The UK Guardian puts it another way
Obama’s $3bn for climate fund could kickstart action on global warming
Why does he need to pledge to give money that isn’t his, ie, it’s taxpayer money, for this? There has been no statistically significant warming in over 18 years. Seriously
https://twitter.com/PeterGleick/status/533306236184186880
A 0.63C increase in over 120 years is not scary, not huge, and most likely less than should be expected during a Holocene warm period
Barack Obama’s handshake deal with China and $3bn pledge for climate financecould break down the wall between rich and poor countries that has blocked action on global warming for 20 years, observers of the negotiations said.
The White House announced the $3bn pledge on Friday, putting climate change firmly on the agenda of the G20 summit in Brisbane and injecting momentum into United Nations talks ahead of a key meeting in Lima this month.
The $3bn is the most pledged by any country to date to the Green Climate Fund, set up to help poor countries fight climate change. The US contribution puts the fund at nearly $6bn towards its initial $10bn goal.
Obviously, The Guardian is a big fan of this. How much of their own money will they pledge? How much of Obama’s own money will he pledge? How much of their own money will Believers in anthropogenic global warming/climate change pledge?
This is simply a redistribution scheme for political purposes using Other People’s hard earned money.
“Obama’s pledge to give unelected bureaucrats at the UN $3bn for climate change initiatives is an unfortunate decision to not listen to voters in this most recent election cycle,†Jim Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and the likely incoming chair of the Senate environment and public works committee said in a statement.
“The president’s climate change agenda has only siphoned precious taxpayer dollars away from the real problems facing the American people,†he added.
Inhofe has pledged to block the funds. This announcement, much like Obama’s executive amnesty, is another way for Obama to deflect the narrative and create a fight, rather than dealing with the pressing problems in the economy.
How big is Obama’s carbon footprint?
Here’s what Senator James Inhofe said about climate change in an interview:
And this man is to top the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Mr. Teach typed (once again):
Almost every scientist on Earth disagrees with you about both points. Most recognize that a rapid 0.63 increase in the global surface mean temperature is threatening. That this is “most likely LESS than should be expected during a Holocene warm period” is nonsensical.
Teach – Do you agree or disagree with Senator Inhofe’s belief that the Christian God controls the Earth’s climate?
Yeah. How dare a person have a religious belief.
Jeffery is not only no a scientist, unlike most scientists, he is anti religion.
Teach –
Let’s discuss the technical errors in your presentation. To your credit you know much more about science than does Senator Inhofe.
1. Look at the graph you presented (probably for the 1st time). You state, “A 0.63C increase in over 120 years is not scary”… the slope models a 0.63C increase per century, not per 120 yrs. In fact, over 120 yrs the increase is closer to 0.75C. It’s probably just an oversight on your part, but these oversights always seem to accrue in your favor. Probably not a coincidence.
2. Look at the straight line fitted to the data. Where is the flat portion showing the 18 yr stoppage in global warming that you mention in every climate related post? Can’t find it the graphic you used to misrepresent how much the Earth has warmed?
Let’s recap. Your graph didn’t support your claim AND further contradicted your primary talking point that the Earth stopped warming 18 years ago.
gc,
You know better than to lie like that. It’s that Inhofe’s religious beliefs are dictating his policy decisions. Perhaps you approve of ISIL using their religious beliefs to guide policy but America is different. In America, we are open to all religious beliefs but we are not yet a theocracy. The belief in mythical beings cannot supplant reason.
Do you agree with Inhofe that the Christian God controls the climate?`
Jeff,
Do you not understand that if people like Gruber are out there with an agenda and lying to us about healthcare that there are the same people lying about the climate? This is especially true when you find that the peer review process is corrupted and no descent is allowed.
Jeff,
One other point, I can believe in a God that is influencing the climate much easier than a trace gas in the atmosphere. And I am not all that sure of the God.
Where’s the lie Jeffery?
You have made your hatred of religion and believers well known here on this board.
Perhaps you should look up what a “theocracy” is before you start showing your ignorance.
Ooops.
Too late.
False beliefs like AGW cannot supplant reason, but you have no problem buying into that.
Face Jeffery, you are anathema to what the US stands for.
You know better than to lie like that. It’s that Inhofe’s religious beliefs are dictating his policy decisions.
Let’s assume for a moment that you are correct.
Inhofe’s beliefs would hold that he be honest and truthful. Are you against being honest and truthful Jeffery?
(That’s rhetorical because we all know that are lacking in any type of morals.)
The fact is that you can’t refute what he said on a factual basis, so you try and mock people based on your ignorance and prejudice.
Face it Jeffery, you’re a bigot.
So … you are “open” to all religious beliefs, as long as the believer does not take his beliefs seriously and act on them? If you believe that a politician should not be allowed to make political decisions influenced by his religious beliefs, and that voters should not be allowed to choose politicians on such a basis, then you are, by definition, not “open” to all religious beliefs. You are saying that only YOUR beliefs are allowed.
To say “both ISIS and American Christians are using their religious beliefs to guide policy and so both are equally acceptable or equally unacceptable” is too simplistic to take seriously. Surely we have to know more than “motivated by a religious belief” before we can say whether an action is good or evil, wise or foolish. Both current AGW activists and Nazi eugenicists are/were motivated by their scientific theories. Does that if we condemn Nazi racial superiority theories we must also condemn AGW activism? I presume you will reply that’s idiotic, because AGW folks are speaking truth while the Nazis were speaking lies, or something to that effect, right? Well, duh. That’s exactly the difference I see between religious beliefs: some are true and some are false. Some lead to wise actions and some lead to foolish actions. Some lead to good and some lead to evil. Just like different theories about science, or different ideas about almost anything.
He didn’t say that temperatures haven’t increased over a 120 year period. He said that they haven’t increased for the last 18 years. Look at the last 18 years of the graph. It’s basically flat.
The point, of course, is that the actual, experimental evidence does not show a “hockey stick”. It shows a very slight upward trend, which in the last couple of decades has flattened out. Is a .63 degree increase in 100 years something terrifying? Well, let’s see, how many billions of people have died from global-warming related causes since 1914? Can you document any? If the temperature did go up another .65 degrees by 2024, how much suffering would that actually cause? What evidence do you have that the Earth’s present temperature is exactly perfect, and that any increase will cause disaster. Not what speculation or unsubstantiated computer models, but actual evidence?
Arg, I meant, of course, by 2114, not 2024. Meant to add 100 and added 10. Brain freeze.
Due to global cooling, no doubt.
kids,
It’s that Inhofe specifically stated that his religious ideology supplants reason and evidence regarding global warming. He dismissed all scientific evidence because his God determines the climate.
In the modern world religious beliefs and scientific knowledge are not equivalently valuable tools for making policy.
Is that really the argument you wish to make – that religious beliefs trump evidence? Regardless of what impacts humans may have on the natural world, God will take care of it? What, me worry?
I had it right.
Again: Do you agree with Senator Inhofe that God regulates the Earth’s climate?
Someone typed:
That’s not what I said. Please re-read. My point stands. At a rate of increase of 0.63C per century, in 120 years we would expect about 0.75C warming. I’m not trying to trick you, Mr. Teach is (he hasn’t responded as to whether he was mistaken or malicious).
Also look at the graph in this post – not other graphs – the one above. I didn’t insert it, Mr. Teach did. Use your eyes. Are you looking at that graph?
2014 minus 18 gives us 1996. Draw a line from the 1996 to 2014 on this graph – the slope of that line is GREATER than the slope of the 120 year line. Flat, my ass! According to Teach’s and your own data the Earth is warming FASTER in the last 18 years!!
These data show the OPPOSITE of what you and Teach claim. If he or you were seriously interested, you would want to understand why these data are different from the RSS modeled data that Mr. Teach usually presents.
Except for the part where Inhofoe does not claim to be divinely guided or the state is divinely guided, you are dead solid on target.
It is amazing that you don’t have the reading comprehension skills of a 2nd grader.
qc
Here’s what I typed you lying piece of scheisse.
I said we are not yet a theocracy. Are you arguing we ARE a theocracy. If not, what are you arguing?
Senator Inhofe quoted scripture to justify his position. Do you Deny that your scripture is divinely guided? He said God, whom I guess you consider divine, is running things so that we don’t have to.
You’re an ignorant sack of twit.
Can anyone answer my questions about Mr. Teach’s falsehoods? Bueller? Bueller?
Typical.
No one here can man up and say, “Oops, I did it again”. You just ignore the inconvenient truths and hope enough new posts push them far enough downstream.
The ubiquitous qc ignores the important and relevant questions only to write multiple comments on exact definitions of irrelevant words.
Typical. qc uses every Alinsky trick in the book to avoid the issues. He/she is a textbook of logical fallacies.
I know that you are having problems understanding, but you dismissed Inhoefe’s opinion (and they are taken out of context, btw) because you think that his opinions would lead to a theocracy.
In fact, you wrote:
And then claimed he was acting on a “mythical being.”
However, as I showed you, even if Inhoefe was acting on his beliefs, that does not take us toward a theocracy – even under the definition you cited.
It is amazing that you love think religious people believe in myths and yet you hold onto your own cultish beliefs and want them to be pushed upon the rest of the world.
Once again, we see your hypocrisy in every thing that you do.
I’ll take that as no, you do not wish to address the topic.
Also, do you believe God controls the climate?
Teach typed:
Yet, the graph he supplied clearly shows warming the past 18 years. Anyone explain the discrepancy?
I don’t know anything about this Senator Inhofe so I’m not going to draw conclusions about what the man thinks based on a summary of his position made by someone who clearly states that he believes the man is a fool.
If you actually want an answer to your question: No, I don’t think we should just not worry because God will take care of everything. But I also think that God certainly could control the climate if he so chose. My religious beliefs do not lead me to any particular conclusions about climate. Which as a practical matter leaves me in pretty much the same position when considering climate change as an atheist: I have to look at the scientific evidence and go from there.
That said: I question if Sen Inhofe is saying that “religious belief trumps scientific evidence”. I suspect it’s more like, “My religious beliefs contribute to a total world view. When the evidence is complex and could potentially be interpreted in multiple ways, I tend to the interpretation that is consistent with general ideas that have proven reliable in the past.”
Frankly, I’m sure that lots of people use such a guideline. I have seen many times that objects fall when you drop them. If I heard on the news that scientists have proven that things DON’T fall when you drop them but hover motionless or fly off into space, I would not instantly abandon decades of observation and experience just because “experts” said so. Okay, an extreme story like that and I’d probably guess they’re talking about some special case, or that the reporter is grossly mis-stating what the scientists actually found. But take some real cases: I saw a story on the news a while back where they said the space shuttle was travelling at 7 times the speed of light. I’m guessing someone told the reporter it was travelling 7 times the speed of SOUND and he mis-reported it. But I didn’t just abandon everything I thought I knew about relativity because I saw one story on the news. Or: 9 out of 10 experts recommend such-and-such brand. Excuse me but I’m suspicious. Who conducted this study, and how was it done?
jay,
Thanks for that. Makes sense to me.