The credibility of scientific resolutions to fix real problems takes another hit today. This proposed quick fix to the climate change has so many challenges, it may cause more harm than good. Number one consideration is the contrive concerns over reversing a climatic change upon the conditions derived in the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). This falls back to the IPCC premise that the naturally reoccurring glacial-interglacial cycles are too slow and long range to account for the dramatic changes since the recent “Little Ice Age” (a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850). So it must be something else: i.e. the invention of AGW. The popular global warming theory is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused unprecedented global warming in the second half of the 20th century. However If it the late 20th century warming can’t be shown to be unprecedented, then there is a major problem with the theory.

Based on research of methods to infer past climate condition (i.e. Fossil Pollen and Phytoliths, Lake sediments, Ocean sediment cores, Ice cores, Location of moraines, Speleothems, Tree Ring), the global temperature of Earth some 10,000 years ago (prior to the Little Ice Age) was 2.5°C to 3°C higher than present day Earth, while the concentration of Carbon Dioxide was about 200 ppm. Obviously the AGW model is not capable of explaining this anomaly. Using this global measure of the pre-"Little Ice Age" climatic average, one could say that the Earth is still recovering from cooling; see data on http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part1_PreHistoricalRecord.htm and http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.workshop05.pdf

In fact with the current statistical predictions (even by IPCC standards), it may take another 10,000 years before the Earth once again reaches this 100,000 year temperature peak increase recorded prior to the Little Ice Age. As the analysis of the "Little Ice Age" bears out many hypothetical conjectures. The most sound correlation has already been demonstrated between sun spot solar cycles and weathering, albeit its effects on a planetary scale have not been witnessed since the "Little Ice Age." Out of the 5 considered causes of the "Little Ice Age"(short-term cooling period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860), to which would you consider as the most viable? Per one of the sources that I have considered ( http://atmospheres.gsfc.nasa.gov/climate/index.php?section=136 ) the sunspots theory ranks as the highest probable cause.
Over the years a pattern has emerged consistent with sunspot activity and our climate (and probably the climate of all planets in the solar system): The greater the number of sunspots, the warmer the overall planetary climate. This winter's results (2011 had only 2 days of no sunspots) as compared to previous winters' results (2010 had 51 days of no sunspots - 2009 had 260 days of no sunspots) demonstrates the rationale for a warmer winter this year. The Sunspot Progression has been tracked for the last 300 years (since the early 1700's) http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2008/09/30/30sep_blankyear_resources/100years.gif
and what has been seen is a steady progression toward less years of low to no sunspot activity and greater tendency toward sunspot spiking (i.e. avg 6 to 8 sunspots on any given day) and extreme swings http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/sunspot.gif

Yes global warming exists, but you could stop all the carbon dioxide production today and the net effect would be minimal due to the real underlying cause for global warming. The government has got to get out of the business of campaigning for promises, like the global warming quick fix, that they can never make good on and apply some common sense. What needs to be done is to have a committee that provides some useful information, like plans for the nation to survive global warming (i.e. possible loss of fresh drinking water and other natural resources, and managing disaster recoveries).

Does he mean like not allowing that pipeline to be built?

So, what is the Democratic messiah gonna do to save us ? Make flatulence illegal ? Brilliant, can't wait for his next masterful move. We are all doomed - - -

to make sure that this is not something we're passing on to future generations

We don't want to pass along environmental issues, but crushing debt is oiay?

The pivot shuffle...

Obama has the correct approach !!

The damage from global warming may have reached the "tipping" point already. The melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will increase with rise in ocean temperatures. Shifts in currents, bringing warm water to North and South poles will further exacerbate melting.

Obama and Company, thinking of poll numbers, are refusing to make necessary changes to, at the very least, point us down the road to recovery.

For all the nasayers about global warming, do some research, listen to different opinions then, for those living on or near ocean shore lines, roll up trouser legs.

Did you know that the United States has reduced it's CO2 output more than the countries that signed Kyoto? Power plants in the United States are more efficient and pollute less than power plant in China. but do we make things here? No. Instead they are made in China and then even more pollution is produced shipping the products across the ocean.

Sure, business economics tell you to produce products where they are the least expensive to make. But, it the issue is real pollution reduction and trying to generate the least amount of CO2 then that means manufacturing closer to the end markets in order to cut down on the pollution and CO2 from transportation.

So which is it Mr. President? Are you serious at wanting to get the United States citizens back to work and reducing pollution and CO2 or not?

He lies again. He is letting the EPA do his dirty work and hurting coal companies and power companies (which means rate increases to the public on top of new taxes and heathcare taxes and penalties). I know this, Coal is my livelihood. HE gives billions of dollars to green energy--------all of which waste our tax payer dollars.........many going bankrupt before they produce the first product!!!!!!!

Obama: 'I won't go' for climate action that hurts jobs, growth

Yeah well that horse has already left the barn.

The righties and the climate deniers don't miss a beat. Somehow Obama "hates america" if he merely acknowledges the existence of the biggest challenge civilization has ever faced. Talk about flat-earthers!

Bottom line - we are changing the chemistry of our planet faster than at any time we can measure. (and we can measure back hundreds of millions of years - apologies to those that believe the earth is only 8,000 years old -Carbon-14 is a bitch, ain't it?). This change is due almost entirely to the burning of coal, oil and gas, although as a warming planet accelerates melting of the permafrost in the arctic tundra, methane will play an increasingly powerful and perhaps irreversible role.

Most people alive today -at least those over 30- will not experience the worst of this crisis. You will die in a world not too different than the one you were born in. (more ethnically diverse and with cooler toys, perhaps) . But your children and their children will experience this head on. But that is not your concern, you can stay fat and happy as card-carrying members of the only political party on earth that denies the existence of human-caused climate change.

You may take note that the latest science is shocking even to those with previously moderate positions. Sea level rise, massive displacement of human beings, climate disruption (droughts in one place, increased storms in another), and a crumbling of the ocean food web due to acidification are all what's in store for us.

Wake up call: Saudi Freaking Arabia is setting a 50% carbon reduction target. By 2020!

We are on the tail edge of the last chance to ensure a safe future for our grandchildren. Conservation and replacing oil and gas as energy sources are very important, but coal should be public enemy number-one. We simply have to get off coal as quickly as possible. This will take time, but we have to start now. We have the next five to ten years to put the wheels in motion and start making actual progress. If we are still burning coal in 2030 at anywhere near current levels, there is simply no mathematical way to avert this crisis. We will need to start planning for massive human migrations, foot shortages and war.

However if we divest from coal now, and focus on renewables, we can actual manage this crisis to protect our future. I believe it will be a major source of job creation. But you will need to pay attention to people smarter than me to tell you if this will be a major force to heal the economy.

For now , you may simply take note that wind and solar already employ more people than coal in the U.S.. Working families and food on the table. Sounds like a good place to start.

You know it is a lie from the corporations that being climate friendly is job unfriendly, they're simply cutting jobs rather than cutting the salaries of the a-holes @ the top who've invested $0 in upgrading their various locations since those locations were built and put the company in that situation.

Rather than having a wild hair up your fanny about the President's plan to help lessen pollution, direct that anger where it SQUARELY BELONGS... at the Corporations who have wantonly polluted our only home and have done NOTHING to stop the pollution.

Why is the truth so hard to see in some?

good idea

Yes, so climate change is inevitable; whether it be global warming or global cooling, it is going to happen regardless of the pollutants in the air. So ask yourself, do you want to clean up the environment (i.e. pollutants in the air) or do you want to survive global warming ? Where do you want to spend your time and effort.

Even if we stop all CO2 production today, it will not reverse global warming or the effects of global warming. The AGWers will tell you this is because we have past some point of no return, while the naturalists will tell you this is because CO2 was never the real climate change driver after all.

Based on research of analysis methods for past climate condition (i.e. Fossil Pollen and Phytoliths, Lake sediments, Ocean sediment cores, Ice cores, Location of moraines, Speleothems, Tree Ring), the global temperature of Earth some 10,000 years ago (prior to the Little Ice Age) was some 2.5°C warmer than present day Earth, while the concentration of Carbon Dioxide was only about 200 ppm. Obviously the AGW model is not capable of explaining this anomaly. So now the CO2 concentration is rising toward 400 ppm, but we are still some 2.5°C cooler than when the CO2 concentration was only about 200 ppm.

There will always be unpredictable
localized events that have nothing to do with global warming. I don't remember
anyone complaining about global warming during Hurricane Andrew down in Florida,
or when the disasterous European winter at the beginning of this year that
killed 150 people and brought snowfall as far south as Rome.

What I find
interesting is that the current rate of global sea level rise has slowed within
the last 3 years and from 2010 to 2011 the global sea level actually fell by
about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter.

It would appear that
alarmists within the scientific community forget that with natural global
warming, there is an increase propensity for moisture to saturate the air and
disperse volumes of water over land rather than over oceans.

This is not
surprising considering the blunder some scientist made in prognosticating the
snow melt for the Himalayas. It appears that snow melt is greatly reduced at
higher altitudes.

Still most of the weather related interaction is
within the troposphere. As the troposphere begins to hold more moisture, the
troposphere itself may become inflated and force the troposphere later lower in
the atmosphere. As the troposphere becomes more saturated, the heating power of
the sun is absorbed and the Earth begins to cool down again. So with natural
global warming comes natural global cooling.

See absolutely nothing wrong with the President's statements and approach to climate change. We must bear in mind that there are multiple critical problems in need of attention asap, thanks in large part to the irresponsibility and incompetence of the previous administration. I believe the President has no choice but to tackle each of them in accordance with what is the top priority of the people, which he has identified correctly, imho, as jobs! This does not mean he will do nothing about climate change, but as is reasonable under present circumstances, when there is a conflict or cross purpose between jobs and climate change, jobs and job growth must be given the upper hand. President Obama has demonstrated clear eyed, phenomenal judgement and vision in dealing with the crises of the day, which is why we chose to re-elect him! He is able to make tough decisions impartially - a rare quality indeed! Let's not start second guessing him needlessly, which could result in us being guilty of hampering the very progress he and we long for. Instant gratification is not our modus operandi. Let's exercise some patience and confidence in our Commander-in-Chief!

I'm sorry I came to this article so late. Pres. Obama is only one person--even Romney is only one person. And they both belong to political parties that have huge companies contribute to their respective parties--add to that the fact that there are MANY first, second, third world countries that pollute, and that complicates matters considerably. We are simply between a rock and a hard spot, and as a species are fast painting ourselves into a painful corner with our pollution. So I will remind everyone reading this of an old Cree Native American Prophecy:

"When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money." web site for this is www.stevenredhead.com/Native/quotes.html

Obama's stance is similar to that taken by George W., who was called ignorant, out-of-touch, clueless, etc.... I for one am glad that both took this stance; the extremists and knee-jerk reactionaries claim we are leaving huge problems for our children if we don't deal with "climate change" - leaving them with a sluggish economy, unemployment, under-employment, and disillusionment for years to come is much, much worse.