Outgoing EPA chief convinced Obama serious on climate change

Comments (11)
elsewhere wrote:

If he truly is serious he should read the latest release from the IPCC. They have concluded that most of the climate change is due to solar radiation. So that means Obama and his EPA can relax and reverse the rules.

Feb 04, 2013 5:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
orlyobama wrote:

After an extremely poor track record of action on global warming during his first term, Obama further alienated supporters, constituents and environmental activists by leaving the issue of global warming out of his re-election platform.

Well, it’s a good thing, then, that the outgoing EPA director is “convinced” that her ex-boss has at least some convictions on the topic.

Actions speak louder than words. It is the inaction, over four critically-important years, that would even prompt someone to ask the question that the headline of this article answers, and I, for one, search as I might, certainly “need clues,” because there’s very little evidence of Obama having done *anything*.

Her biggest regret should be that she didn’t resign in disgust within months of her appointment.

Feb 04, 2013 6:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sonorama wrote:

Feel like mentioning that IPCC release by name, bud?

Feb 04, 2013 7:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
counterviews wrote:

Where have I heard this kind of rhetoric before? Nothing will be done until something dramatic, devastating and undeniably linked to climate change occurs. By then it will be too late. Even a Manhattan Project-sized effort won’t turn this around, and then the government would do the wrong thing anyway. If we were to start this minute on a worldwide scale to stop filling the atmosphere with CO2, it would be decades before temperatures and loss of ice and the rising of ocean levels maxed out. This is going to be the biggest threat to mankind we have ever experienced.

Feb 04, 2013 8:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Pete_Murphy wrote:

If he were serious about reducing carbon emissions, he wouldn’t be working so hard to import millions of new carbon emitters through liberalized immigration policy.

Feb 04, 2013 10:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Parker1227 wrote:

So it doesn’t matter to anyone that satellite data shows a complete stagnation (flat-lining), of global warming for the last decade?

Why do you think the enviro-fanatics switched from “global warming” to “climate change”?

Answer: Because all of their models predicting dire warming have proven wrong so far. Average global temperature has remained flat for at least the last ten years (many scientists say 15 years) – even as CO2 has increased.

Feb 04, 2013 10:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Parker1227 wrote:

Has anyone ever stopped to consider that if a government allocates 90% of its earth science research grants ONLY TO scientists who support “global warming catastrophe” science, then many, many scientists who need to feed their families will find a way to connect every aspect of science to global warming. The government has spent exponentially more money (billions), pushing the global warming agenda – than all of the “skeptic” groups combined. Not even close.

Too bad global temps aren’t agreeing with these global warming Casandras, with these sell-outs of science.

Feb 04, 2013 10:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

“Where have I heard this kind of rhetoric before? Nothing will be done until something dramatic, devastating and undeniably linked to climate change occurs. By then it will be too late. Even a Manhattan Project-sized effort won’t turn this around, and then the government would do the wrong thing anyway. If we were to start this minute on a worldwide scale to stop filling the atmosphere with CO2, it would be decades before temperatures and loss of ice and the rising of ocean levels maxed out. This is going to be the biggest threat to mankind we have ever experienced.”

mankind has survived climate change in stone age. We adapt. The saharah desert was a lush grassland with huge lakes 10000 years ago. People that lived there when it dried up moved. With our technology climate change is an obstacle or inconvenience, not a catastrophe. A meteor hit is a catastrophe, a nuclear war is a catastrophe. Warmer or colder weather is not.

Feb 04, 2013 11:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
counterviews wrote:

NewWorld, We are going to lose people and fauna. I agree that Earth will survive, as it always has in the past. But will it be as habitable? Not likely. It may not be habitable at all. Forget about long shots like meteors. This is happening now. Where is the technology? It’s expensive, it’s experimental and, because it really hasn’t been turned on to this problem, will come too late.

Feb 05, 2013 6:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:

He’s serious alright. Seriously noncommittal.

Feb 05, 2013 9:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
Dragos111 wrote:

Obama is serious about taxes and tax hikes. The only reason anyone cares about the concept of climate change or global warming is that there is just so much money behind it if the can sell the concept to the world.

Global warming is JUNK SCIENCE. It has been debunked. Only scientists who stand to benefit from it are still pushing it. Of course the UN and other governments are pushing it. It means piles of cash for them.

The cost of their “solution” will make the costs of a few hurricanes look like gentle breezes.

Feb 05, 2013 3:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.