (which would warm both layers of the atmosphere).

yeah whatever. here’s a link with FIVE HUNDRED scientists signing a petition that GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL!!!!!

The only "work" he’s done in the city has been to help poor people on the south side challenge city hall.

he’s not pro guns deal with it.

everyone doesn’t like the idea of millions of retards stocking up on assault rifles. i’ll tell you like i told the other guy, you don’t like it you can leave as well.

O

If only we had an isotope geochemist here to explain whether or not this is true to us.
No.

Satellite observations of tropospheric and stratospheric temperature show that the troposphere has warmed while the stratosphere has cooled over the past 35 years. This observation is wholly inconsistent with an external forcing, such as the sun (which would warm both layers of the atmosphere).

An internal forcing must therefore be responsible for the observed warming of the troposphere. In other words, heat has been trapped within the lower atmosphere, and increasingly so over the past 35+ years, such that less heat has been able to escape into the stratosphere (and space). The IPCC has compiled all known internal forcings and has quantified them using our current understanding of atmospheric physics. The most prominent positive internal forcing by far is atmospheric CO2. The calculation of this forcing is based upon radiative physics equations and concepts that go back over 150 years. Humans are, with almost 100% certainty, entirely responsible for rising CO2 levels. We know this from several lines of evidence:

1) Calculations of the global carbon budget and humanity’s estimated contribution to this budget. The calculations are, of course, bolstered by observations of carbon fluxes (from the oceans, volcanoes, forest fires, etc.).

2) Observations of how the stable carbon isotopic composition of CO2 has changed over the past 100+ years. Fossil fuels are depleted in C-13, while natural sources (such as volcanic eruptions) are strongly enriched in C-13. The C-13/C-12 ratio of atmospheric CO2 has dropped precipitously over the past 100+ years… coincidentally in step with rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

3) Diminishing atmospheric oxygen levels, which are consistent with an increase in anthropogenic combustion

4) Diminishing atmospheric C-14 levels (in CO2), which are consistent with dilution by a carbon source that contains no C-14 (e.g. hydrocarbons, which have lost their original C-14 due to radioactive decay that has far exceeded 10 half lives).

With this in mind, it would be foolish to dismiss anthropogenic CO2 as a non-player. The only tenable objections to atmospheric CO2 being unimportant are:

1) We have misunderstood the radiative behavior of CO2, such that we have severely overestimated its effects
2) There is some other major internal forcing that we have overlooked and is the true culprit of global warming

In fact, BOTH conditions must be true for your objection to make any sense. Let us address point #1 first. There is NO reason to suspect that we have seriously overestimated the radiative trapping behavior of CO2. Our understanding of CO2’s greenhouse gas properties is grounded in fundamental principles such as infrared spectroscopy. Now, our understanding of CO2 radiative trapping in a layered atmosphere requires complex calculations (often performed by computers) that require one to take into account effects such as pressure/density changes, convection, advection, etcetera. However, such calculations were made without the aid of computers in the 1960’s (by Manabe, Wetherald, and a host of others), and subsequent calculuations have been consistent with earlier ones.

For the above reasons (and others) we are very much convinced that the climate sensitivity due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is between 2-4.5 degrees C, with a ‘best fit’ at 3 degrees C. There is a near-zero probability that climate sensitivity is <1.5 degrees C (although Richard Lindzen is one of the few scientists to suggest that it may be lower). In contrast, there is a non-zero, albeit substantial, probability that climate sensitivity could be >4.5 degrees C.

Where does that leave us then? Well, if we (arbitrarily) reject the aforementioned, fundamental constructs of chemistry and physics, then we must propose an alternative internal forcing. Many folks (who aren’t well-informed on the subject) point to water vapor as the culprit and criticize scientists for ignoring it. We have not ignored it. In fact, the issue of water vapor as a greenhouse gas was largely settled in the 1960s by the world of Manabe and others… and subsequently by Ramanathan and others. They demonstrated that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a feedback, not a forcing. That is, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere depends upon the temperature of the atmosphere itself. It cannot be implicated as the cause (forcing) of temperature change, but rather should be regarded as an amplifier (feedback) of temperature change. In fact, we can verify this to some degree by observing how relative humidity, averaged over a given hemisphere (e.g. north, south) changes from summer to winter. It turns out that relative humidity does not change with the seasons (in a hemispherically-averaged sense) in any significant way. This insight happens to be consistent with the intuitions that many atmospheric physicists had during the 1960’s. Since then, we have built a more comprehensive observational network with which to verify these early findings. Guess what? Nothing has changed in any substantial way since then.

So I guess that what I am saying is that if you are going to claim that human activity only accounts for 1-2% of global warming, then you are going to need to propose an internal forcing (or forcings) that have been overlooked by the greater scientific community in a major way. Remember, that solar forcing is wholly inconsistent with observations of stratospheric temperature change. In fact, the net contribution of all solar and volcanic forcings over the past 50 years should have produced a cooling rather than a warming. It is thus quite possible that humans have been responsible for closer to 100% of global warming since 1950.

Good luck coming up with an alternative forcing. If you do, you’ll be instantly famous and the recipient of a hefty scientific prize.

It’s like having a bat-signal.

Well done, sir.

So the current output CO2 levels are, in a sense, killing two birds with one stone (in regards to increasing temperature) via water vapor (through the feedback mechanism you mentioned) exacerbating temperature increases along side heightened temperatures already caused by excess CO2 levels…I guess water vapor’s amplificatory effects is an added nuisance to our efforts in mitigating earth’s warming.
You know i find the whole oh European cars won’t work in America they are to small etc etc argument really silly.

Here is Australia we have an environment that is one of the most hash in the world very spread out cities and towns which can take days to drive to, yet we still manage with cars that are inline with what is typical in Japan and Europe.

Americans just need to come to a realization that huge proportions of the country do not need massive SUV’s etc etc, i understand that may go against that whimsical notion you all have its somehow your god give right to drive 50 miles to work by yourself in a F150 but its just not sustainable.
It’s as simple as how "OT" thinks every bandwagon and meme is their own and they created it. We are so full of ourselves that we HAVE to be the reason for global climate changes.

Look, yes we do hurt the earth and yes we do cause damage with the things we do to our environment, of fucking course we do, humans are a virus. We are parasites that eat up every resource and kill and conquer anything and everything. The earth goes through stages. It gets cold, it gets warm. What we do on Earth doesn’t have as much consequence as we are led to believe (but it sure has made a whole lot of people rich off of the fear it spews at all of us). I’m not saying we, as in the human race, can’t stop being such a blood sucking virus, all i’m saying is whether we destroy the earth with nukes, stop throwing cellophane cups into the garbage, pick up trash, build buildings, or lay cement everywhere, the earth will still go through changes and there is NOTHING we can do about it. Are we so high and mighty that we have to be the cause of everything?

The truth is, the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling for millions of years without our help. So what makes you think the relatively small contributions we’ve added has anything to do with the cycle we’re going through now? Like I said, we are contributing, but not enough to cause the amount of global warming/cooling you claim. Only the sun can cause an ice age and end an ice age or the reverse.
global warming caused by humans is a lib’rul conspiracy, the best thing to do is keep consuming as many resources as possible and the planet will self correct.

Somehow I don’t think a guy who wants to slot in CO2 below arsenic on the dangerous pollutants list is likely to go that route.

The LD50 for arsenic is A LOT higher than it is for caffeine
If Obama declares that carbon dioxide, the gas plants MUST HAVE in order to survive, it will show he’s a religious nutjob that worships at the temple of Global Warming. No one can be that fucking retarded and make it to the throne of the USA.

Wow, AV. That was almost a complete sentence you started with. You’re improving every day!

wait, wat?
Stem cell research ftw.

Carbon dioxide limitation ftmfgoddamnheisanidiot
How many of you people summarily declaring that carbon dioxide regulation is idiotic actually read The Internet’s post?

Says the guy who thinks man walked with dinosaurs, continental drift is a sham, and evolution is a religion. AVengeance: the defender of reason and science.

better av for you

we were here first.

With an executive order?

Lots Europeans and Japanese drive micro city cars that don’t work well for our purposes, what with all our vast expanses of land and highways.

I do think we should have more clean diesels which is also a major factor in European car efficiency, but for that to happen we would have to reduce some of our emissions standards. Somehow I don’t think a guy who wants to slot in CO2 below arsenic on the dangerous pollutants list is likely to go that route.

And as you note, gas is "fairly expensive" in Europe (actually about three times as expensive), meaning that normal people simply cannot afford to operate anything larger than a Mondeo. They would if they could — witness footballers driving Escalades — but most can’t. As long as gas remains cheap here, most people won’t downsize because they don’t have to. (That leaves aside people like me who are always in search of smaller and lighter, because they just enjoy driving small cars and hate land yachts.)

Did you think the car companies are just not making high-mpg cars that would sell in huge numbers out of… what? Hearts of eeeeviiiil?

More of a culture thing actually.

Distances are much larger in the US. In the US I hear people say things like "oh wow, you’re only a 5 hour drive away"… a 5 hour drive is a REALLY long drive in Europe. Most people here use cars to get to and from work and drop the kids off at school and that’s it.

We have good public transport too.. no point driving and paying to park the car somewhere.. I can just take the train

science makes a comeback over religion

neocons cleaning sand out of their vaginas

Thank you, President Obama.

Related posts:

  1. "PRESIDENT-ELECT" is NOT a title Jeez this is irritating the crap out of me. Obama is still a Senator. His title is "Senator Obama." WTF...
  2. Sen. Barack Obama announces he will run for president 2008. Watching it live on C-SPAN, he is in Springfield Illinois in front of the old capitol. Surprise! Thats what I...
  3. What is required to stop climate change Will economic growth and the current way of life need to be sacrificed to stop co2 being emitted? I can't...
  4. Obama is such a good President that even before he took office gas prices went down. Gas was like $2.30/gal today HOPE AND CHANGE! Where does one sign up for Socialism? Just ask Joe The Plumber.surprised...
  5. Please list McCain’s congressional accomplishments All this talk about how he is an experienced candidate, what is exactly has he accomplished as a senator? He...