« Immigration - Giving the GOP a Wedgie | Main | Death By Any Other Name is Not So Bad »

Barack Obama on Global Warming and Oil Dependence

You can watch a video of Illinois Senator Barack Obama's recent speech on Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet. You can also read the whole speech transcript. Here's the gist:

The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe.

What do you think? Is there any chance the federal goverment will actually be able to solve this problem?



Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Barack Obama on Global Warming and Oil Dependence:

» Barack Obama on Global Warming and Oil Dependence from Global Warming Journal
This post in the Politics Junky Blog links to the video and the transcript of Senator Barack Obama’s speech on global warming and energy dependence.  “The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril…unless we f... [Read More]


Jake, I do hope President Obama can do something about it.

Actually, what I hope is that government can provide incentives for private companies to take the initiative and investors to create new green/renewable industries.

What "always ceases to amaze me" are the virulent enemies who paint themselves "skeptics" on these issues. Why not just wear a sign on your back that says "corporate boot licker?" Even if the fucking data is "exaggerated," what the hell is wrong with you? It's like doctors who have no trouble pumping people full of pharmaceutical goodies, but who profess scientific detachment about simple nutrion and natural supplements' effects on health.

"Is there any chance the federal goverment will actually be able to solve this problem?"

Haha, no.

Man, I knew GloNo's political stuff would be funny, but this is priceless!

Yes, of course it's possible. They just need to act instead of being lazy, like they are currently doing. They could easily solve this problem, but no one is doing anything about it.

This is interesting, as is the fact that his Obama 08 site mentions his support for research that could turn Illinois coal into fuel for cars and trucks.



By: Angelos Backus

Only a moron would have an answer!

Most likely it is the same moron that will make the claim that they know which came first: the Chicken or the Egg? all without asking about the role of the rooster!


It is embarrassing to constantly read about or hear educated politicians, news reporters, news commentators, quack scientists, and even a past Vice President of the United States making claims that the planet Earth is undergoing a period of global warming or global cooling. It is especially disturbing when these claims are made without first offering any logical scientific or mathematical evidence. Listening to some of these unsubstantiated statements, I canít help myself from wondering what century we live in. Is it during the life of Aesop, where we were governing our thoughts by Aesopís fable The Wind and the Sun or maybe during the eighteenth century and The Caloric Theory?

If this is indeed the twenty-first century, then we must be aware of the historic Brownian Movement and the advancement of Daltonís molecular and atomic theory, which led to the conciliation that all matter is composed of molecules.


There is one overriding problem now surrounding the global warming/global cooling debate. It is this problem that is arguably causing much of the overwhelming confusion among the public. Simply stated, the central problem is that both the interested and disinterested parties to the debate have no solid or tangible scientific and mathematical understanding of what temperature and heat actually are.

Obviously, most anyone can provide a definition of the words temperature and heat. A normal person would define the word heat as how hot something is or feels. That same person would likely define temperature in mostly the identical way. While those definitions sound logical and correct, they are in fact complete misrepresentations of what temperature and heat are in a scientific and mathematical sense.

Unfortunately, in our society, the social and educational systems do not work to provide their students with the correct understanding of how the living world truly operates. Our societal and educational systems would rather have students memorize a basic and uninvolved definition, and then force this definition to be regurgitated, all for the quest to earn a phony grade. Thus, students are not inspired to actually think what the meanings are behind the words like temperature and heat. Instead, because the teachers, school faculty, and politicians are more concerned with making money, they push students through school as quickly and as easily as possible.

The result stemming from having our educational and societal systems push students through school, is that students do not gain a true understanding of what the school subject matter actually is. More importantly, these corrupted systems fail to allow students to understand the true meanings and workings of the world in which they live. As already stated, the system would rather have students memorize a definition rather than allowing the students to discover and understand what the defined word actually is and what the defined word actually does. In plain terms, it is like putting the cart before the horse.

This lack of actual knowledge is a perpetuating problem and one that has contributed immensely to the many prevalent misconceptions surrounding the global warming/global cooling debate. Most of the scientists, politicians, professors, and reporters discussing this environmental debate are victims of our societal shortcomings. These experts are causing undue panic and confusion all over the world and are doing so in a reckless manner. These parties need to seek clarification on the subjects they are speaking of because MOST OF THEM HAVE NO TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!


Temperature is the word that describes the method by which we can measure the height of a form of energy, but not the amount of that energy. The interesting fact about heat is that it is never fixed in any one particular form. Additionally, heat is always in a constant state of motion as it enters the Earthís atmosphere from the Sun, as it leaves the Earth on its way to outer space, and as it changes the state of existing matter on Earth. Heat also is constantly moving when it is being converted to another form of energy, such as water vapor or plant and animal cell material.

Heat in transit is known as sensible heat and is heat that can be detected by the temperature method of thermometer measurement. However, because the Earth is round and rotates on its axis at an incredible speed, there is a constant potential difference of temperature level at all times. Therefore, heat is directed in every possible direction in an attempt for it to reach one constant level. This characteristic of heat is what contributes to the formation of rain, snow, or hail (sublimation) due to the voids of equal heat levels existing throughout the atmosphere. Like the changing levels of ocean tides and waves, the heat levels are constantly changing.

In addition, how in the name of science can anyone make a determination whether the Earth is gaining heat or losing heat by the use of a thermometer (temperature scale) reading? How is it possible to obtain the Earthís heat content by measuring the height of sensible (unused) heat, where the Earthís heat content is converted into latent heat and cannot be read by a temperature (thermometer) scale!

The hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 136 degrees Fahrenheit in Al Aziziyah, Libya on September 13, 1922. The second-highest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 134 degrees Fahrenheit in Death Valley, California in 1913. Does that mean that the Moon is hotter than the Earth? Certainly not, for the Moon ranges from daytime highs of about 265 degrees Fahrenheit to nighttime lows of about -170 degrees Fahrenheit.


Many unproven theories surround this debate. One such unproven theory involves the existence of man-made gases in the Earthís atmosphere (vapor state). It is forgotten that gases are unstable vapors and the slightest change of the latent heat will cause a change in state. In turn, this change will cause the gases to return to liquid form. Moreover, our modern society is causing heat transmission from the Sun to be slowed down or reflected back to space. The overall result stemming from the potential difference of heat between the Sun and the Earth is that engineered gases will slow down the movement of heat in our atmosphere. Therefore, with the movement of heat being restricted, the existence of a long-term global cooling theory can be supported as existing in our atmosphere.

This theory of global cooling becomes clearly probable when analyzing the physical actions using a simple visual demonstration. Imagine a bucket that is placed under a flow of running water. Now imagine that a water-deflector is placed in between the water source and the bucket. Do we know what the ratio of gains and losses will be as a result of potential difference of intensity between Object One and Object Two (i.e., Sun to Earth)?

And as in another example, the Oceanís level in relation to the polar ice caps. If we use a glass pitcher with water and on the outside of the pitcher mark the water level with a marker, then place an uncracked raw egg in that water. We will quickly see that the water level has risen! The egg will be 90% immersed in the water, only about 10% of the egg will be above the water level, similar to that if a piece of ice was put in water. After the water level in the pitcher with the egg has equalized, we will now put a mark at that level. If we break the egg and drop the total substance of the egg in the pitcher, what will the water level be now?


To those who advocate the theories of either global warming or global cooling, on what did they base their conclusions and viewpoints? What evidence have they found after thoroughly investigating the critical subjects and concepts I have outlined below?

It must be understood that no substantive conclusions surrounding this debate can be reached without first determining the answers to the following questions:

What exactly is matter?

What is energy?

What is the basic energy on Earth?

What is the name of the Earthís basic energy?

What are the sources of basic energy?

Why are all other forms of energy derived from the basic energy?

What effect does basic energy have on matter?

What is sensible heat?

What is latent heat?

What is specific heat?

What is super heat?

What is subcooling?

What is saturation?

What is the first conservation law of thermodynamics?

What is the second conservation law of thermodynamics?

What are the effects of potential difference?

What are the three methods of heat movement?

What are the three states of matter?

What influences the three states of matter?

What is Absolute Zero?

What effect does the level Absolute Zero have on matter?

How do we measure the quantity of heat energy?

How do we measure the level (intensity) of heat?

Which form of energy do we use as a standard to measure the specific heat of all forms of energy?

What is Temperature, and what does it represent?

What are the differences between the concepts of heat and temperature?

What is diffusion?

What percentage of the Earthís waters make up the polar ice caps?

What effect does the weight of the polar ice caps have on the level of the Earthís oceans?

What percentage of the polar ice caps is part of the ocean levels?

What happens to the ocean levels when the polar ice caps melt, and their weight decreases?

What percentage of land erosion is deposited in the oceans daily?

What effect does the daily land erosion of the Earth have on the oceansí level?

What percentage of the total Earth contents as in solid, liquid, and vapor states 50 years ago?

What changes have occurred in the Earthís states 50 years later?

What was the Earthís vapor state diameter 50 years ago? What is it 50 years later?

What was the atmospheric pressure at ground level 50 years ago? What is it 50 years later?

How many total units of heat energy are required to be converted into latent heat from the creation of one cubic foot of rain, and how many for the creation of a cubic foot of snow?

How many tons of latent heat did the planet Earth contain 50 years ago? How many 50 years later?

How much of the Earthís totals latent heat was distributed among the solid, liquid, and vapor states of the Earth 50 years ago? How does this vary 50 years later?

These are only a few of the subjects and concepts that need to be thoroughly investigated. These alone cannot determine the loss or gain of heat content on Earth. Many other questions also need to be investigated before a conclusion can be drawn. That is the reason to keep politics and ignorance out of the debate, so the scientific body can do its work without any undue pressure.

Hi Angelos,

You are an ignorant dipshit. People like you are like Nero fiddling while Rome burned around him.

The issue has been settled - global warming is real, and it is human-induced. Check out the reports from the IPCC. Thousands of reputable scientists around the world contributed to it, and their conclusions are stark: we have only a few years to take drastic action to ensure (if we're luck) that future generations inherit a livable planet. Crawl out of the fantasy world you live in, join us in the real world, or shut the fuck up.

Please have one of those reputable scientists of yours, write to me and dispute my questions on the subject, better yet have Al Gore call me!

thats pretty much true I think. Has anyone ever heard that the world is to go under a incredible change in 2012? Maybe thats what they mean?


You and the rest of the global warming deniers already lost the argument. If you want refutation of your lunatic ranting, take the time to read all 4 of the IPCC reports. Take your serial/spam posting elsewhere, monkey boy.

Everyone can start helping the enviornment by using enviornmentally safe cleaning products, light bulbs, paint. Turn off all of the energy sources in you home when not in use, try sing less water like when you brush your teeth turn off the water while brushing.
Just some free advice for you for a beer enviornment.

You are right. Obviously some people on here see global as such a huge problem that they try and convince themselves that it is not real.


I think what you do not realize is that you and your "believers" are the old version of the "world is flat". As we found out, the world is not in "fact" flat. It is a wonderfully round, spherical shape. Maybe you should open your narrow mind to the opinions of others who clearly understand the complex nature of the problem. This is way above the IQ of Al G to trust his opinion alone.

u suk mah big balls

I love it. This is the thread that won't die. Mic dik's comments are particularly insightful.

- I think what you do not realize is that you and your "believers" are the old version of the "world is flat".

Look in the mirror. At least that's flat.

I'm waiting for one, just one, global warming denier to explain how it is that the thousands of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gasses that humans the world over spew into the atmosphere every day have absolutely zero effect on the environment.

Also, I don't think Angelos is an ignorant dipshit, but he could probably find answers to most or all of his list of question if he took the time. While he's doing his research, however, the polar ice will continue to melt. That it is melting is undeniable. There may be too many variables to accurately predict what that exactly means for different regions of the world (some may get hotter, some may get cooler, at least breifly, as all of that cold water is introduced into the oceans' currents), but in any event, it looks like humanity is in for dramatic changes to life as we know it.

Who gives a shit? Bring on the Global Warming. Whatever. If a less expensive form of fuel comes into effective use, then that would be great. That should be a priority with or without "Global Warming".


Who gives a shit? Are you serious? Whatever, la-de-da...

There's a hell of a lot more at stake than fuel costs, but your home-school curriculum probably didn't cover that.

Sorry, Jude. I didn't eat up the crap my professors and media tried to throw down my throat. Maybe you should try using your brain instead of being a carbon copy Global Warming junkie.


"I didn't eat up the crap my professors and media tried to throw down my throat." (So, was I right about the home-schooling? Never mind that the whole point of going to school is to learn from people who know more than you do, not to have your preconceived misinformed opinions reinforced.)

Do you disagree with expert analysis of the global warming issue because you were born with so much more knowledge than everybody else? Since you know so much more than your professors, please take up the challenge that I posed up-thread to all of the global warming deniers:

"I'm waiting for one, just one, global warming denier to explain how it is that the thousands of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gasses that humans the world over spew into the atmosphere every day have absolutely zero effect on the environment."

I eagerly await your proven, scientific explanation. Please, bring us all into the light.

What scares me are long-winded, self-centered posts like that of Angelos. He tries so hard to sound like he knows what he's talking about, but all he reveals is his own ignorance and that he has an axe to grind with reality. He doesn't want to know what's going on. He prefers to play the word game. This pathetic fool could give a 24 hour speech on how 2+2=7. Angelos - time to stop masterbating to pictures of yourself.

Exactly, Eric. Angelos needed to show us that he reads science books and knows all the terms and definitions. He avoided the entire issue and made a lot of noise. Don't waste your breath on this dork.

fuck fuck fuck

I am not raised

I think Obama will win. Never mind he is gonna win cause McCain sucks!!!!!!☺

this girl above me is a jackass

marisa sucks dick☻




Marisa and Courtney seem like nice girls.

politics can suck my dick!!

I think you're looking for Larry Craig's site.

I see the McCain campaign has assigned some Young Republicans to blog detail these last couple of days.

Its tough to see what their real ambitions are. But climate change might be the hardest thing to fix since its on such a big scale.

enough talking! lets get to action!

anybody check out www.99problems.org ? this site is crackin. A lot of young voters are staying active bringing forth their issues

I did check it out! I really like the idea of the organization going around the nation to see what problems our youth is facing and offering solutions. Great org and everyone should get their hand in it!

Thanks for the link, cashkilla. It is critical that young people remain active and try to involve people who may not have been quite old enough this time, but will be 18 in 2010 and 2012. Obama himself has often said that this isn't about him, it's about the people who created the larger movement and it is really up to all of us to move forward.

i actually saw an article about that site on hiphopdx. Obama got in office with the youth support so its great that orgs like this one are starting up.

Have any of you Global Warming supporters read the 223 page briefing that the U.N. published announcing Global Warming as a man made myth? What say you?


I find it odd that you provided neither a link to or even a title of the supposed gold-mine of truth to which you refer.

Since you're in the know, and all, please deconstruct my comment above (in response to Tim) regarding CO2. Can you enlighten me as to how adding increased levels of CO2 into the atmosphere will have no effect on the Earth's ability to trap solar energy in the form of heat? You can't add to one side of an equation without affecting the other side.

There is no shortage of scientists in the employ of stakeholders who stand to incur expenses should governments and even industries adopt policies designed to address GW. Since many schools now rely heavily on private doantions to fund physical plant improvements or departments/programs, you can bet that many of the donors expect something in return. If an oil company donates to a university, they will expect the university to churn out competent geologists, for example, who might eventually intern and work for said oil company. They might also expect science faculty to craft reports intended to bolster specific politically charged points in relation to environmental issues in exchange for grant funds/endowments. Since the reports would come from accredited universities, they would carry more weight than if they were issued by obvious stakeholders. To this end, decades of Right-wing defunding of education has been a smashing "success."

Let the games begin.


Via some glitch, this got posted in the wrong thread, but it is relatively on-topic. The comment I refered to is here (if you're so inclined):


When I posted the comment, refreshed the page and looked it was there. That thread has nothing to do with what I posted as you well know. Please try harder to remove my comments when they go against what you feel. You green gurus are too funny.

Sorry, nevermind that comment. I am looking up the document now.


1) Why would I want to remove your comments? If we didn't want you to be able to speak your mind, there wouldn't be any comments. Period. The whole point is that differing minds can have a discussion. But if you're a hard-core Right-winger, I can understand why this concept might be very foreign to you.

2) Are you having a tough time finding the link to that 223 page report?

3) If you had bothered to actually read the other thread, you would see that the original article touches on and the ensuing comments delve further into the vailidity of the GW debate.

4) I'm sorry to see that you think any aspect of this issue is funny. For a minute there, I thought you were smarter than that. You had me fooled. Congrats!

Well, if you were to read te second comment I wrote you would see were I appologized, but allow me to do so again, I am sorry. Now for insulting me before I can put up my source isn't very nice, then to make a comment stating that I find this funny. Please don't insult me. But I know you have been shuddering at the thought of this one so here it is my PROOF as you have put it.

Do you see that .gov on the end there? Yup, straight from the government. Would you like another one where the leader of Russia said he thought it was a scam? I can find that too. Sorry if it takes me longer to find my source than you would have liked, I do work you know. And please do not insult my intellect before I have a chance to defend myself, you look uneducated when the cards are out on the table. Have a nice day.

A right-winger! LOL! Please don't insult me. I am not registered to either national party in this corrupt country ran by a crooked government. How dare you assume something that blatantly while all the while furthering your composure as a buffoon, a composure that is spread amoung your peers with rapid speed, thanks to your buddy Al Gore right, you know, MR.Internet.

You must have posted while I was writing. Allow me to apologize in kind for my snarky comment.

I've seen that report before. I'm not impressed. See the latter portion of the big paragraph in my first reply to you.

It's a politically charged report crafted by the GOP. A .gov? Hell, it should be a .gop!

So, if this is a corrupt country ran by a crooked government, why so much faith in a .gov report?

The Right Wing has been treating this document like the Holy Grail of GW denial. A whopping 650 scientists! Out of how many worldwide? Any word on who signs their paychecks? There's no shortage of scientists who have their own political agendas, Left, Right, or otherwise.

I see your point about the government document, nice spin-off. Yes, a whopping 650 scients against the 52 scienists who were there for it. So it seems more logical to you to believe 52 rather than 650. Why?

Also, most government is looking to go along with Global Warming, have you not seen dozens of news articles across the counrty, google Global Warming an look under News. The fact that so many scientists under the government document say it is a fallacy, considering how many political gains there are to be made by such a danger I would first look at the global warming sources most of which are funded by those accepting grant money and other GOVERNMENT funding. Al Gore, ding ding ding, P-O-L-I-T-I-C-I-A-N.

So, using your logic, if I run out and get 1,000 scientists to endorse GW, you'll belive it too, right?

I just took a few minutes and read some of the report. It reads like a FOX News propaganda piece. I clicked on a few links, and (suprise!) I actuall linked to a bunch of FOX News reports.

Notice that there isn't much in the way of actual data. It's just a bunch of opinions and Right-Wing talking points.

A dose of skepticism about anything you see or hear is healthy. There will be people on both sides of the argument who will make exaggerations. But I just can't take this report seriously.

So, politician automatically equals crooked? Hell, even I think some politicans are decent and honest.

Certainly, you must admit that there's a lot of money driving the GW denial camp too. I mean that report was a product of the GOP, which is bought and paid for by big business and the oil-related industries in particular under Bush, no?

"I would first look at the global warming sources most of which are funded by those accepting grant money..."

I find it hard to believe that money is a prime motivator here. If anybody is really concerned only with making as much money as possible, the sure the hell don't work in education or government when they could make infinitely more in the private sector.

GW will be used as a political football, to be sure. Given everybody's socio/economic dependence on a system that contributes to GW, there may well not be a politically palatable response.

Next question: What will it cost us all if action is NOT taken?

Very true, it will be used as a political football. To be honest I am not completely sure what would the cost would be, but no one can predict te future(not a joke).

I have witnessed global warming for years. Coming from Alaska, I have seen glaciers retreat. I came across this video that shows global warming in action here: http://www.filmbaby.com/films/4148. I showed my former global warming skeptic friends this movie and they all now believe it is happening at an alarming rate.

Nice post, but I've some suggestion that could you modify your post header font-size bigger for easier to concentrate?

Post a comment

Get GLONO merch!