Our high fossil fuels flying Secretary of State apparently has nothing better to do, having solved all the world’s issues
(Yahoo News) US Secretary of State John Kerry has called on American ambassadors around the world to make the fight against climate change a top priority ahead of new UN talks next year.
In his first department-wide policy guidance statement since taking office a year ago, he told his 70,000 staff: “The environment has been one of the central causes of my life.”
“Protecting our environment and meeting the challenge of global climate change is a critical mission for me as our country’s top diplomat,” Kerry said in the letter issued on Friday to all 275 US embassies and across the State Department.
This is a guy who’s flying all over the world, owns multiple fossil fueled vehicles, along with multiple energy sucking, CO2 producing McMansions. He generated 12 tons of “carbon” during his February trip to the Far East to discuss “climate change”. The average American’s carbon footprint is 19.6 metric tons per year.
“We’re talking about the future of our earth and of humanity. We need to elevate the environment in everything we do,” he said.
It was, he said “our call to conscience as citizens of this fragile planet we inhabit.”
The environment will be fine. CO2 levels have been higher for most of the Earth’s history. I love this comment from Linda Loo
Make it the priority and then what? They can’t fix problems that are actually fixable. Our country is still reeling from the catastrophe caused by crooked business and banks. Though things are slowly improving there is still a lot of unemployment. Heaven forbid if they raise minimum wage. And what about the fact our educational system has fallen to the bottom of the list? But, hey, by all means make “climate change” a priority. No matter that there isn’t a blessed thing they can do about it if it is really happening. All the wind turbines and expensive hybrid cars and regulating companies to have less pollutants will not keep the climate from changing but it sure will make a lot of money the people with all their contraptions (a.k.a. snake oil) to prevent it from happening.
Boom! And since Kerry, as Sec Of State, ie “The Boss”, made this pronouncement, the people working for him will surely understand that this is a directive, and further ignore the real world issues to focus on this phony, far left political issue.
I am not as thrilled with Loo’s comment as Teach is. While there are corrupt banks and businesses, for the most part what drove the economy into the pits were regulations and demands placed upon commercial interests by governments at all levels.
To ask or demand the very people to “fix” something as vast and complex after their demonstration of total incompetence in the handling of economic interests is mind boggling.
I agree that the government cannot handle the issue of the environment but not for the reason Loo states. Although I have to say that I agree that the government is more often the problem rather than the solution.
Since when is jon carry’s personal priorities the priority for the US State Department? Let me know when he personally and professionally reduces his carbon footprint to below the average for the rest of us. Then will I believe that he considers climate change a threat to the world. Until then, he is just an elite pissing on the peasants.
“CO2 levels have been higher for most of the Earth’s history.”
This is irrelevant. Of course the Earth will survive – but at what cost to human civilization?
CO2 levels are higher now than at any time in human existence, whether you think we’ve been around for a million years or only 6000.
Why do you hate humankind?
So the factor that Jeffery claims is driving the alleged rise in temperature is now “irrelevant.”
You can’t argue with logic like that……..
…. because there is no logic to argue with.
g2,
You’re dumber than a box of rocks, unless you’re pretending (lying). Which is it?
In any event, as I pointed out, the CO2 level of a billion years ago is irrelevant to the future of human civilization. The CO2 level of a billion years ago will not impact human civilization in the future but the current and future atmospheric CO2 will. See?
If you worked as hard at your job as you do at trolling I wouldn’t have to support you.
“CO2 levels are higher now than any time in human existance. And humans have progressed to their highest level since our existance began. CO2 is good. Thanks, J.
Gitar, You are right, there is no logic in jeffy. Now,”Deniers are haters of humankind”. Sounds like projection to me. jeffy always goes emotional when discussing his “science”. Arguing from the rational to the irrational never wins a debate.
[…] maybe Kerry should start practicing what he preaches. As William Teach pointed out, he’s quite the energy […]
j2,
Existence, not existance. CO2 is neither good nor bad. The temperature increase from CO2 will most likely be very, very bad for human civilization.
blinkie,
You never discuss any science at all.
Jeffery,
Yet you keep trying to say that CO2 drives up the temperature and or the rate of change.
Therefore the level of CO2 is relevant to your very argument.
In your world, you want people to look into the past, unless that history shows that you are wrong. You want to scream and yell that the temperatures have never been higher in the history of the world, unless of course one actually looks at the available data from the history of the world.
You’re a phoney, Jeffery: a pseudo-intellectual who cannot understand what you are saying and the logical consequences of your stances. When you are called out on your lack of understanding, you react like a child because that is your maturity level.
Jeffery, The science is settled, there is nothing to discuss. It is all moral now, good and bad, That’s worth discussing.
As I pointed out, the CO2 level of billions of years ago is irrelevant. But thanks for playing.
Next bozo, please.
Oh, and suck it.
Blick,
It’s settled that the Earth is warming and that CO2 is responsible. That doesn’t mean that everything about the processes is known.
I would think that skeptics and deniers would welcome continued research.
And as I pointed out, you’re position is wrong both scientifically and historically.
You can keep saying whatever you want but all you are doing is exposing yourself to more ridicule.
If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past doesn’t matter, then you cannot say the concentration in the atmosphere matter today because there is no base against which to prove your assertion.
Real scientists compare the known and the unknown. You want to discard the known history why? Because it shows a flaw in AGW. Facing that flaw would be catastrophic for you. So you tell people it doesn’t matter.
Adults who can actually think critically know better.
So let’s see…… the extent of Jeffery’s thinking is “I said this before” and an insult. I think I last ran into this depth of thinking in second grade.
Don’t ya love the lack of debating and thinking skills in liberals?
Except it is not settled. Your contention is a lie. Furthermore, there is not a consensus among scientists that there is AGW.
But because Jeffery says it is so, we should accept the little boy’s in second grade word for it.
The Earth will survive. Human civilization will be adversely affected.
So how is the CO2 level of 1,000,000,000 years ago relevant to humans now?
I’ve made a mistake here before by assuming you have at least a rudimentary understanding of the physical world you live in – e.g., dave’s lack of understanding of basic chemistry.
A billion is a thousand millions. A million is a thousand thousands. Ten centuries make a thousand years.
Anatomically modern humans are about 200,000 years old. Human civilization, i.e., towns, agriculture, specialization (divisions of labor) are about 10,000 years old. Until now, atmospheric CO2 has been below 280 ppm for at least 800,000 years. Now CO2 is 400 ppm and is causing the Earth to warm.
The Earth will survive. Human civilization will be adversely affected.
How many humans were on Earth a billion years ago? What was the largest coastal city a billion years ago? What were the fresh water needs of human settlements a billion years ago? What were the patterns of agricultural production a billion years ago?
The Earth will survive. Human civilization will be adversely affected.
The Earth will survive. Human civilization will be adversely affected.
The Earth will survive. Human civilization will be adversely affected.
Oh, and suck it.
And once again we see that Jeffery doesn’t understand what he is saying. He doesn’t want people to look at the record because it will show that he and his ilk are at the very least misguided.
So instead of looking at his own actions, he lashes out at those who point out that his reasoning and his definition of science is not only fundamentally flawed, but wrong.
He then resorts to the same mantra that he always puts forth. It is as if he thinks that acting like a 6 year old who wants a cookie really matters.
(Oh, and isn’t it cute how Jeffery thinks that his new little retort reflects on others rather than himself?)
Jeff,
I have watched guitar’s comments for some time and can assure you that he is not a troll, you are. Guitars comments are well thought out and reasoned. Yours are not.
You want to discuss the science. So lets do that. What is the concentration of the acid in the oceans that is making them acidotic, as claimed by the warmest? In other words, how many moles of carbonic acid per liter over what period of time, or sulfuric acid or any other organic acid? That is the basis for the warmest argument but you can’t find the data. So gives use the data.
dave,
No thanks. Before we go on, please prove you have a rudimentary understanding of pH and tell me the concentration of free hydrogen ion in seawater.
g2 has gone of the deep end and is just lashing out. He refuses to answer, or cannot answer, why he thinks the CO2 level of a billion years ago is relevant to humankind today.
Wow. Not only is Jeffery demonstrating his lack of comprehension skills, now is is flat out lying and looking stupid in doing so.
Here are the comments in this thread alone that I have made on why the past matters:
2014-03-09 19:34:39
So the factor that Jeffery claims is driving the alleged rise in temperature is now “irrelevant.â€
2014-03-09 21:35:31
Yet you keep trying to say that CO2 drives up the temperature and or the rate of change.
Therefore the level of CO2 is relevant to your very argument.
2014-03-09 23:14:24
And as I pointed out, you’re position is wrong both scientifically and historically.
You can keep saying whatever you want but all you are doing is exposing yourself to more ridicule.
If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past doesn’t matter, then you cannot say the concentration in the atmosphere matters today because there is no base against which to prove your assertion.
Real scientists compare the known and the unknown. You want to discard the known history why? Because it shows a flaw in AGW. Facing that flaw would be catastrophic for you. So you tell people it doesn’t matter.
So while Jeffery claims I cannot say why CO2 concentrations matter, he writes that they do matter on 2014-03-09 18:58:13
Even Jeffery knows the CO2 levels in the past matter as he cites them in an attempt to prove AGW. But the moment the CO2 levels disprove what he is saying, suddenly the CO2 levels in history are “irrelevant.”
The more he talks, the more of a pseudo intellectual and a fraud he exposes himself to be.
(And now we can all wait for the churlish response of “suck it” or kiss my ass” from Jeffery. When you are losing the battles on facts, figures, logic and science, what else can you do but act like a spoiled brat?)
g2,
OK.