If they are serious about this whole thing, they need to prove they can do without Gasoline or Coal.
Posted on 08/08/2017 3:36:32 PM PDT by Olog-hai
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said Tuesday that she sees no reason the Trump administration wouldn’t accept the results of a new federal report on the effects of climate change.
“I haven’t seen the report, but I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t,” the former S.C. governor told the “Today Show” Tuesday morning.
While President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris climate accord earlier this year, Haley said the country remains committed to combating the warming climate.
“Just because we pulled out of the Paris accord doesn’t mean we don’t believe in climate protection,” Haley said. “We’re very aware that we need to do that. (But) we’re not going to sell out American businesses to do that.”
Scientists who worked on a federal climate assessment are not so sure. One told The New York Times that he is worried the administration, which has been publicly skeptical about the changing climate, would suppress the results. …
(Excerpt) Read more at thestate.com ...
The actual truth. Here's an example:
LA used to be Sunny and Warm.
Then there was so much pollution it got shady, cooler, and harder to breathe.
We eliminated the massive and careless pollution and it's Sunny and Warm again and you can breath the air and it doesn't burn your eyes.
That's climate protection.
Trump should order that Yucca Mountain be opened and that the NRC expedite the development of the nukes under construction in GA and SC. Nukes are the only practical solution to greenhouse gas emissions.
And the donor class made a fortune on bogus global warming business.
Use democrats play book....accept and IGNORE.
She ain’t talking for the admin. She hasn’t seen the report so she has nothing to base this on. I doubt DJT will like that
That's right, the term "climate protection" implies emergency preparedness, which is always a good idea and should have no baggage.
There have been hundreds of "special commission" reports issued by the government over the years, 99% of them sink without a trace; and this one will too. Only for political reasons is it even making it into public awareness.
If they are serious about this whole thing, they need to prove they can do without Gasoline or Coal.
How do you know who this is from and what it says ?
She said it was a NEW FEDERAL REPORT. You should at least find out what it says before coming down so harshly on her.
True. But they cannot stop it from changing either.
What we can do is affect local weather.
Who is denying the climate changes? The lie is that human activity has any effect.
~~~~
TY; I was just going to post something like that.
So... we have gone from AGW to climate change-—OF COURSE they mean anthropogenic climate change-—to climate protection.
I just keyword these articles as “climatechangefraud.” Admittedly, I assume a shorthand on FR where I presume Freepers know what I mean.
To be more exact (and to satisfy Drew68), should I instead keyword ACCfraud (Anthropogenic Climate Change Fraud)?
And now the ACC fraudsters have evolved to yet a new buzz word...”climate protection”?
Should we more accurately say ACP-—anthropogenic climate protection and ACPfraud?
Not knocking Haley. She is usually up to speed and has done an outstanding job as UN ambassador.
Nevertheless, she admits she didn’t even read the report.
“Just because we pulled out of the Paris Accord doesn’t mean we don’t believe in climate protection.” -@nikkihaley pic.twitter.com/4H7opjNDO1
— TODAY (@TODAYshow) August 8, 2017
Climate changes. But, Nikki, if the best data proves humans can’t affect climate change, what does it mean to “believe in climate protection” and what actions do you propose we take to “protect” the climate?
Well there’s a third option there, when people say that we are denying “climate change”, it’s short-hand for saying that we are denying that “humans are causing the climate to change in such a way as to present a catastrophic threat to human civilization to such as extent that requires drastic, coordinated global action to stop it”.
Yes, we know that the climate is always changing with or without human intervention and that there’s not much that we can do to stop it, even if we are partially responsible for it. And yes we should say that, but you’re trying to be a little too cute IMHO if you think that we can “accept climate change” and yet not accept the left’s solutions to it.
They’ve changed the NAME of the hoax to “climate change,” but all the alarmist claims are still about WARMING.
There has been no WARMING in 20 years.
There is absolutely no reason to believe warming has ever been caused by CO2.
There is absolutely no reason to oppose global warming.
Yes, climate is always changing, but the hoax is STILL about WARMING and CARBON.
It’s about transferring money—but even more about genocide—reducing the human population to 500,000,000 or even 50,000.
Bergoglio is fully on board with the genocide.
It's warmer in the city than it is out in the suburbs and boonies (for example).
Also, a localized “effect” is not a climactic one.
If you add them all up, they have an "effect" globally, at least in the statistical sense.
A new Federal report would take more time to put together than this administration has been in office, therefore it’s comprised of the same old crap by the same old holdovers from the same old Obama global warming leftists.
We all know the government is still comprised of holdovers with loyalties to the past administration which was pro AGW.
Have you read the report yet ?
We all know the government is still comprised of holdovers with loyalties to the past administration which was pro AGW.
Maybe. I don't know exactly what staff changes have occurred but I think it is more than we know about.
We need a one-handed ambassador. We don’t need this squish saying on glowbull warming: ‘On one hand ... on the other.’
It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.