Obama Says Climate Change Growing Threat to Health.

[Dave007inVegas]

President Barack Obama said the curbs on carbon emissions to combat climate change that his administration plans to unveil next week will also help address a growing threat to the nation’s health.

“We don’t have to choose between the health of our economy and the health of our children,” he said in his weekly address, which was recorded yesterday at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington. “As president, and as a parent, I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that’s beyond fixing.”

More…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-31/obama-says-climate-change-growing-threat-to-health.html

Here’s a simply science lesson Obama should read before he makes preposterous statements like the one above.

Like most living things, you need oxygen to survive.

The atmosphere, which is 20 percent oxygen, supplies you and other air-breathing organisms with this vital gas.

Oxygen from the atmosphere that has dissolved in water is breathed by fish and other aquatic organisms.

Clearly, living things would have used up the available oxygen supply in the atmosphere millions of years ago if something did not return the oxygen to the air.

But what could that something be?

Consider this:

When you inhale, you take in oxygen.

When you exhale, you release the waste gas carbon dioxide.

If something used carbon dioxide and released oxygen, it would balance your use of oxygen.

That something is producers such as green plants and certain microorganisms.

These producers use carbon dioxide gas, water, and the energy of sunlight to make carbon containing compounds that are often referred to as "food."

During the food making process, the producers also produce oxygen, which is released into the environment.

Through this process, known as the oxygen cycle, there is always a plentiful supply of oxygen available for air-breathing organisms.

But what happens to the carbon in food?

How is it transformed back into carbon dioxide?

In order to extract energy from food, organisms must digest the food, or break it down into simpler substances.

This process ultimately produces water and carbon dioxide, which are released back into the environment.

 

[GasMan]

Yup. His next step. Like reading a textbook.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Yup. His next step. Like reading a textbook.

I wonder if anyone has come up with the idea of transcribing a book to a teleprompter?

 

[BleedingPurple]

President Barack Obama said the curbs on carbon emissions to combat climate change that his administration plans to unveil next week will also help address a growing threat to the nation’s health.

“We don’t have to choose between the health of our economy and the health of our children,” he said in his weekly address, which was recorded yesterday at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington. “As president, and as a parent, I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that’s beyond fixing.”

More…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-31/obama-says-climate-change-growing-threat-to-health.html

Here’s a simply science lesson Obama should read before he makes preposterous statements like the one above.

Like most living things, you need oxygen to survive.

The atmosphere, which is 20 percent oxygen, supplies you and other air-breathing organisms with this vital gas.

Oxygen from the atmosphere that has dissolved in water is breathed by fish and other aquatic organisms.

Clearly, living things would have used up the available oxygen supply in the atmosphere millions of years ago if something did not return the oxygen to the air.

But what could that something be?

Consider this:

When you inhale, you take in oxygen.

When you exhale, you release the waste gas carbon dioxide.

If something used carbon dioxide and released oxygen, it would balance your use of oxygen.

That something is producers such as green plants and certain microorganisms.

These producers use carbon dioxide gas, water, and the energy of sunlight to make carbon containing compounds that are often referred to as "food."

During the food making process, the producers also produce oxygen, which is released into the environment.

Through this process, known as the oxygen cycle, there is always a plentiful supply of oxygen available for air-breathing organisms.

But what happens to the carbon in food?

How is it transformed back into carbon dioxide?

In order to extract energy from food, organisms must digest the food, or break it down into simpler substances.

This process ultimately produces water and carbon dioxide, which are released back into the environment.

Here is an excerpt from the link you posted

"Scientists and physicians increasingly link a rise in allergies, asthma and other respiratory diseases to the elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by climate change.
A study published in the September 2011 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that asthma-related emergency hospital visits by children are likely to increase by the 2020s as climate change leads to higher ground-level ozone concentrations."

How dare the president listen to scientists and experts?

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Here is an excerpt from the link you posted

"Scientists and physicians increasingly link a rise in allergies, asthma and other respiratory diseases to the elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by climate change.
A study published in the September 2011 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that asthma-related emergency hospital visits by children are likely to increase by the 2020s as climate change leads to higher ground-level ozone concentrations."

How dare the president listen to scientists and experts?

The People’s Republic of China is the world’s largest consumer of coal, using more coal each year than the United States, the European Union, and Japan combined. Coal power has been the dominant source of energy used to fuel the rapid economic development of China in the past two decades, with significant impact on its physical environment and human population. China relies on coal power for approximately 70-80% of its energy, with 45% used for the industrial sector and the remainder used to generate electricity. By 2010, China comprised 48% of world coal consumption.

Coal is the main commercial energy fuel in India, amounting to 55% of installed electrical capacity in 2011. Ambitious plans by the Indian government to extend the electrification rate from its 2005 level of approximately 44% to the whole population, as well as catering for rapid growth in industrial and household consumption, are driving plans for a massive expansion of installed electricity capacity.

India has "proved" coal reserves estimated by the Ministry of Coal at 93 billion tons and are estimated to be sufficient for 30 to 60 years; however Indian coal is of low quality as it has a high ash content. In August 2010, the EIA projected that India has coal reserves of 62,300 million short tons.

Those two countries alone will destroy any reduction in carbon emissions the U.S. achieves.

If Obama really wants to reduce carbon emissions and save the planet he can start by not using Air Force One to go on fund raising trips, vacations and golf outings.

 

[BleedingPurple]

Those two countries alone will destroy any reduction in carbon emissions the U.S. achieves.

I do agree with this. I think he wants to be the "guy" who will go down in history as the man who changed the environment but there is no chance other dominant countries follow suit

 

[Albatross]

Tell him to do his part and stay put at home a little more.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

I do agree with this. I think he wants to be the "guy" who will go down in history as the man who changed the environment but there is no chance other dominant countries follow suit

No doubt. There is also no doubt he's an idiot.

 

[neverbend]

Obama charging at windmills, Don Quixote was his hero. What a dopey theory 'Global Warming'.

 

[Willie99]

the earth's climate has been changing for 2 billion years, thanks for playing

the earth's temperatures have been rising since the end of the last ice, long before man or the combustion engine.

scientists have told us the planet has experienced cycles of warming for 20,000 years followed by cooling for 70,000 years for a billion years now, take or minus a few hundred million I suppose.

So when some scientist can tell us why the next ice age is not coming, I'll start listening. Otherwise global warming will end, and global cooling will take over.

We better figure out how to survive the next ice age, fucking douchbags

maybe we need to all start eating more Mexican food and driving bigger cars, maybe the man made heat will save mankind

I know driving smaller cars is not going to alter the earth's climate cycle, fact

 

[Acebb]

Here is an excerpt from the link you posted

"Scientists and physicians increasingly link a rise in allergies, asthma and other respiratory diseases to the elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by climate change.
A study published in the September 2011 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that asthma-related emergency hospital visits by children are likely to increase by the 2020s as climate change leads to higher ground-level ozone concentrations."

How dare the president listen to scientists and experts?

Predictions by scientists of what is 'likely' to happen by 2020 have little to no value.

 

[wadd]

If the Lord and master said it, Im going the other way just like I have just about everything else he said, and I have been right in doing so.

 

[wadd]

Here is an excerpt from the link you posted

"Scientists and physicians increasingly link a rise in allergies, asthma and other respiratory diseases to the elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by climate change.
A study published in the September 2011 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that asthma-related emergency hospital visits by children are likely to increase by the 2020s as climate change leads to higher ground-level ozone concentrations."

How dare the president listen to scientists and experts?

Yea....HIS Scientists.
HIS "Experts" etc who will agree with him because if they do, they will all get a ton of cash, get very wealthy, and then say "Aw Shucks. it didnt work"
.....and everyone else on HIS side of this destructive BS Global warming scare, that is all about Money, Power and Control.

 

[BleedingPurple]

Yea....HIS Scientists.
HIS "Experts" etc who will agree with him because if they do, they will all get a ton of cash, get very wealthy, and then say "Aw Shucks. it didnt work"
.....and everyone else on HIS side of this destructive BS Global warming scare, that is all about Money, Power and Control.

So you are saying that they are "His scientists." This theory has been around long before Obama. I guess it is easy for them to be "his" since a far majority of scientists believe in it. Also are they "His Physicians" as well? I have mentioned this before, I personally know poor scientists who study this stuff and believe in it. It's hard to say, I will use a generalization but most the scientist I have met are an eccentric bunch.

You can argue with me and say the theory isn't real using some kind of example or your own opinion that involves science but to say it's over cash, wealth, and control is more of theory by you and a easy, uneducated response. I think in this argument I would believe the scientists and physicians over a poster.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

So you are saying that they are "His scientists." This theory has been around long before Obama. I guess it is easy for them to be "his" since a far majority of scientists believe in it. Also are they "His Physicians" as well? I have mentioned this before, I personally know poor scientists who study this stuff and believe in it. It's hard to say, I will use a generalization but most the scientist I have met are an eccentric bunch.

You can argue with me and say the theory isn't real using some kind of example or your own opinion that involves science but to say it's over cash, wealth, and control is more of theory by you and a easy, uneducated response. I think in this argument I would believe the scientists and physicians over a poster.

Theory.

Idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture.

Nothing more nothing less.

 

[BleedingPurple]

Theory.

Idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture.

Nothing more nothing less.

True that and I have always stated I am a little skeptical of it both ways. On one hand is there enough data? I guess I would have to believe the scientists because they are experts. Do some profit huge or get grants from it?, yes and that can lead to skepticism as well. Are there scientists or experts who dispute the theory, surely. I lean towards the theory because of people I know. Plus I feel that to think man doesn't change it's environment is a little naive but hey that's just me. I know what theory means but this speculation is a little more than blind.

Even saying that is there anything anyone can do about it? Not if the entire world isn't on board. Are we at a time in US history where we need to spending a lot of time on this? probably not but if not when?

 

[Dave007inVegas]

True that and I have always stated I am a little skeptical of it both ways. On one hand is there enough data? I guess I would have to believe the scientists because they are experts. Do some profit huge or get grants from it?, yes and that can lead to skepticism as well. Are there scientists or experts who dispute the theory, surely. I lean towards the theory because of people I know. Plus I feel that to think man doesn't change it's environment is a little naive but hey that's just me. I know what theory means but this speculation is a little more than blind.

Even saying that is there anything anyone can do about it? Not if the entire world isn't on board. Are we at a time in US history where we need to spending a lot of time on this? probably not but if not when?

As I see it there just isn’t enough information to make an educated decision. I think there is a higher probability of the earth being destroyed by man but not because we pollute the environment with carbon emissions.

I think a nuclear holocaust is far more likely. We humans aren’t the brightest bulbs on the tree. We are the only species on earth that kills its own other than for as a food source. We are truly the highest form of animals.

 

[BleedingPurple]

As I see it there just isn’t enough information to make an educated decision. I think there is a higher probability of the earth being destroyed by man but not because we pollute the environment with carbon emissions.

I think a nuclear holocaust is far more likely. We humans aren’t the brightest bulbs on the tree. We are the only species on earth that kills its own other than for as a food source. We are truly the highest form of animals.

I agree

 

[GasMan]

Here is an excerpt from the link you posted

"Scientists and physicians increasingly link a rise in allergies, asthma and other respiratory diseases to the elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by climate change.
A study published in the September 2011 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that asthma-related emergency hospital visits by children are likely to increase by the 2020s as climate change leads to higher ground-level ozone concentrations."

How dare the president listen to scientists and experts?

AJPM is a rag publication.

 

[BleedingPurple]

AJPM is a rag publication.

Well it was the publication used in the thread.