Climate Change: Obama vs Townhall

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Here's what Obama said:

“Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.”

And here's a link to Townhall's embarrassing effort to debunk Obama's comment and climate change in general.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mega...-climate-change-fact-check-n2104864/page/full

 

[The Tradition]

Here's what Obama said:

“Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.”

And here's a link to Townhall's embarrassing effort to debunk Obama's comment and climate change in general.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mega...-climate-change-fact-check-n2104864/page/full

Obama is an ass. 200 hundred nations are behind the plan because we're going to give most of them money from our treasury.

 

[Joes Place]

Here's what Obama said:

“Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.”

And here's a link to Townhall's embarrassing effort to debunk Obama's comment and climate change in general.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mega...-climate-change-fact-check-n2104864/page/full

That is embarrassing. And mostly absent any facts; the majority of the 'claims' in the article are demonstrably false.

Of course, our public educational system failed people like The Tradition in being able to comprehend even the most basic of science fundamentals....

 

[The Tradition]

That is embarrassing. And mostly absent any facts; the majority of the 'claims' in the article are demonstrably false.

Of course, our public educational system failed people like The Tradition in being able to comprehend even the most basic of science fundamentals....

We were supposed to have an ice-free arctic three years ago. Why should I put any stock in any of the wild predictions for decades and centuries from now?

 

[Joes Place]

We were supposed to have an ice-free arctic three years ago. Why should I put any stock in any of the wild predictions for decades and centuries from now?

Sigh...THAT myth again?
I expended hours debunking that for you last time, and you still cannot understand it?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

That is embarrassing. And mostly absent any facts; the majority of the 'claims' in the article are demonstrably false.

Of course, our public educational system failed people like The Tradition in being able to comprehend even the most basic of science fundamentals....

Don't blame that on us. Kids in my class tell me straight up that, "My dad says none of the global warming stuff is true".

 

[UNIowaHawk]

How embarrassing. First he says there are 57 states and now he says 200 nations? Sad for a "world" leader.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

Here's what Obama said:

“Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.”

And here's a link to Townhall's embarrassing effort to debunk Obama's comment and climate change in general.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mega...-climate-change-fact-check-n2104864/page/full

Typical democratic ploy, when your argument is weak, use "consensus". The strange thing about this is that the people that believe in GW, believe that the future will be like today.

Here's what Obama said:

“Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.”

And here's a link to Townhall's embarrassing effort to debunk Obama's comment and climate change in general.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mega...-climate-change-fact-check-n2104864/page/full

When your argument is weak, use consensus, or name calling to humiliate your opponent. Typical liberal ploy. Since it is not possible to predict technology centuries in advance, the whole GW argument is pointless.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Don't blame that on us. Kids in my class tell me straight up that, "My dad says none of the global warming stuff is true".

How do you respond to that?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

How do you respond to that?

I tell them I'm there to teach the science...not opinion. Same thing I say when they challenge evolution.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I tell them I'm there to teach the science...not opinion. Same thing I say when they challenge evolution.

I haven't taught at the high school level for too many decades to admit. But I wonder about getting pushback from parents - complaints to the School Board or PTA or whatever. Does that sort of thing happen?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I haven't taught at the high school level for too many decades to admit. But I wonder about getting pushback from parents - complaints to the School Board or PTA or whatever. Does that sort of thing happen?

I've had an email from a parent or two, I tell them the same thing. And I link them to my curriculum and tell them they can contact the state DPI.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

Luckily I have lived long enough to actually pass some of the early doomsday scenarios. As a U of I student in the seventies I took a class entitled " Economic of the Environment ". Within the course the book " Limits to Growth " was required reading. By the year 2000 all oil reserves were either totally depleted or technologically unavailable. Interest rates would be around 25%. Most precious metals and industrial metals would be depleted. There was also talk of entering a new " ice age ". A fair and balanced education is even more rare than fair and balanced journalism from the MSM.

 

[hawkcub]

Why with environmentalists you are either a denier or belive in their alarmist agenda. It is possible to believe that there is some climate change going on and we should do some things to counter act that. While at the same time not buying into the extreme alarmist agenda.

 

[2facedboonefan]

Why with environmentalists you are either a denier or belive in their alarmist agenda. It is possible to believe that there is some climate change going on and we should do some things to counter act that. While at the same time not buying into the extreme alarmist agenda.

The better question is why anyone who isn't a scientist thinks their opinion on climate change matters.

This is team mentality politics 101. Why else would half the country just decide the vast majority of scientists are wrong?