Now, there is a long-term problem that we’ve got to deal with, and that’s is a tough one. And that is this issue of climate change. I want to tell you the truth here because this is going to be a debate that we’re going to be having over the course of the next year. The average person probably thinks, yes, climate change, that’s kind of a drag, but it’s not one of my top priorities — because you don’t really see it or feel it, it doesn’t hit your pocketbook, it doesn’t have to do with your job directly. And so the tendency is just to kind of push it off. People think, well, this just has to do with polar bears, and I feel bad about polar bears but I’ve got other things to worry about.

I don’t think people fully appreciate the potential damage

– economic damage, as well as environmental damage — that could be done if we are not serious in dealing with this problem. If the temperature goes up a couple of degrees, well, it will change weather patterns pretty significantly. It could create droughts in places where we haven’t had drought; it could bring insect-born diseases up into places like Missouri that we haven’t seen before. But we can probably manage. If the temperature of the planet goes up 5 degrees, you’re now looking at coastlines underwater. You’re now looking at huge, cataclysmic hurricanes, complete changes in weather patterns. Some places will get hotter, some places will get colder. Our economy would be disrupted by tens of trillions of dollars.

So this is no joke. And the science shows that the planet is getting warmer faster than people expected. Even the most dire warnings, it’s gotten — it’s moved forward faster than anybody expected. They’re talking about, just in a few years, during the summer, there won’t be any ice in the Arctic, something we have never seen before. So we have to do something about it.
…
Now, if we do that in a smart, gradual way and in a way that protects consumers from the initial attempts of utilities, for example, to pass on those costs to consumers — which is what they’ll try to do, so we’ve got to rebate some of that money to make sure that people are held harmless — then I actually think that we can get control of this problem, we can save the polar bears, but more importantly we can make sure that we are preserving our economy.

And here is the great opportunity. Everybody knows that we’re going to have to do this. The country that gets there fastest, the country that’s the first one to figure out really good battery technology for a plug-in hybrid car, the first country that perfects wind power and solar power and knows how to get it from one place to another in an efficient way, that country will dominate the economy of the 21st century the same way that America dominated the 20th century. I want that to be America. That’s what we’re fighting for. (Applause.)

I repeat what Anonymous said – exactly what I would say:

PBO’s statements are so full of factual errors as to be laughable.

More powerful hurricanes (please review Accumulated Cyclone Energy data for last 30 years).

Polar bears (please review population data on polar bears since 1950’s).

Trillions of dollars of damage to the economy (please review data on US economic growth over last 100 years, during the current phase of warming).

Fear mongering to advance a political agenda, when not based on fact, but opinion, is politics at its most heinous.

Here Obama – EXPLAIN THIS PICTURE?

How is it possible that a Navy sub surfaced at the north pole on MARCH 17, 1959 in apparently OPEN WATER? Doesn’t that mean it might have been WARMER THERE back then than it is now? (Please note the current ice conditions experienced by the the fools on the Catlin Arctic Survey team who aren’t even at the north pole over a month beyond when this picture was taken.)

Obama is either just a commie liar like the rest of the econazis or too stupid to know the truth. Either way – that makes him a very dangerous POTUS.

On April 27th, 2009 at 11:52 pm, torabora said:
paging Al Gore, paging Al Gore

Al Gore to Grand Rapids please.

Sorry. He’s tied up searching for ManBearPig.

On April 28th, 2009 at 3:01 pm, lgm said:

Scientists understand this kind of thing.

Don’t start trying to argue science, lgm. You still owe me an answer from December 2007 when I schooled you about EM radiation.

Stop supporting AGW. You don’t want to be the idiot left holding the bag.

Al Gore said that every penny he ever made from his business activities went into non-profit efforts.

Every penny I make from my business went into non-profit efforts too. By the time I pay the bills, housing, food, business expenses, necessary savings, etc., there isn’t any left for any “profit” efforts.

Give us the proof. Show us all where that data is and how it was determined.

All I can do is put in links. And you can choose not to follow them. It’s a free country.

FruNobulux said:

Anybody who can embrace the proposition that melting Arctic sea ice will cause sea levels to rise — in violation of Archimedes Principle…

Scientists understand this kind of thing. They are not infallible, but this is not how they go wrong.

As I said before….The eco-lobby is in a full-court press because (I think) they know things starting to cycle away from “global warming”. Just wait…several years after cap&trade, etc gets passed, they will take credit for the cooling that started:
1) before the legislation was enacted, and
2) well before the new technologies will be developed.

Total human biomass on Earth is estimated at about 100 million metric tons. Arctic krill comprise about 500 million tons. Plants and bacteria each comprise about 2 billion metric tons. Everyone knows the stars, the oceans, the plants and bacteria control the climate.

Silly humans.

The data gathering sensors collected the wrong data but the conclusions that were based on that bad data are left intact? How’s that?

The left-wing media is fuming over the success of people like Sean Hannity who don’t have a college degree and are making hundreds of millions of dollars while the left-wing dopes who go to school at Columbia, rack up 100K in debt end up getting jobs at bankrupt newspapers at $40,000 a year because their ideology is more important than making a living.

What really grates them is that a television journalist in the elite top of the profession is either reading a teleprompter, or getting 30 seconds of airtime on a nightly newscast. Maybe 20 minutes a week if they’re on a Dateline or a 60 Minutes.

Meanwhile, Rush, Sean, Glenn, Laura, Mark, O’Reilly get 15 to 20 hours a week. They get to go in depth on the stories that interest them. And they have a much larger, more engaged audience.

Envy drives the left. Always.

On April 28th, 2009 at 8:17 am, lgm said:[nonsense deleted]…

Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdock, [more nonsense deleted]

Actually Fox News is owned by News Corp, of which Rupert Murdoch is the Chairman, Managing Director and major shareholder (but not the “owner”).