Most Americans want Barack Obama back as President, poll shows

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113

Doesn't really answer my question does it? You bring up a mercury map when I asked you about the ice ages and what caused them to melt. There were no power plants 20,000 years ago or in the previous 4 billion years before that. The sun is the biggest determining factor in our weather.
 

bamaEER

Freshman
May 29, 2001
32,435
60
0
Doesn't really answer my question does it? You bring up a mercury map when I asked you about the ice ages and what caused them to melt. There were no power plants 20,000 years ago or in the previous 4 billion years before that. The sun is the biggest determining factor in our weather.
This was about Pruitt and his quest to dismantle the EPA's science with his non-science. You moved the goal post to climate change.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
Totally agree. But it has to start somewhere and the Paris agreement was a starting point.

it is not fair. We have been doing everything possible, within reason, for our citizens. Setting unreasonable US levels at great expense to our citizens is not fair to us while other countries do almost nothing. This is a rich man's fantasy not the average person. They want jobs, not higher taxes and more job killing regulations.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
I watched her get destroyed the other day due to her lack of experience (none?) with public schools.

I understand science and a lot of the EPA is not grounded in science but liberal talking points.
Based on that statement, I don't think that you know the first thing about the US EPA.

I know enough about the EPA that it is used by liberal presidents to get what they want when they can;t legislate it. Yes, our public education in the inner city is so good, maybe you should move there andsend your kids there. Do you really going to defend the status quo as it comes to the poor results of public education? Unions want to maintain their power not improve teaching. By the way, I voted for the dumbass president who started the EPA. It has morped into a political arm of the dems.
 

bamaEER

Freshman
May 29, 2001
32,435
60
0
it is not fair. We have been doing everything possible, within reason, for our citizens. Setting unreasonable US levels at great expense to our citizens is not fair to us while other countries do almost nothing. This is a rich man's fantasy not the average person. They want jobs, not higher taxes and more job killing regulations.
We have shown that these standards work. Atmospheric mercury has leveled off and we just need to move carefully from here.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63
I know enough about the EPA that it is used by liberal presidents to get what they want when they can;t legislate it. Yes, our public education in the inner city is so good, maybe you should move there andsend your kids there. Do you really going to defend the status quo as it comes to the poor results of public education? Unions want to maintain their power not improve teaching. By the way, I voted for the dumbass president who started the EPA. It has morped into a political arm of the dems.
Obviously the Republicans and this admin are proposing changes to the EPA to conform to their political ideas so that goes both ways. Her lack of experience with public schools may keep her from being confirmed, simply being an advocate for charter schools is not good enough.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
I never brought it up. My point is simply that Pruitt doesn't know ****.

Neither do a lot of liberal senators about science. Consensus is not science. At one time there was consensus that the earth was flat, amiright? All it takes is one to disprove a consensus.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
We have shown that these standards work. Atmospheric mercury has leveled off and we just need to move carefully from here.
You know, I can accept that. I can accept that we should strive for a cleaner planet. I can not accept forcing on our citizens unreasonable govt regulations while the other countries do nothing, making our products more expensive. Just like the CAFE standards that are not reasonable. Let Americans decide what they want to buy. It is making vehicles less safe.
 

bamaEER

Freshman
May 29, 2001
32,435
60
0
Neither do a lot of liberal senators about science. Consensus is not science. At one time there was consensus that the earth was flat, amiright? All it takes is one to disprove a consensus.
Evidence-based decision making. No reason to not do it, in fact it's dangerous to not do it.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
Obviously the Republicans and this admin are proposing changes to the EPA to conform to their political ideas so that goes both ways. Her lack of experience with public schools may keep her from being confirmed, simply being an advocate for charter schools is not good enough.

Why do teachers unions oppose schools that bring a better education to inner city yutes? It's because they lose power. It's there only reason and the kids suffer. How about we try a different approach than what's been going on, unless you are happy with how inner city youth are being educated or lack thereof.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
Evidence-based decision making. No reason to not do it, in fact it's dangerous to not do it.

Liberals do not use evidence based only hysteria based. In the 70's we were going to freeze over, now we are going to drown. it's just hysteria about something that they are not in control of. I do not want you to think that I want widespread pollution, I want reasonable regs.
 

WhiteTailEER

Sophomore
Jun 17, 2005
11,534
170
0
A total of 52 per cent of Americans are yearning for Mr Obama, found a survey from Public Policy Polling, while just 43 per cent are glad that Mr Trump is in the White House.

Furthermore, 40 per cent want the new President to be impeached, up from 35 per cent one week ago.

More than 500,000 people have also signed up to a petition by campaign group Impeach Trump Now on the basis that he has not taken a far enough step away from his real estate empire whilst in government.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...cy-polling-muslim-ban-obamacare-a7560256.html

I don't even understand the point of a poll like this ... although it does remind me:

Who was that one poster that kept insisting without a shadow of a doubt that Obama was going to claim a national emergency so he could stay on for a third term. He. Was. Absolutely. Sure.

Of course, I think the same guy said that we'd all be dead by now from WWIII too.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63
Why do teachers unions oppose schools that bring a better education to inner city yutes? It's because they lose power. It's there only reason and the kids suffer. How about we try a different approach than what's been going on, unless you are happy with how inner city youth are being educated or lack thereof.
That's all very interesting and hopefully the next person that the admin nominates will be better qualified to take on those issues.
 

WhiteTailEER

Sophomore
Jun 17, 2005
11,534
170
0
In the 70's we were going to freeze over, now we are going to drown. it's just hysteria about something that they are not in control of.

Please stop with this ... I've already shown multiple articles that show that this was never what climate scientists were saying.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
That's all very interesting and hopefully the next person that the admin nominates will be better qualified to take on those issues.

If you nominate someone who believes in the status quo, probably acceptable to liberals like yourself, nothing changes,
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63
I don't even understand the point of a poll like this ... although it does remind me:

Who was that one poster that kept insisting without a shadow of a doubt that Obama was going to claim a national emergency so he could stay on for a third term. He. Was. Absolutely. Sure.

Of course, I think the same guy said that we'd all be dead by now from WWIII too.
I thought the poll was too good not to post and knew that a few heads would explode here. ROLO knows that he's a nut and I've not needed to remind him of the fact as long as he stays on the other board.
 

WhiteTailEER

Sophomore
Jun 17, 2005
11,534
170
0
I thought the poll was too good not to post and knew that a few heads would explode here. ROLO knows that he's a nut and I've not needed to remind him of the fact as long as he stays on the other board.

I don't have an issue with you posting it ... I just don't understand the point of taking the poll in the first place
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
Please stop with this ... I've already shown multiple articles that show that this was never what climate scientists were saying.

No but I take issue with people who say that climate change is man made. The climate has changed since the earth was formed over 4 billions years ago. The sun is the biggest determinent, not our own collection carbon atoms.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63
If you nominate someone who believes in the status quo, probably acceptable to liberals like yourself, nothing changes,
She's simply unqualified to hold the position imo and that of others. You can't just hand out vouchers to everyone. This is not my area but I'd expect that some reform of public schools needs to take place and she didn't seem to have much experience with them so she didn't seem like a likely choice to oversee something like that.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
Not true. Emissions have the greatest effect on our environment.

How many ice ages have there been? How did they disappear? Emissions from power plants that did not exist? I'm pretty sure that you think clean water is a real problem and I have to say over 20 years ago, we were discussing at dinner what we thought would be the first real problem we encountered as a people and i said clean water. On that point we can agree. TGhe sun has the greatest effect on our environment adn there's nothing we can do about it.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
How many ice ages have there been? How did they disappear? Emissions from power plants that did not exist? I'm pretty sure that you think clean water is a real problem and I have to say over 20 years ago, we were discussing at dinner what we thought would be the first real problem we encountered as a people and i said clean water. On that point we can agree. TGhe sun has the greatest effect on our environment adn there's nothing we can do about it.

Ever heard of volcanoes? They have traced the timing of massive eruptions and shown the link with the disappearance of the ice age.

 

bornaneer

Senior
Jan 23, 2014
30,216
846
113
Ever heard of volcanoes? They have traced the timing of massive eruptions and shown the link with the disappearance of the ice age.

How many EO's did President Obama to deal with the volcanos and massive ocean venting problem taking place. I also did not see any that would deal with the everyday traffic issue around the country. He would DO NOTHING to affect his voting blocs in any cities. Yet he had no such compassion for Mr. Miner in Logan County WV.
 
Last edited:

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
Ever heard of volcanoes? They have traced the timing of massive eruptions and shown the link with the disappearance of the ice age.

When and how did the ice age end? Could another one start?
Chase H., Grade 3

Name:
Ro Kinzler
Job Title:
Director, National Center for Science Literacy, Education, and Technology
Known For:
Ro is a geologist. She is also the director of the department at the Museum that created OLogy!
Cool Fact:
Ro has trekked up and down the glacier-covered summit of Mount Shasta three times. This dormant volcano is 14,161 feet high!
Dear Chase,

I like how your question addresses both the past and the future of ice ages.




We are probably living in an ice age right now! But Earth's climate doesn't stay cold during the entire ice age.


It turns out that we are most likely in an "ice age" now. So, in fact, the last ice age hasn't ended yet!

Scientists call this ice age the Pleistocene Ice Age. It has been going on since about 2.5 million years ago (and some think that it's actually part of an even longer ice age that started as many as 40 million years ago).

The curious thing about ice ages is that the temperature of Earth's atmosphere doesn't stay cold the entire time. Instead, the climate flip-flops between what scientists call "glacial periods" and "interglacial periods."

Glacial periods last tens of thousands of years. Temperatures are much colder, and ice covers more of the planet.

On the other hand, interglacial periods last only a few thousand years and the climate conditions are similar to those on Earth today. We are in an interglacial period right now. It began at the end of the last glacial period, about 10,000 years ago.




The variation of sunlight reaching Earth is one cause of ice ages.


Scientists are still working to understand what causes ice ages. One important factor is the amount of light Earth receives from the Sun . The amount of sunlight that reaches Earth can vary quite a lot, mainly due to three factors:

  • how much Earth is tilted relative to the Sun
  • whether Earth wobbles a lot or a little as it spins on its axis (kind of like how a toy top can wobble a lot or a little as it spins)
  • the shape of Earth's orbit as it goes around the Sun (whether it is shaped more like a circle or more like an ellipse or oval)


Over thousands of years, the amount of sunshine reaching Earth changes by quite a lot, particularly in the northern latitudes, the area near and around the North Pole. When less sunlight reaches the northern latitudes, temperatures drop and more water freezes into ice, starting an ice age. When more sunlight reaches the northern latitudes, temperatures rise, ice sheets melt, and the ice age ends. But there are many other factors. So if you became a climate scientist one day, you could make your own discoveries!




Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled through the thick sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.


To find out more about Earth's climate in the past, scientists study ice cores. These samples tell us that during the current ice age, climate on Earth has flip-flopped between glacial and interglacial periods at least 17 times!

So it is very likely that Earth will turn cold again, possibly within the next several thousand years. But, we have to keep in mind that human activities today are impacting climate on a global scale. So when we predict future climate changes, including the next glacial period, we need to consider the changes that humans are causing.

Keep on asking questions! There's still much we don't know about the past and future of our planet.




 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
Ever heard of volcanoes? They have traced the timing of massive eruptions and shown the link with the disappearance of the ice age.


Did we cause the volcanos to erupt? Do we control them too? Your answer shows how little man impacts the weather. 75% of the earth is cover by water. The land mass is mostly empty.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
When and how did the ice age end? Could another one start?
Chase H., Grade 3

Name:
Ro Kinzler
Job Title:
Director, National Center for Science Literacy, Education, and Technology
Known For:
Ro is a geologist. She is also the director of the department at the Museum that created OLogy!
Cool Fact:
Ro has trekked up and down the glacier-covered summit of Mount Shasta three times. This dormant volcano is 14,161 feet high!
Dear Chase,

I like how your question addresses both the past and the future of ice ages.




We are probably living in an ice age right now! But Earth's climate doesn't stay cold during the entire ice age.


It turns out that we are most likely in an "ice age" now. So, in fact, the last ice age hasn't ended yet!

Scientists call this ice age the Pleistocene Ice Age. It has been going on since about 2.5 million years ago (and some think that it's actually part of an even longer ice age that started as many as 40 million years ago).

The curious thing about ice ages is that the temperature of Earth's atmosphere doesn't stay cold the entire time. Instead, the climate flip-flops between what scientists call "glacial periods" and "interglacial periods."

Glacial periods last tens of thousands of years. Temperatures are much colder, and ice covers more of the planet.

On the other hand, interglacial periods last only a few thousand years and the climate conditions are similar to those on Earth today. We are in an interglacial period right now. It began at the end of the last glacial period, about 10,000 years ago.




The variation of sunlight reaching Earth is one cause of ice ages.


Scientists are still working to understand what causes ice ages. One important factor is the amount of light Earth receives from the Sun . The amount of sunlight that reaches Earth can vary quite a lot, mainly due to three factors:

  • how much Earth is tilted relative to the Sun
  • whether Earth wobbles a lot or a little as it spins on its axis (kind of like how a toy top can wobble a lot or a little as it spins)
  • the shape of Earth's orbit as it goes around the Sun (whether it is shaped more like a circle or more like an ellipse or oval)


Over thousands of years, the amount of sunshine reaching Earth changes by quite a lot, particularly in the northern latitudes, the area near and around the North Pole. When less sunlight reaches the northern latitudes, temperatures drop and more water freezes into ice, starting an ice age. When more sunlight reaches the northern latitudes, temperatures rise, ice sheets melt, and the ice age ends. But there are many other factors. So if you became a climate scientist one day, you could make your own discoveries!




Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled through the thick sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.


To find out more about Earth's climate in the past, scientists study ice cores. These samples tell us that during the current ice age, climate on Earth has flip-flopped between glacial and interglacial periods at least 17 times!

So it is very likely that Earth will turn cold again, possibly within the next several thousand years. But, we have to keep in mind that human activities today are impacting climate on a global scale. So when we predict future climate changes, including the next glacial period, we need to consider the changes that humans are causing.

Keep on asking questions! There's still much we don't know about the past and future of our planet.





Even this scientist doesn't know what is really going on.
 

WhiteTailEER

Sophomore
Jun 17, 2005
11,534
170
0
You know, I can accept that. I can accept that we should strive for a cleaner planet. I can not accept forcing on our citizens unreasonable govt regulations while the other countries do nothing, making our products more expensive. Just like the CAFE standards that are not reasonable. Let Americans decide what they want to buy. It is making vehicles less safe.

You keep saying other countries do nothing. Prove your position
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
Ever heard of volcanoes? They have traced the timing of massive eruptions and shown the link with the disappearance of the ice age.

Researchers have largely put to rest a long debate on the underlying mechanism that has caused periodic ice ages on Earth for the past 2.5 million years – they are ultimately linked to slight shifts in solar radiation caused by predictable changes in Earth's rotation and axis.

In a publication to be released Friday in the journal Science, researchers from Oregon State University and other institutions conclude that the known wobbles in Earth's rotation caused global ice levels to reach their peak about 26,000 years ago, stabilize for 7,000 years and then begin melting 19,000 years ago, eventually bringing to an end the last ice age.

The melting was first caused by more solar radiation, not changes in carbon dioxide levels or ocean temperatures, as some scientists have suggested in recent years.

"Solar radiation was the trigger that started the ice melting, that's now pretty certain," said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at OSU. "There were also changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and ocean circulation, but those happened later and amplified a process that had already begun."

The findings are important, the scientists said, because they will give researchers a more precise understanding of how ice sheets melt in response to radiative forcing mechanisms. And even though the changes that occurred 19,000 years ago were due to increased solar radiation, that amount of heating can be translated into what is expected from current increases in greenhouse gas levels, and help scientists more accurately project how Earth's existing ice sheets will react in the future.

"We now know with much more certainty how ancient ice sheets responded to solar radiation, and that will be very useful in better understanding what the future holds," Clark said. "It's good to get this pinned down."

To make their analysis, the researchers used an analysis of 6,000 dates and locations of ice sheets to define, with a high level of accuracy, when they started to melt. In doing this, they confirmed a theory that was first developed more than 50 years ago that pointed to small but definable changes in Earth's rotation as the trigger for ice ages.

"We can calculate changes in the Earth's axis and rotation that go back 50 million years," Clark said. "These are caused primarily by the gravitational influences of the larger planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, which pull and tug on the Earth in slightly different ways over periods of thousands of years."

That, in turn, can change the Earth's axis – the way it tilts towards the sun – about two degrees over long periods of time, which changes the way sunlight strikes the planet. And those small shifts in solar radiation were all it took to cause multiple ice ages during about the past 2.5 million years on Earth, which reach their extremes every 100,000 years or so.

Sometime around now, scientists say, the Earth should be changing from a long interglacial period that has lasted the past 10,000 years and shifting back towards conditions that will ultimately lead to another ice age – unless some other forces stop or slow it. But these are processes that literally move with glacial slowness, and due to greenhouse gas emissions the Earth has already warmed as much in about the past 200 years as it ordinarily might in several thousand years, Clark said.

"One of the biggest concerns right now is how the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will respond to global warming and contribute to sea level rise," Clark said. "This study will help us better understand that process, and improve the validity of our models."

The research was done in collaboration with scientists from the Geological Survey of Canada, University of Wisconsin, Stockholm University, Harvard University, the U.S. Geological Survey and University of Ulster. It was supported by the National Science Foundation and other agencies.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Oregon State University. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Cite This Page:

 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
You keep saying other countries do nothing. Prove your position

The two biggest polluters are India and china, not us. We are not insisting that they bring their levels to a better concentration while subjecting our own companies to an unrealistic standard costing us way too much money and being non competitive in a global export market. We could take our levels to zero and it wouldn't dent what's coming out of China and India.
 

WhiteTailEER

Sophomore
Jun 17, 2005
11,534
170
0
The two biggest polluters are India and china, not us. We are not insisting that they bring their levels to a better concentration while subjecting our own companies to an unrealistic standard costing us way too much money and being non competitive in a global export market. We could take our levels to zero and it wouldn't dent what's coming out of China and India.

Yes we are, and they are doing it ... again, prove your position.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,083
2,247
113
Yes we are, and they are doing it ... again, prove your position.
Climate talks are complex and opaque, operating with their own language and process, so it’s important to cut through the terminology and look at what is actually under discussion. Conventional wisdom holds that negotiators are hashing out a fair allocation of the deep emissions cuts all countries would need to make to limit warming. That image bears little resemblance to reality.

In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth.

Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.

Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.” And lest pressure nevertheless build on the intransigent, no developing country except Mexico submitted an INDC by the initial deadline of March 31 — and most either submitted no plan or submitted one only as the final September 30 cut-off approached.

After all this, the final submissions are not enforceable, and carry no consequences beyond “shame” for noncompliance — a fact bizarrely taken for granted by all involved.

* * *

Perhaps not surprisingly, the submitted plans are even less impressive than the process that produced them. In aggregate, the promised emissions reductions will barely affect anticipated warming. A variety of inaccurate, apples-to-oranges comparisons have strained to show significant progress. But MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change calculates the improvement by century’s end to be only 0.2 degrees Celsius. Comparing projected emissions to the baseline established by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change back in 2000 shows no improvement at all.

The lack of progress becomes even more apparent at the country level. China, for its part, offered to reach peak carbon-dioxide emissions “around 2030” while reducing emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65 percent by that time from its 2005 level. But the U.S. government’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory had already predicted China’s emissions would peak around 2030 even without the climate plan. And a Bloomberg analysis found that China’s 60-65 percent target is less ambitious than the level it would reach by continuing with business as usual. All this came before the country admitted it was burning 17 percent more coal than previously estimated—an entire Germany worth of extra emissions each year.