Comments on: Is Bill Clinton’s climate legacy a problem for Obama? Global environmental challenges Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:14:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Marcus Vinicius Pinto Schtruk Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:21:15 +0000 It’s not only a problem for Barack Obama but to all mankind.
Governments should invest more money on biofuels instead of protecting oil industries worldwide.

By: Martin Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:49:21 +0000 Politicians will only “care” about global warming when enough voters use it as there major deciding factor in voting.

I’m in New Zealand. Al Gore came here once. He flew to the country in (I assume) first or business therby using twice the space of most passengers. He used a limo from the airport to a hall he was speaking at. He gave one speech to a paying crown. Refused to talk to the media or any other parties. Was driven back to the airport in a Limo and then flew out.
All that pollution for one paid engagement. What a fake!
Clinton came here during his final years as president and met with many people. He even did a walkabout.
I suggest that Bush2 caused most of his terms pollution in the middle east.

By: Brandon Haynes Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:44:11 +0000 I truly believe they are putting it aside and not bothering with it, if the economy is doing good people will travel business’s will burn more energy, as home, and people will not be as careful, its not there fault, we are wasteful, they can only do so much to help prevent then its on us. my 2 cents.

By: Alister Doyle Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:09:29 +0000 Call it nonsense if you like but a problem in U.N. negotiations on a new climate treaty is that many governments around the world are wringing their hands about climate change and saying: ‘we can’t do much about this — look at the situation we inherited from the previous government’.
George W. Bush is the person most often singled out for such criticism because the United States is the only industrialised nation outside the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol for restricting emissions.
Even so, I was surprised to see that official U.S. data show that emissions rose far less under his watch than under Clinton’s (…whatever the cause, Nikkei).
And yes, as noted in the blog, the numbers only go from 1990 to 2007 so there’s a year missing from George W. Bush’s record. It would need one giant leap to reach Clinton’s total, especially with the financial crisis slowing the economy in 2008.

By: Curtis Bennett Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:55:43 +0000 There is nothing wrong with Al Gore and his passion about global warming, unfortunately his science is missing really important science that just couldn’t be seen before. I respect Al Gore for bringing forward the importance of climate change and have defended him in a forum that said to prove man was warming the atmosphere to save Al Gore. No one could have brought the issue to the forefront like he did, now he needs to see the up to date science and administer it as the professional he is.

Academia is literally blind to temperature and we use calculators in science. This morning, I did sequences of infrared images 5 minutes apart to see to see if solar radiation was impacting buildings very much. I start before sunrise so there is minimal solar considerations. When I finished it was 66 degrees F outside at 8:07 A.M. and building exteriors were as hot as 142 degrees F. That is super heating the atmosphere without C02 or GHG emission production. The building is only designed and insulated for 92 F. All the laws are in place, we couldn’t see it. Go to the link for time-lapsed infrared videos.

My job professionally is to provide sight of temperature to support professionals and administrators, etc. None of this is about me.

We bring the science and don’t advise beyond our capacity. Politics is dangerous because these new administrations have a 4 year term to solve the problems of the world and build an economy. I have 30 years of temperature information the world is looking for and my biggest challenge is to get it through bureaucracy.

These issues with climate change are species threatening for real as I am asked to work on salmon spawning, groundwater, etc because they are temperature sensitive. Today there are 3 forest fires in my area and it is horrible to watch them fight these fires blind while I image the fires through the smoke for education.

Radiated buildings are cooking the atmosphere and we are in more trouble than we know, I am calling 911 and no one is answering the phone. This weekend I will lecture in medical academia on a temperature issue called inflammation and cancer can be seen very easily. Medical professionals get education credits they need for licensing in the US. I have information that will save the US billions and billions in health costs, who do I call? I don’t want anything, our children will pay the health price for what we are doing.

Clinton’s climate legacy won’t exist if we continue on with science missing critical data that just couldn’t be seen before. Now it can and this problem can be addressed with North America leading the world.

By: yyo me Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:49:51 +0000 galbal warming because too many wars damage the emvilo ment.

By: jmmx Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:43:20 +0000 Actually, some one like Al Gore may actually know more about global warming than “the scientist sitting on the glacier.” NOT more about the glacier – but very possibly more about AGW overall.

Let’s remember that (aside from being a veteran of VietNam war) Mr Gore has studied global warming extensively for more than a decade. So when he speaks, he is NOT – just another politician.

By: Indolent Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:21:54 +0000 Always Lie, did you even read the first paragraph?

The UN benchmark year is 1990 so that’s when he started and data is only available through 2007.

More like intellectual stupidity on your part rather than intellectual dishonesty on the author’s part…

By: Simply EL Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:16:10 +0000 Please keep in mind that in 2000, SUVs became more popular.

I am hoping that the Copenhagen agreement will be successful. We are running out of time to turn around our climate problems.

Please read my book Bee Quiet, due out in August, for solutions to our environmental crisis.

By: Statistics Always Lie Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:46:23 +0000 Is there a reason that you only counted 2 of the 4 Bush I years and 7 of the 8 Bush II years but counted the full 8 years of Clinton? Or were you just trying to see how much intellectual dishonesty you could get away with?