Obama says 'no greater threat to planet than climate change'

US President Barack Obama says climate change poses the single biggest threat to the world
US President Barack Obama says climate change poses the single biggest threat to the world

US President Barack Obama said Saturday that climate change poses the world's biggest single threat.

"Today, there's no greater threat to our planet than climate change," Obama said in his weekly address, which had an environmental theme to mark Earth Day on April 22.

"Climate change can no longer be denied, or ignored," he added, noting that 2014 was the hottest year on record.

The United States is the second largest greenhouse gas emitter after China, and Obama has pledged to reduce US climate pollution by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

"This is an issue that's bigger and longer-lasting than my presidency," Obama said.

"This is the only planet we've got. And years from now, I want to be able to look our children and grandchildren in the eye and tell them that we did everything we could to protect it."

Obama said he would travel to the Florida Everglades, a region known for its tropical wetlands, on Wednesday to talk about the ways in which climate change affects the economy.

"Rising sea levels are putting a national treasure –- and an economic engine for the South Florida tourism industry –- at risk," Obama said of the famous wetlands.

Obama, who has made the fight against one of his priorities, hopes to help seal a global deal at an international climate conference in Paris in December.


Explore further

US renews pledge to cut emissions 26–28% by 2025

© 2015 AFP

Citation: Obama says 'no greater threat to planet than climate change' (2015, April 18) retrieved 19 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-04-obama-greater-threat-planet-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
73 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 18, 2015
"The polar bears will be fine". - Freeman Dyson

"What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate." - Freeman Dyson

As a general rule, if Freeman Dyson doesn't understand something, you don't, either. And yes, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm), I am talking to you.

Apr 18, 2015

Are you still worshiping at the Shrine of Dyson? Why would you want to think one silly man had all the answers? This goober Dyson thinks nuclear weapons are a good thing.

Apr 18, 2015
Name one CO2 scientist that says science isn't "allowed" to say they are more than 97% certain but allows you fear mongering "believers" to tell our children it's "proven" they are doomed to the greenhouse gas ovens of an exaggerated CO2 crisis.

Apr 18, 2015
memememeeeee is just afraid it will mean taxes. Conservatives do not like to pay their own way. That's why they get tax cuts, dodges, special benefits, and general coddling.

Have you seen them actually PAY for their Bush Wars? PAY for their Police State? PAY for the corporate crime and government ripoffs in the terrible Bush Years of rampant squandering?

Apr 18, 2015
Yeah, article does not mention CO2. There's a reason.
There's also a reason that politicians are "taking action," on climate change.
More solar, more wind, more conservation, though this isn't associated with the changes we are observing now, outside our windows, means reduction in heat, and a change in climate that these politicians will take credit for.

Mark this, another prediction by me. Above is the path, above is the rationale for politicians, and they will not be the same...

Apr 18, 2015
"gkam5 / 5 (3) 5 hours ago

Are you still worshiping at the Shrine of Dyson? Why would you want to think one silly man had all the answers? This goober Dyson thinks nuclear weapons are a good thing."

They are. They would eliminate the human vermin, polluters and green hypocrites equally. Why is this always about people, if it's really a serious issue? It's about rejecting people that don't "think right". Your tweet said it all.

"Grace Kam @saygraceee · Sep 7
So sick of being surrounded by people who do not care or care at the eleventh hour!"

Rest assured. We will not care at one minute to the 12th hour! Which is when y'all will finally start acting like you believe what you say and POSSIBLY divest yourself of your carbon spewing, oil burning banner that proclaims, "I'm a hypocrite!".

Apr 18, 2015
"Shootist1 / 5 (3) 5 hours ago
"The polar bears will be fine". - Freeman Dyson

"What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate." - Freeman Dyson

As a general rule, if Freeman Dyson doesn't understand something, you don't, either. And yes, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm), I am talking to you."

Bugger yourself in the asshole until you bleed, idiot! Gawd I would love kick you so hard in the teeth that your festering gob would never open again.

Get your facts right. I've studied under Dyson and you are completely misrepresenting his position.

1). He believes that the planet is warming and the source is made made CO2 emissions.
2). He does not believe the predictive models have an acceptable signal to noise ratio, at present.
3). He is deliberately setting out to be "subversive".
4). He has said many times he hopes that #3 is not taken as a hypothesis of its own and that #2 doesn't lead to people saying #1 isn't a problem.

Apr 18, 2015
Another Obama lie.

"Space experts from around the world rallied to warn a colossal missile capable of destroying cities and even wiping out civilisation could strike at any moment.

The chilling alert came at the unveiling of a major drive to protect Earth from a "life altering" disaster similar to that which destroyed the dinosaurs.

Experts have called for a massive investment to locate and track a million potentially deadly asteroids currently not on any radar but which pose a huge risk to Earth.

Research scientist and US astronaut Rusty Schweickart said it is "only a matter of time" before one hits. He warned it is out there "with our address on it"."
http://www.expres...ientists

Apr 18, 2015
I play cricket with his son George in a seniors league. I know his father from school and tea time sandwiches and I can tell you, that he would not suffer the denier fools on this page gladly. If he heard your braying sound and heard you quoting him to back it up, he would literally spit in your face. I can guarantee he'd have a better conversation with Obummer than with you.

Apr 18, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 18, 2015
Oh Bummer, is more right than he will ever know.
These AGW Cult Profiteers and the morons,, who blindly follow them, will kill us all.
Just take a look at all the "brilliant" ideas they have implemented.

Apr 18, 2015
This is a threat to the part of the establishment that is not adequate enough to figure out how to adjust. Its a great opportunity to get some new folk into the establishment by allowing farms to fail and so on down the chain for not recognizing new potentials and fading old potentials.

Apr 18, 2015
AGW, a record of the total carbon burned is available from any good almanac. It's vital economic information. And it doesn't require any scary integrals to calculate.

The effectiveness of CO₂ as a global warming gas has been proven over and over. This is a matter of physical fact, not a subject for argumentation.

Given these two facts, the progress of anthropogenic global warming is obvious. And all the measurements (and there's another one every week, these days) say that what obviously must happen is obviously happening.

Your mixing of politics (Obama) and science (global warming) is fairly transparent. Would you care to discuss this matter in terms of the publications in the scientific literature, or are you so racist against the black President that you cannot? That's the only question with merit here.

Apr 18, 2015
There is some good news out there: http://www.reuter...20150326

Seems the Chinese government is finally starting to get it.

Apr 18, 2015
First Obama campaigns for change, now he's against it?

Thanks Da S, good article. It's embarrassing though isn't it? An unfree country able to take better even market promoting action than the free world has been able to do... ever?

Apr 18, 2015
What a wonderful lie.

I can think of several things both in mans control and not in man's control that are worse than AGW any day.....like the 10k domestic murders per year in the U.S. or the 30k inuries, 10k deaths per year caused by alcohol related car accidents.

That's already worse than "Climate Change" (the mishandled pseudo-term for "Global Warming").

A supervolcano is worse than AGW

An asteroid hitting a city is worse than AGW.

WWIII is worse than AGW.

The Spanish Flu is worse than AGW, and AIDS is worse than AGW.

There was more starvation due to droughts in the 60-80's than since, which were allegedly cooler years.

I can cite more stuff, but you get the picture. Obama is misinformed as usual.

Apr 18, 2015
Obama is misinformed as usual.

No. He is a liar.

Apr 18, 2015
"WMD!" - Fall for that one?

"Bring 'em on!" - Probably not for that one, which required service. So, who was the liar? And who was the one fooled?

Apr 18, 2015
"But what happens now that global warming has met reality? Well, as said, it has to disappear. Sadly, its absence leaves nothing for government to cure.

Enter sustainability, a secular religion which is gaining converts faster than "outrage" spreads across the Internet. Rachelle Peterson and Peter Wood at the non-progressive National Association of Scholars call sustainability "Higher Education's New Fundamentalism", and have written a report describing this new form of paganism. Anybody interested in the future of the Western university should read it.

Global warming had a mortal weakness. It was testable. Sustainability does not suffer from the same fault. It need never meet reality. No matter what any individual or organization does, its activities can always be labeled "unsustainable." This is because there is no definition of what sustainability is."

http://www.breitb...5/04/18/

Apr 19, 2015
That's no different than claiming, "no greater threat to planet than the boogy man". So-called climate change is nothing more than junk science.

Apr 19, 2015
What a wonderful lie.
I can think of several things both in mans control and not in man's control that are worse than AGW any day.....like the 10k domestic murders per year in the U.S. or the 30k inuries, 10k deaths per year caused by alcohol related car accidents.
That's already worse than "Climate Change" (the mishandled pseudo-term for "Global Warming").
A supervolcano is worse than AGW
An asteroid hitting a city is worse than AGW.
WWIII is worse than AGW.
The Spanish Flu is worse than AGW, and AIDS is worse than AGW.
There was more starvation due to droughts in the 60-80's than since, which were allegedly cooler years.....

On the balance of probability, most those things are passingly unlikely to occur, whereas
AGW is happenning now and along with another 1C rise certain to happen due intertia, there is much more likely to follow due our fossile burning.
To the scientifically informed it's a no-brainer.
To the ideologically informed it's but a relexive rant.

Apr 19, 2015
I do not believe they are so concerned about climate after systematically refusing to sign international agreements reached in Kyoto. Does not stop extraction of shale gas which emit ultra potent greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere in large quantities. Endless demagogue. Another idea stay behaind this eco hysteria. The man is known by his deeds, not by candied words .

Apr 19, 2015
dlethe claimed
That's no different than claiming, "no greater threat to planet than the boogy man". So-called climate change is nothing more than junk science.
You are doing Science an immense dis-service and obviously know nothing of heat re radiative transfer, answer this straighfroward question if can, because if its 'junk science' as you claim it should be easy to debunk, show us some intelligence and integrity to deal with this question then:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, such as CO2 with known & irrefutable properties, somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity?"

And if you can dlethe, address the pattern of temperatures in this data:-
http://images.rem...ies.html

Bear in mind GHG's have specific radiative forcings, explain them too if you can:-
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

dlethe, junk comments from someone who doesnt under discipline of Science & obviously has nil education !

Apr 19, 2015
viko_mx claimed
The man is known by his deeds, not by candied words .
Just like your claimed god of Moses, known by his deeds !

1. Causes everyone for all time to suffer because he let a devil manipulate ONE girl even though he could foresee it would happen
2. Therefore did not educate especially re "Guile"
3. Destroyed 2 cities with innocent children
4. Killed 50,000 for being associated with two people who looked in a box
5. Made his son suffer in an isolated place which was badly recorded
6. Cannot make an indestructible bible and give to all people equally upon puberty
7. Cannot or will not stop children dying from diseases/accidents before puberty etc

Yes we know Moses' god by his actions, far more consistent with a Devil than a loving father !

viko_mx, what are you doing here, you don't understand Science, you have nil understanding of breadth of agreements or details and you blindly follow the logic of insanity in a book which is only claim !

Apr 19, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
First Obama campaigns for change, now he's against it?
Thanks Da S, good article. It's embarrassing though isn't it? An unfree country able to take better even market promoting action than the free world has been able to do... ever?
Whats embarrasing Water_Prophet is you claim to be a Scientist but, have never proven/qualified ANY of your claims !

Why do you bother to make stupid unoriginal egotistical claims:-

1. "4 technical degrees" ?
2. CO2 is only 0.00009 W/m^2 ?
3. Wiki agrees with you yet wiki's figure is 16,666 x greater !
4. Business uses your results ?
5. A leader in "Predictive Analytics" ?

PROVE EVEN ONE OF THEM !

Why can't you ?

Try CO2 of 0.00009W/m^2, its easy its only maths, not years of study at a university like the educated

You come across as a complete Pathological Liar !
https://en.wikipe...al_lying

Grow up Water_Prophet or go away.

Apr 19, 2015
Water_Prophet uttered
Yeah, article does not mention CO2. There's a reason
Obviously its not a complete treatise on whole AGW issue

Water_Prophet naive claim
There's also a reason that politicians are "taking action," on climate change
Other than managing change & Science re irrefutable thermal properties of GHG's what do you claim?

Water_Prophet claimed
..with the changes we are observing now, outside our windows, means reduction in heat, and a change in climate that these politicians will take credit for
What reduction in heat, what drugs are you on, you flip flop like a Pathological Liar !

Water_Prophet claimed
Mark this, another prediction by me?
What prediction ? You show your ego is proven to be FAR more important to you than the Science & the need for change.

Water_Prophet with incoherent babble
Above is the path, above is the rationale for politicians, and they will not be the same
Huh ?
Why can't you prove ANY of your claims ?

Apr 19, 2015
On the balance of probability, most those things are passingly unlikely to occur, whereas
AGW is happenning now and along with another 1C rise certain to happen due intertia, there is much more likely to follow due our fossile burning.
To the scientifically informed it's a no-brainer.
To the ideologically informed it's but a relexive rant.


We have higher food productivity and more predictable weather than when the climate was 1C cooler.

We don't want pre-industrial temperatures when people froze to death or starved from famines more often.

We don't want even once per ten years ice jams on the southern mississippi river like a century ago.

We're better off now, or even a degree warmer for good measure. All those busted piping from freezes would suck. Icing on roads cutting industry and jobs for weeks at a time would suck.

The Russians are experiencing some of the most extreme warming, and they WANT it so their climate will become better suited to prosperity.

Apr 19, 2015
The Russians are experiencing some of the most extreme warming, and they WANT it so their climate will become better suited to prosperity.


A mild climate led to the prosperity of Genghis Khan and his hoards.

In those days, beneficial climate led to more resources, more horses, more trees for ships (Vikings), more food for warriors to expand.
Technology has not mitigated all risks to prosperity, a warmer climate is still of great benefit for creating more agricultural wealth and prosperity, as long as the socialists are not controlling the lives of others.

Apr 19, 2015
"The polar bears will be fine". - Freeman Dyson

"What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate." - Freeman Dyson


"I have the sense that when consensus is forming like ice hardening on a lake, Dyson will do his best to chip at the ice" -Steven Weinberg

Dyson is well known for his contrarian streak in all sorts of issues. Although "chipping the ice" is important to keep science progressing, laypeople are well advised to stick to the scientific consensus when making important decisions. If you'd go against the consensus in all matters science, life would be very hard.

Apr 19, 2015
Would you care to discuss this matter in terms of the publications in the scientific literature, or are you so racist against the black President that you cannot?


If disagreeing with Obama was due to racism, wouldn't it logically follow that Obama must then be Omniscient? Is Obama is your personal god, or are you playing the charlatan race-card?

............

"....if the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody is going to go for that. I won't go for that." - B. Obama

Apr 19, 2015
Ever change your mind after seeing the real evidence? I enlisted and volunteered for the war, but turned against it while still in it. You can change and grow, too.

It ain't easy, but it is necessary.

Apr 19, 2015
scientific consensus when making important decisions.


What IS the consensus?

AGWites had to lie about that AND use that lie to censor real science.

Apr 19, 2015
We have higher food productivity and more predictable weather than when the climate was 1C cooler.

Incorrect ... weather is much more unpredictable under a weaker PJS.
High food productivity - explain that to Californian farmers under the current drought and city dwellers as desalination plants have to be built to make up the water used for irrigation (FI).
We don't want pre-industrial temperatures when people froze to death or starved from famines more often.

Maybe because of poor housing and pre industrial food production/transport/management, yes - not now. Did they in the NE USA this last 2 winters?
But lets not discuss droughts and heat deaths in the 3rd world eh? - I know that don't count with deniers (being a largely US breed).
We don't want even once per ten years ice jams on the southern mississippi river like a century ago.

Bless (as in the good Ol' US of A) example of the above.

cont

Apr 19, 2015
cont

We're better off now, or even a degree warmer for good measure. All those busted piping from freezes would suck. Icing on roads cutting industry and jobs for weeks at a time would suck.

Again selfish and wrong headed ignoring the extremes of warming and (way in the future) coastal threat for eg Florida ( again focus on US centricism).

The Russians are experiencing some of the most extreme warming, and they WANT it so their climate will become better suited to prosperity.

May be true, may not - but then they are commie eh?

Right Returners - You really are a nasty selfish lot aren't you? Deniers. This is revoltingly US and me-centric example of the breed.
I now ignore you.

Apr 19, 2015
"The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors."
http://www.popula...sts.html

Apr 19, 2015
Waiting, AGreatWhopper. Noticed you haven't responded. Figure you're scared.

Apr 20, 2015
I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study
Name them. Then we'll be able to evaluate the sample size, and email them ourselves to find out whether you're lying or not. I'm gonna bet you're cherry-picking, or lying, or both, rggy, because you've been caught lying and cherry-picking before.

Apr 21, 2015
Noumenon claimed
If disagreeing with Obama was due to racism, wouldn't it logically follow that Obama must then be Omniscient?
Of course not, are you suggesting boolean logica automatically includes unstated assumptions as PART of the logical process of deduction or even naive inference ?

What are you on ?

Comparatively, as to what we as humans are directly responsible for ie NOT asteroids, solar flares etc, then obviously in that context AGW is the most important issue for the human race as a whole integrated over the whole planet.

If we had at least a small negative feedback effect that just might ameliorate increasing CO2 or increasing heat retention such as reflecting more light before the visible shortwave is re-radiated as long wave infra red or even preventing it getting to Earth in the first place then great, then we might see nature accelerate negative feedback effects.

The opposite however is more present.

Lower albedo, less glacial extent etc etc

Apr 21, 2015
Noumenon claimed
If disagreeing with Obama was due to racism, wouldn't it logically follow that Obama must then be Omniscient?
Of course not, are you suggesting boolean logica automatically includes unstated assumptions as PART of the logical process of deduction or even naive inference ?


I'm not the one making a logical fallacy. I was responding to DaSchnieb's baseless charge of racism, with an obviously deliberate absurdity. How did you miss that?

Perhaps you can explain why DaSchnieb would mention "racism" in this thread, rather than steping over that logically fallacy to find fault in my response to it?

Apr 22, 2015
Noumenon replied
I'm not the one making a logical fallacy. I was responding to DaSchnieb's baseless charge of racism, with an obviously deliberate absurdity. How did you miss that?
You didnt make it clear who you were quoting... I use the person's name at the top, its a great efficient method to pin things down to save time so we don't have to go back over things :-)

Da Schnieb was asking a question with some sarcasm but, the fact you continued on it with a made up strawman type argument INSTEAD of focussing on a publication as he urged is what caused the problem, so therefore one can only conclude you won't reference a publication, so you only have claims nothing to reference and therefore nothing definitive :-(

Noumenon suggested
Perhaps you can explain why DaSchnieb would mention "racism" in this thread, rather than steping over that logically fallacy to find fault in my response to it?
More efficient doh to ask him, I am NOT your secretary ;-)

Apr 22, 2015
You didnt make it clear who you were quoting...

I provided a quote to what I was responding to, why does it matter who?
so therefore one can only conclude you won't reference a publication, so you only have claims nothing to reference and therefore nothing definitive :-(

What claims are you referring to? I don't see a bibliography list at the bottom of your above post questioning my response to DaSchnieb.
Perhaps you can explain why DaSchnieb would mention "racism" in this thread, rather than steping over that [logical] fallacy to find fault in my response to it?

More efficient doh to ask him, I am NOT your secretary ;-)

And yet your willing to critique my post?


Apr 22, 2015
btw, you still have not answered my question in This Thread, wrt 'why mention that more CO2 needs more water; if not to imply that that condition will not be met?',.... I had provided references that show otherwise.

DaSchnieb made that same implication in This Thread, and again did the same as you, and danced around my point, and never answered my legitimate question about that.

You guys do a good job at defending AGW, but then selectively hide under your desks rather than admit you were wrong. This actually hurts your cause. And please do not tell me about 'non-linear DNA' or some theory from the 1820's that I did not reference.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more