In Surprise Speech, Obama Promises Global Leadership On Climate Change
Barack Obama is set to deliver a surprise speech via video to the bi-partisan Governors Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles this morning.
Obama's team sends out the speech video, which renews Obama's commitment to battling global warming and casts it as an economic and national security issue:
In the speech, which will also be heard by figures from some two dozen foreign countries, Obama repeatedly casts climate change as an issue requiring international cooperation.
"The United States cannot meet this challenge alone," Obama says. Solving this problem will require all of us working together...I look forward to working with all nations to meet this challenge in the coming years."
Obama also sends a message to leaders preparing to gather at the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference: "Let me also say a special word to the delegates from around the world who will gather at Poland next month: your work is vital to the planet."
Pretty refreshing to have an adult as incoming president...
Pretty refreshing to have an adult as incoming president... finally!
November 18, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a breath of fresh air! Literally and figuratively.
November 18, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
...and so timely:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3326813/Global-warming-sceptics-buoyed-by-record-cold.html
November 18, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Global Warming" my ass. It's so cold here today, I needed gloves and a hat.
That's enough evidence for me!
November 18, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh this happens every winter: It's cold so it cannot be getting hotter.
Were the universe to indeed rotate around the speaker of such comments, a case might be made.
It otherwise remains "errant pedantry up with which I shall not put."
November 18, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank goodness your reply was to SFC. I was worried I may have lost my touch!
November 18, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ignorant are easily swayed.
Global warming is not proven or disproven by a day's, month's or year's weather. The evidence is in a much wider collection of data.
If you're going to be stupid, Republicans, at least try not to be so proud of it.
November 18, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
..douchebag-like reeling.
November 18, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am shocked -- shocked! -- that SFC has ignored evidence in the article he cites that contradicts his case (I guess Rush has taught him well):
November 18, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a completely irrelevant post, even for Wallace! It's climate, not weather, sport! Learn the fundamental difference. The global warming trend over the past 30+ years due to the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is unequivocal. As is the peer-reviewed science. It is basic physics. There is no excuse for regurgitating ignorance.
November 18, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do actually understand the difference between climate and weather. I was wondering though, since you are obviously an expert. Since "The global warming trend over the past 30+ years due to the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is unequivocal," what caused it during the Cambrian, Silurian,Permian,Cretaceous and Tertiary periods? Particularly the spike about 65 million years ago.
November 18, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most likely something different, such as changes in Earth's orbit. This is one of insanest canards out there. Just because a bullet can kill me, that doesn't mean that cancer can't also kill me. Just because something else caused global warming last time, it doesn't mean greenhouse gases aren't causing it this time—especially since basic physics points to the causal relationship.
Here's today's logic lesson in a nutshell: A implies B does not imply that C doesn't imply B.
In other words, whether or not A causes B has no logical bearing on whether or not C causes B, so please drop this canard once and for all.
November 18, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
November 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, for canard #2, I'll point out that water vapor is a feedback greenhouse gas. Do you know what saturation is? Do you know what rain is? Do you now understand how increasing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere increases the temperature which increases the amount of water vapor the air can hold, which in turn increases the temperature?
Please add this one to the list of canards that have been thoroughly discussed by climate scientists. Do you really think that something so basic hadn't been considered by them?
I'm sorry if I'm coming off as condescending, but surely you've had this explained to you before, haven't you?
November 18, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, that's not the only error on the page, it's just the first one I saw. That whole page is a bunch of nonsense, which you might expect considering the source: Enom, Inc./ChristianWebHost.com. I.e., anyone can put anything they want there.
November 18, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The numbers I'm talking about are the DOE 200 numbers.
November 18, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure...but the point is that not including water vapor, man made additions to greenhouse gas levels are still only 3.2%, so cutting man made CO2 50% will still only remove 1.7% from the atmosphere. With the side effect of crushing the economy.
November 18, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That point is wrong, however. That was one of the many other errors on that page. Human activity is responsible for at least one fourth of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
From that (out-dated) DOE chart:
Carbon dioxide: 68,520/288,000=23.8%
All greenhouse gases: 69,109/289,158=23.6%.
Now, here's the kicker: humans are responsible for about 100% (including feedback effects such as the aforementioned water vapor) of the increase in greenhouse gases. It's the increase in greenhouse gases that is responsible for the increase in the greenhouse effect.
November 18, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh...those numbers you are using are the natural additions...the man made are less than 1/5 of that or less than a fifth of less than a fourth...or about 3.2%.
November 18, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
See comment below. Their link that supposedly backs up that chart does no such thing. I believe that chart is entirely fabricated (but I did err in my reading of that chart).
November 18, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I just realized that I misread that supposed DOE chart on that page. Now that I'm reading it correctly, I strongly suspect that the chart was either entirely fabricated by the author of the web-site or copied with errors. In short, I don't believe that chart actually came from the DOE. I've done a little digging on the DOE site, and I can't even find a similar chart, but perhaps my searching skills aren't up to snuff. Can you find the original?
November 18, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like most were pulled from this report...
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf
and...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2emiss.pdf
November 18, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, can you spot the glaring problems?
The 3.2% refers to the fraction of the global carbon dioxide concentration that can be attributed to the carbon dioxide emissions from the United States generating electricity. So, not only are they only looking at the emissions from the United States, they're only looking at those emissions coming directly from electricity production, since goodness knows that cars and other sources don't contribute any carbon dioxide.
Please, please, please don't ever reference that insane web-site again. Please?
November 18, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFC is an ignorant Luddite. There are always guys like him who think they've figured it out and all the pencil necks are wrong.
These are the type of morons who says things like: "it's only a theory" or "all the scientists used to think the world was flat too" or just cherry pick the "expert" they want to believe and pay no attention to consensus, peer review, or the scientific method generally.
Only they never mention that science's understanding of gravity is also just a theory, or that it was other scientists who discovered the world was in fact round, not the fat beer drinking slob at the bar like them.
November 18, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gad! That coulda been about the anti-intellectual "expert" gun-nuts on the Second Amendment who, having no education in law, know more about law than those with such education!
November 19, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, why do you think it's going to crush the economy? Did WWII crush the economy? In my experience, adding jobs rarely crushes the economy.
I mean, if I truly thought it was busy work, I wouldn't recommend it. However, I still wouldn't think it would crush the economy. The funny thing is that people who make that confident prediction usually also complain about the unpredictability of non-linear systems—such as the economy (although, of course, they're thinking about the climate when they go on about that, completely oblivious to contradicting themselves on this latter point).
November 18, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trust me...if all these "Green Jobs" exited in the "Green Economy" they'd be being filled right now. Invent a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door. Outlaw cheese and put cap and trade regulations on springs and little wooden planks people will decide that they would rather live with mice (hope you don't work at that mouse trap factory).
November 18, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, many jobs do exist in the green economy right now. Unfortunately, they're not operating on a level playing field as polluters are allowed to externalize the cost of cleaning up their pollution.
We already have a better mousetrap. It's just that cheese subsidies are propping up the older mousetrap. (I'm not just talking about money given to oil companies, either. I'm mainly talking about the lack of factoring in externalized costs. It's the typical "tragedy of the commons" problem.)
November 18, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude...I haven't had the "tragedy of the commons" card played on me in about 15 years...lol.
November 18, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with the theory of tragedy of the commons? It's an accepted part of game theory. Since that's studied in Computer Science (and many other fields, including Economics), I'm not sure what problem you might have with it…
November 18, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh there's nothing wrong with it...That wasn't a dis. It's just the last time I was hit with it was during a philisophical discussion with a German girl in a bar in Ascheffenburg...about 15 years ago.
November 18, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that and the Prisoner's Dilemma are two of the most famous problems in Game Theory, I'd wager. We Germans do love our Game Theory.
(OK, I'm not really that German, but I was born there, on an Army base in Landstuhl.)
November 18, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
polluters are allowed to externalize the cost of cleaning up their pollution.
_____
Allowed to SOCIALIZE the cost.
November 19, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The green jobs don't just "exist" you knucklehead, they have to be created. But yes, the potential and need is enormous. As will be the consequences if we don't.
It's an enormous project that can't be done piecemeal. You can't develop green energy infrastructure without a long term commitment and government support. Private capital in unable to take such initiative, especially with OPEC and such continually manipulating energy prices.
It takes an enormous agency with the leadership, resources, and authority to make it happen and follow through over the long term.
Just as for example the transcontinental railroads, or highways, or space program, or internet, didn't just "happen" or spring into existence from the free market. They were all initiated by the agency big enough to do so i.e. government.
It's only dinosaurs like SFC who still can't seem to grasp that. Burdens on humanity.
November 18, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEVER trust ANYONE who begins a statement with the words, "Trust me".
November 19, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, you demonstrate your idiocy in front of the neighbors.
The effect of global warming will not be to make everyplace on earth hotter. That's way too simplistic an understanding. The earth's climate is an incredibly complex system; changing a single variable can easily have unexpected or counterintuitive results. The changes we will see in our weather patterns as a result of global warming will likely include more severe winters in some places - along with warmer winters in other places. Some places will turn into deserts in the summer, while others will get more tropical weather patterns.
God damn, I hate ignorant people who insist on talking about shit they know nothing about.
November 18, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
...then you may want to shut the f**k up.
November 18, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, everything he said is correct, consensus, peer reviewed science, that has produced models accurately predicting climate change on the global and micro climate scale, both recent and historical, empirically verified by current measurements and accurate ice cores going back 750,000 years.
The idiot who needs to shut the f**k up? That would be you.
November 18, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFC you're just trolling. If you actually wanted to inform yourself as opposed to cherry pick talking points, you'd read the various reports on Climate Change which have already answered your questions.
November 18, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So refreshing after eight years of criminal, planet-degrading, interest-protecting, anti-intellectual adolescent obstinacy.
November 18, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Breaking news - traitor joe keeps chairmanships. Drama over, time to move on.
November 18, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno dude. This one really doesn't sit right with me. I gave time, effort, and money to get Democrats elected, not just Obama. This feels like a stick in the eye.
I'll leave it at that, because there's nothing more to add to this.
November 18, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know it's hard. I couldn't stand traitor joe. I wanted him stripped and I wanted him recalled. However, in the grand scheme of things, it's more important for his vote. We'll get him in 2012. Just wait and see.
He is actually "appologizing" regarding the campaign right now on msnbc. It's weak, but its something.
2012 and kick the traitor out.
November 18, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm disappointed for a lot of reasons, but I'm mad because Democrats just reinforced every single stereotype that the right has pushed about them for the past 50 years. Instead of leading, they went looking for the future problem (what if he leaves...oh no!), and now they've found it.
November 18, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman, while a pain in our ass, is just not that big of a deal to Obama. If he can use Lieberman to get his agenda passed, he will. Simple as that.
Sure, we are pissed. I live in CT, so I feel even more impotent than you do.
Obama will bring this Lieber-punk to heel. To bad he can't fix him while he's at it.
November 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in CT and man do I wish there were a recall.
I am very, very disappointed with them Dem leadership today. I will give them one more chance -- if they were worried about the GOP having the majority for this lame duck session, then they have one chance to fix this on 21-Jan-09.
Lieberman was elected by Republicans, supports Republicans in campaigns... he's no Democrat, and he should have been booted.
November 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
A recall would be awesome. I'm all for that.
November 18, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know; I wanted Lieberman kicked to the curb, too. But if there is an upside to this, I'm thinking it might be this: Lieberman is now indebted to Obama for his chairmanship of Homeland Security. He was looking to lose it until Obama stepped in. So Obama should now have a chit that he can call in when he needs it.
Let's see if Lieberman honors his debts.
November 18, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see if Lieberman honors his debts.
Lie-berman already owed Obama for the help he got from Obama in the '06 primaries. It seems that one person has learned from what has occurred since then, and that one person has not been Barack Obama.
November 19, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
ahhhh, YES!!! Barack Obama is MY PRESIDENT! :-D
November 18, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty refreshing to have an adult as incoming president...
But many fellow democrats tell me he's being too naive to consider Hillary. Who should I trust?
November 18, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
They let Lieberman off the hook...
November 18, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't be interesting if Part II of his initiative is to bail out the US auto industry with a firm commitment away from gas-guzzling SUV and trucks to greener vehicles directly competing with foreign markets for the US consumers interest?
November 18, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are right on target. Expect part II to do just that.
November 18, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, all they asked from him was to give up one of his subcommittees, and not even the good one. Bullshit.
November 18, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed.
What would make it sublime would be if there were also adults in the Democratic Caucus, instead of the strange incestuous club that we have.
November 18, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign!
November 18, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, after watching the video, I wondered if the name "Hussain" is the Arabic for Kennedy?
November 18, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
My take is that Lieberman is just where he needs to be,,,,, on Obama's hook. A nice Jewish boy what went to college knows enough not to piss off his patron. Barack giveth and Barack can taketh away, hee hee.
November 18, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's going to need Obama and the Democrats in a year or so, when his senate seat is up for re-election. He's a political opportunist, plain and simple.
November 18, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yea...let Gollum Lieberman have his precious, but keep a tight rein on him at all times and wait for him to fuck up then yank hard to let him know who's the Boss!
November 18, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah! I am so glad I'm not the only one who is seeing it that way!
November 18, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only that, keep in mind HLS was created by Bush and is a complete disaster. HLS was rolled into that commitee.
Now, under Obama, there's be bipartisan support for fundamental restructuring of HLS. At that point HLS as we presently know it will cease to exist. It's fundamentally a flawed Dept having no real authority and nowhere in the CoC. It's been a mess with private contractors providing airport security for example, and completely failing to coordinate various agencies.
Lieberman has to kiss a lot of ass and show a lot of newfound competence before then. Otherwise HLS (or whatever it's renamed) will be given it;s own committee far away from Joe.
All this worry over Joe is a waste of time. He's harmless now, neutered, on the way out. It's just being done graciously.
November 18, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
About the auto industry bailout..
I would suggest that rather than give the Big Three a boatload of money to continue mismanaging their business, offer a GOVERNMENT cash rebate (NOT a tax credit) to CONSUMERS who buy a new GM, Chrysler or Ford automobile.
If cars are moving off the lot, everyone benefits. Use government bailout money to give consumers CASH incentives on a sliding scale -- $5,000 cash back (from the government) if you buy a $20,000 car, $10,000 back if you buy a $45,000 car, etc. That kind of stimulus would immediately help consumers, car dealers, local economies, AND the factories.
In the meantime work with Detroit to gear up for the new economy -- but just giving the Big Three more money is starting at the wrong end of the problem to get things moving again. Yes, we need to work with them as a long term strategy, but the consumer end of the pipe is where things are stalled in the near-term.
Same thing, by the way, with the banking system.
November 18, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Big Three go down, then all that is left are the Europeans and Japanese. It will be just like the aircraft industry - Lockheed is the only active US manufacture left. So when the USAF or USNavy need new aircraft, they have no choicebut to look outside the US to meet their needs. The replacement aircraft for the KC-125 refueling tanker is a prime example.
Also, where will we get our next-generation of tanks and other assorted military vehicles if there aren't any auto manufacturers geared up producing autos for the public. Everything is an off-shoot of the original equipment manufacturers, otherwise, there's high start-up costs (that costs the taxpayers) and when the order is filled everyone disappears - off to the next project as the company is folded up. The US military needs equipment manufacturers that will be around for sometime - fly-by-night company's are good for their bottom line.
November 18, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hypo on last line...
fly-by-night company's aren't good for their bottom line.
November 18, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did Boeing go out of business? Odd that I should have missed that! Thanks for updating us.
November 18, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hallelujah!
November 18, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn. Our long national nightmare is over.
November 18, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this sounds trivial, but I wish they would have Obama speak from a different back drop. He looks like he is speaking at a city council meeting with that brown paneling behind him. It's distracting.
November 18, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
How PRESUMPTUOUS of Obama to make this. With his presumptuous "office of the president elect" logo! This guy is so presumptuous he's acting like he's already president!!!
November 18, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
People have been calling Obama "presumptuous" most of his adult life, from being head of the Harvard Law Review to going for the Senate seat to campaigning for President.
So he's "presumptuous." That doesn't change the fact that he WILL be President and you still WILL be a troll.
November 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This guy is so presumptuous he's acting like he's already president!!!
Hey cdub - SOMEBODY better start acting like the President - the office has had us riding in the ditch for 8 years. I wish Obama could officially take over TODAY. There may not be anything left to save by Jan. 20.
November 18, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm Guys - that was snark.
November 18, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Digging the fireside chat, but I agree about the backdrop. It looks like he's at the Rotary Club!
Nice to see that he sees this as an economic issue about our future. The Repugs have been poormouthing this issue for so long people believe that we can live on oil and coal forever!
I wonder if they would have said the same about whale oil in the 19th century!
November 18, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent. It's about time.
Most important is his win/win approach to the problems while underlining that failure in any aspect will produce a horrendous lose/lose on a global scale.
November 18, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink