New energy secretary Ernest Moniz said he doesn't want to spend time arguing with climate change skeptics.
"Let me make it very clear that there is no ambiguity in terms of the scientific basis calling for a prudent response on climate change," Moniz said in a speech to energy department employees.
He looks forward to advancing the administration's goals on climate.
"I am not interested in debating what is not debatable," Moniz said. "There is plenty to debate as we try and move forward on our climate agenda."
We should get ready for much higher gas prices and use of electric cars regardless of price. This reminds me of Bruce Babbit years ago. We lost use of forrest lands, no oil refineries being built and all the EPA strict rules and regulations we are still suffering from. Just a little scary to see this starting all over again.
We rarely disagree but we do here. The great plains of America could fulfill virtually all of our electrical needs through wind power. Cattle don't care if there are windmills, sheep don't care. Corn don't care. Wheat don't care. We need to force the prices up in order to get companies off the dime and into wind.
@jessejaymes I don't see that happening at all, big oil companies have a monopoly on all our fuel. I have seen one pickup powered by water pulling a 5th wheel in the late 90's. The owner was a retired engineer and had placed a small box under the hood that separated the hydrogen from the oxygen and he was running on hydrogen. Spoke with him at length and he informed me he had been offered millions for his patent by big oil.
The by product of his engine was oxygen and a little moisture. He had stainless steel valves, exhaust, and rings. He never had to change his oil either.
You are correct, we could fuel this country in other ways, if the government would require those patents to be nullified under the National Security procedures. And our electric power went from water generated to atomic energy plants that can supply all the power we need. So we really are in agreement, just a little different prospective.
there is a difference between debate and denial. the line on climate change was crossed long ago. every single time you see the "debate" against it, it's always shown to be cherry picked data with glaring ommissions and misquotes of the actual scientists who carry out the research. How many times will the people denying climate change quote a climatologist only to have that climatologist come out the very next day and tell us that's not what they said.
Why? Where is the real science that shows that's bad? The CO2 level is the lowest in recorded history now in the US thanks to our use of natural gas. Of course you won't here the Global Warmists/Coolists mention that. They don't want a natural form of energy, just windmills (yeah that's efficient) and solar panels (costly, ineffective in many places and cumbersome) and what, warm natural fiber blankets? These are the same sort of people who live to throw red paint on women or men wearing a nice warm fur coat.
@Cheenoguy --- LOL - OR perhaps they did their research and found the proof wanting. Of course, one must be intelligent to read through all the techie-speak to see that all of the results are based on computer models - which are based on the BEST GUESS of the computer programer. They are all in a tizzy now because some "projection" they made, based on their best guess, isn't holding true. I suggest that some libs. are so enamored with this new "Belief" or religion, that they will blindly follow anyone who sounds smarter than they are. After all, liberals are notorious for not fact checking or doing independent research.
I don't think that continued debate about what causes it is useful. That only stops anyone from moving past it and discussing whether there is anything that we can do about it. That is what may cut into the profits of those who want to keep the debate where it is.
@Fitz I agree. They always try to discount the Medieval Warming Period, but it was real. There were farms on Greenland and vineyards in Northern Europe. Because of the warmer climate, they had longer growing seasons and the population exploded in Europe.
Less then 1% of peer reviewed studies doubt human caused global warming. That is not a debate. That is a consensus. Those of you who fight the attempts to fight climate change should look in your children's eyes and explain to them why you don't think they deserve to spend their adulthood in civilization. Show them Mad Max so that they can see the future you are willing for them to have because you think it more important to give the wealthiest tax breaks then invest in a future free of fossil fuels. Or is just because you are too stupid to not be fooled by FOX? Just sit them down and tell them you sold their future because you love yourself more than them.
Those that DO doubt aren't able to get peer reviewed because the establishment wants a certain outcome, and the only way to get funding is agreeing with those in power, who happen to be progressive liberals.....
@Knightkore Oh I forgot it is all a conspiracy to destroy capitalism so that the illuminati can take over. Or it could be the much more logical reality of their studies not getting peer reviewed because they aren't scientifically accurate. Are the strings the corporate interests make you dance with visible to you or just everyone else. If you want to screw your kid over couldn't you find a way that doesn't screw my kid as well?
Humans did not cause global warming, nor global cooling. Climate change has happened since the beginning of time, will continue after we are gone. Humans are expediting the process, the debate is by how much.
Even if you are right that it is debatable ( you are not, but I'll patronize you) I don't get your point.
If it is real and we do nothing we are in trouble.
If is real and we do everything we can to reduce carbon emissions and find more efficient forms of energy we may just survive.
If it is not real and we do everything we can to reduce carbon emissions and find more efficient forms of energy we are still better off because we will have a cleaner world and more efficient energy sources and we may just make a breakthrough that changes everything.
If it is not real and we do nothing (which seems to be what most of you advocate) we are still worse off because we still have the same dirty not cost efficient technology and we have not advanced at all.....but you all will be able to say "I told you so", but wouldn't you rather live in a better world?
@Russell797 that wasn't what the climate science of the day said. You either believed that man made global cooling was real and SO2 released by our power plants and factories would reflect so much solar radiation away from the earth that it would trigger a new Ice Age or you were a nut job.
P.S. Hurricane and storm out breaks were blamed on global cooling back then as well.
@Yank Well, the idea of global cooling was thrown about a bit back in the early 70s, and there was some justification for it since those post WWII industrial aerosols were likely involved in the nearly 3 decade long hiatus in the otherwise century long warming trend. However, President Nixon signed the Clean Air Act which dramatically reduced the aerosol loading of the atmosphere....problem solved. Interestingly, China may be doing the same thing today as did the US during the middle of last century in slowing the current rate of warming. One GW mitigation strategy is to ingest large quantities of aerosols into the stratosphere so as to reflect sunlight back to space. Probably a bad move though due to the "law" of unintended consequences.
@Russell797 Most of what you say is true, but it was the international agreement to ban industrial aerosol use ; the Montreal Protocol , signed by Ronald Reagan . "1987 - Ordered U.S. diplomats to negotiate a strong treaty to begin phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals. The resulting Montreal Protocol was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1988 and entered into force in 1989. The Montreal Protocol, which President Reagan called a “monumental achievement,” has resulted in a 95 percent decline in production of the targeted chemicals. The atmosphere’s protective ozone layer has begun to recover.
The Montreal Protocol has produced a significant climate stewardship benefit because ozone-depleting chemicals have heat-trapping properties. Thanks to the Montreal Protocol, emissions of heat-trapping gases equivalent to nearly 5 years of global carbon dioxide emissions have been prevented since 1990. President Reagan’s leadership made that enormous climate stewardship achievement possible." Check this out: http://www.climateconservative.org/Timelineof...
@frontporchdem Yes, isn't it interesting how two Republican presidents were instrumental in improving deterioration environmental conditions? Sadly the same can not be said for the more recent members of the Republican party.. I hope you were not confusing aerosol propellents from spray cans -chlorinatedflorocarbins- with SO2 aerosols from the industrial burning of fossil fuels such as coal. I just had two teeth extracted and I am hurting so that's it for now.
Just remember this folks... it is not an accident that the people who had signed on to this global warming and climate change moose squeeze BS are generally liberal anti-capitalist types. The global warming movement has never been anything more than a vehicle for attacking free enterprise.
@wayne2453: correct! Not just an attack on free enterprise, but a shift within it. The powerbrokers in this are capitalists themselves and they seek a massive market shift away from traditional and still-economical power sources to the alternatives they advance (subsidies to owned stocks, legislate-away the competition, etc.). Sex sells. Fear sells even more. And these folks are harnessing the greatest of all fears: everyone dead.
The Canadians have concluded that the earth is cooling. The scientists in Canada are not Carbon tax enthusiasts. Their science is about the truth, You can't believe ANYTHING that comes out of the Obama administration. In short....ManBearPig is still being sought by Al Gore. That's about how scientific Obama's fake science guys are.
It's part of the New Age Religion to "Believe" in "Climate Change". Strange when the climate has been fluctuating since records were kept. Greenland USED to be green, they used to make great wine in northern Europe and then we had "The Little Ice Age" between 1300 to the late 1800's. AND the earth has not warmed or cooled to any degree for a decade. Follow the money and you will see who benefits most from the false tale of Humans being responsible for any change in climate. Someone, somewhere, is making a lot of money or stands to make a lot of money. We need look no further than Al Gore.
The climate has always changed naturally. It is not this time changing naturally, humans are forcing the change. We are messing with one of factors which determines global temperature and weather patterns....the greenhouse effect.
@Russell797 --- I don't agree, I find the science behind this theory suspect. And, what greenhouse effect? We were supposed to have more and more hurricanes, we have less, the tornado had no more to do with Global Warming or whatever they are calling it now than sunspots did, and we have had fewer tornados this season too. As you said, the climate has always changed naturally, it still is. Remember when it was all global warming? Now it's what? Global cooling? Or Global no change at all? No, it's a bit arrogant to think that anything we do can change something as large and natural as the climate. We CAN keep our water clean, keep the air clean too, that's just good sense, but neither one will effect the cyclical changes that our climate goes through naturally.
i think history has proven, via scientific data, that we have climate change, period, and in my opinion, it will be the biggest problem we face as a human species in the future, an ice age happens approximately every 20000 years or so with the earths wobble as as factor , these are scientific facts, regardless the debates of mans recent influences, which are negligible in my opinion to the overall forces of nature...we will again face an ice age, if we, as a species make it that far, in the future as history has proven over and over again...
@Russell797 ...guess I can go with that, but I must say any debate at such is arbitrary and it can be debated beyond any true proof.. I do believe that within the most recent historical record, though, that approximately every 20,000 year or so we have been in some form of ice age or another, that was my point...
@hankf68 The interesting thing is that technically the Earth is currently experiencing ice age conditions and has been for the past ~33 million years. During that period Antarctica has sported permanent ice sheets. Over the past 3 million years the northern polar ice has advanced and receded 10s of times, the last in the series receded by 12,000 years ago. Most of Earth's climate history has been ice free even at the poles. However, life on Earth is currently fine tuned to current climatic conditions and will struggle to keep up with rapid environmental change.
@Russell797 Again cite some articles from unbiased sources that are peer reviewed and I will take a look.
So lets say we are causing climate change. What do you all propose we do about it? China and India are still two of the biggest polluters in this world. If we raise the cost of gasoline and coal fired electric high through extra taxes we cripple our economy meanwhile china keeps doing their thing and the dollar is devalued. Not to mention many middle class families will be using the majority of their paychecks to pay for heating/cooling and gasoline to get to and from work.
I'm all for reducing carbon food prints. I recycle. I drive a low emissions car that gets excellent gas mileage (not a hybrid because I know how toxic those batteries are when they are disposed of). I have many family members who work for AEP (American electric power) and I've seen the rising energy costs and it's not AEP's fault but boy do the Eco crowd love to point the blame at the energy companies.
@DrNickels As you probably know, most quality scientific journals post their papers behind a pay wall. You can however read abstracts. You can find papers spanning a large range of scientific disciplines in physics, chemistry, radiative transfer, geology, the atmospheric sciences, astronomy etc. which collectively build the case for human caused climate change. Do you regard scientific societies such as the National Academy of Science as credible and unbiased? How about the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. There are literally 10s of thousands of scientific papers spanning all manner of the physical sciences which together build the consensus that the Earth is warming and human activities are largely the cause.
Check out this list of authoritative scientific bodies which support the consensus.