Obama’s disconnect with America on the climate issue

Here’s the latest poll from Bloomberg on most important issues facing the country:

Bloomberg_poll_092209

Climate change ranks dead last in importance. Source: PollingReport.com

Now compare what the American People think to what Obama thinks in his UN speech today.

The following is the text of Obama’s speech as prepared for delivery today at the UN:

Good morning. I want to thank the Secretary-General for organizing this summit, and all the leaders who are participating. That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it — boldly, swiftly, and together — we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.

No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees.

The security and stability of each nation and all peoples — our prosperity, our health, our safety — are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.

And yet, we can reverse it. John F. Kennedy once observed that “Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man.” It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country as well. We recognize that. But this is a new day. It is a new era. And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.

We’re making our government’s largest ever investment in renewable energy — an investment aimed at doubling the generating capacity from wind and other renewable resources in three years. Across America, entrepreneurs are constructing wind turbines and solar panels and batteries for hybrid cars with the help of loan guarantees and tax credits — projects that are creating new jobs and new industries. We’re investing billions to cut energy waste in our homes, buildings, and appliances — helping American families save money on energy bills in the process. We’ve proposed the very first national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks — a standard that will also save consumers money and our nation oil. We’re moving forward with our nation’s first offshore wind energy projects. We’re investing billions to capture carbon pollution so that we can clean up our coal plants. Just this week, we announced that for the first time ever, we’ll begin tracking how much greenhouse gas pollution is being emitted throughout the country. Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge. And already, we know that the recent drop in overall U.S. emissions is due in part to steps that promote greater efficiency and greater use of renewable energy.

Most importantly, the House of Representatives passed an energy and climate bill in June that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for American businesses and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One committee has already acted on this bill in the Senate and I look forward to engaging with others as we move forward.

Because no one nation can meet this challenge alone, the United States has also engaged more allies and partners in finding a solution than ever before. In April, we convened the first of what have now been six meetings of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate here in the United States. In Trinidad, I proposed an Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas. We’ve worked through the World Bank to promote renewable energy projects and technologies in the developing world. And we have put climate at the top of our diplomatic agenda when it comes to our relationships with countries from China to Brazil; India to Mexico; Africa to Europe.

Taken together, these steps represent an historic recognition on behalf of the American people and their government. We understand the gravity of the climate threat.

We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations.

But though many of our nations have taken bold actions and share in this determination, we did not come here today to celebrate progress. We came because there is so much more progress to be made. We came because there is so much more work to be done.

It is work that will not be easy. As we head towards Copenhagen, there should be no illusions that the hardest part of our journey is in front of us. We seek sweeping but necessary change in the midst of a global recession, where every nation’s most immediate priority is reviving their economy and putting their people back to work. And so all of us will face doubts and difficulties in our own capitals as we try to reach a lasting solution to the climate challenge.

But difficulty is no excuse for complacency. Unease is no excuse for inaction. And we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of progress. Each of us must do what we can when we can to grow our economies without endangering our planet — and we must all do it together. We must seize the opportunity to make Copenhagen a significant step forward in the global fight against climate change.

We also cannot allow the old divisions that have characterized the climate debate for so many years to block our progress. Yes, the developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century still have a responsibility to lead. And we will continue to do so by investing in renewable energy, promoting greater efficiency, and slashing our emissions to reach the targets we set for 2020 and our long-term goal for 2050.

But those rapidly-growing developing nations that will produce nearly all the growth in global carbon emissions in the decades ahead must do their part as well. Some of these nations have already made great strides with the development and deployment of clean energy. Still, they will need to commit to strong measures at home and agree to stand behind those commitments just as the developed nations must stand behind their own. We cannot meet this challenge unless all the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution act together.

There is no other way.

We must also energize our efforts to put other developing nations — especially the poorest and most vulnerable on a path to sustainable growth. These nations do not have the same resources to combat climate change as countries like the United States or China do, but they have the most immediate stake in a solution. For these are the nations that are already living with the unfolding effects of a warming planet — famine and drought; disappearing coastal villages and the conflict that arises from scarce resources. Their future is no longer a choice between a growing economy and a cleaner planet, because their survival depends on both. It will do little good to alleviate poverty if you can no longer harvest your crops or find drinkable water.

That is why we have a responsibility to provide the financial and technical assistance needed to help these nations adapt to the impacts of climate change and pursue low-carbon development.

What we are seeking, after all, is not simply an agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions. We seek an agreement that will allow all nations to grow and raise living standards without endangering the planet. By developing and disseminating clean technology and sharing our know-how, we can help developing nations leap-frog dirty energy technologies and reduce dangerous emissions.

As we meet here today, the good news is that after too many years of inaction and denial, there is finally widespread recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us. We know what needs to be done. We know that our planet’s future depends on a global commitment to permanently reduce greenhouse gas pollution. We know that if we put the right rules and incentives in place, we will unleash the creative power of our best scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs to build a better world. And so many nations have already taken the first steps on the journey towards that goal.

But the journey is long. The journey is hard. And we don’t have much time left to make it. It is a journey that will require each of us to persevere through setback, and fight for every inch of progress, even when it comes in fits and starts. So let us begin. For if we are flexible and pragmatic; if we can resolve to work tirelessly in common effort, then we will achieve our common purpose: a world that is safer, cleaner, and healthier than the one we found; and a future that is worthy of our children. Thank you.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

196 Responses to Obama’s disconnect with America on the climate issue

  1. Ron de Haan says:

    It’s not only Obama who’s “disconnected.
    Just read what Energy Secretary Chu is telling the American People.
    You behave like teenage kids he says.

    Stop paying your taxes is what I say.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/09/21/steven-chu-americans-are-like-teenage-kids-when-it-comes-to-energy/

  2. Ron de Haan says:

    By the way, thanks for posting this.

  3. CodeTech says:

    Ouch – zerobama is invoking JFK.

    I’d like to see anyone demonstrate a single individual that has been forced to flee from rising waters caused by manmade climate change…

    Also, “And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history”, while factually correct, fails to point out the reason is his party’s disastrous attempt to financially ruin the entire first world and destroy all industry in the United States.

  4. Phillip Bratby says:

    To use scientific terminology, the speech was a load of bollocks from start to finish (am I allowed to say that?)

  5. jack morrow says:

    Good grief! I may be sick. How on earth do we elect people who have such little knowledge and facts. Even my 99 year old mother knows more.

  6. Interesting Presidential comments in light of the Arctic sea ice being 24% larger than just two years ago or the Antarctic sea ice being 1 million square kilometers larger than 12 months ago. Suppose he also doesnt know much about the low solar activity.

    Socialism trumps science once again.

  7. Henry chance says:

    Is Europe angry about this or are we just being told Europe has issues with our ambivalence?
    I don’t have a problem with strong energy consumption because we consume so much producing crops.
    Resident Obama’s teleprompter is soft on facts and science as it is soft on economics.

  8. CarsonH says:

    Yawn……

    The more the data shows they are wrong, the more they poster and scream: “The sky is falling”.

    The American people (I’m in Canada) will remind the Dems and the Nobama who’s boss. The day of reckoning will be sweet.

  9. Gordon Ford says:

    The first paragraph is good but the speech all falls apart in the second paragraph. Sea level rise is not universal, its falling in many areas. My lawn ends at the Pacific ocean and in 20 years I’ve seen no evidence of sea level change. Tropical storms are at near historic lows. Are crop failures increasing, we hear little about starvation caused by floods or drought! He definitely needs a new speech writer.

  10. R Shearer says:

    Does anyone wish to shout, “You lie!”?

  11. Greg, San Diego, CA says:

    One World Government – that is all that Obama has in his head these days. He will use the AGW hoax to help bring down this great country (along with his Obamacare hoax, and the Stimulus hoax) and make us subservient to the socialist governments of the world.

    Not on my watch!!! We need to strengthen our resolve to continue to fight these efforts – for now and for the futures of our children and grandchildren.

  12. Joel Shore says:

    Of course, polls have also shown that there is a vast disconnect between what the general public in the U.S. thinks about climate change and what scientists, especially those active in studying climate science think: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    The reason we call leaders “leaders” is that we sometimes expect them to lead, not just to follow. And, we expect them to rely on the best expert judgment, not just rely on public opinion polls.

    It is also worth noting that your comparison here is really apples-to-oranges. While the vast majority of the American public may not put climate change at the top of the list in terms of issues facing the country right now, the polling data also shows that it does not follow that all, or even most, of the people who don’t rank it the #1 issue want nothing to be done about it. See for example here http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1730 :

    A majority of likely voters – 71% – favors the American Clean Energy and Security Act recently passed by the House of Representatives, and two-thirds (67%) believe Congress is either doing the right amount (22%) or should be doing more (45%) to address global warming, new Zogby International telephone poll shows. Just 28% believe that Congress is doing too much.

    What this shows is that how Americans respond depends strongly on what question you ask them and how you ask it. (And, I am not claiming the Zogby framing of the question is the best.)

  13. Paul C says:

    Since when does what the American people want matter to those at the top?

    Silence Peasants!

  14. Jason Bair says:

    You Lie!

  15. Jeremy says:

    Yes it is very much like Churchill’s “We will Fight them on the Beaches” speech only we are most likely dealing with natural climate variations that have been going on for thousands and millions of years.

    Meanwhile there are many American’s who have recently lost their jobs, their homes and are on the street hungry and without even health care coverage…at least the Bankers were able to buy hathe latest Porsches and Aston Martins with taxpayer funded bonuses…

  16. PaulH says:

    It’s always easy to promise paradise. After all, it’s just over the horizon and only 10 or 40 years away. Today’s problems will surely seem trivial by then. LOL

  17. Steven Hill says:

    Rollerball

  18. Ralph Short says:

    This is the most pathetic speech ever made by an American President in the last 100 years in my opinion. And believe me, that includes a ton of terrible speeches. Obama completely ignores the vagaries of the models, he completely ignores the failure of the predictions for both “storms” and temperature claims. Instead, it is a conclusion drawn from data that is contradictory and inconclusive. In addition, notwithstanding these facts, he makes a speech pledging more “bailout” for other countries which will accelerate the bankruptcy of his own country.

    And yet some would refer to him as a patriot. I don’t think so.

  19. michel says:

    Yes, this is quite dangerous. It is going to blow up, and it will take sensible, moderate environmentalism with it, and we will all lose heavily from that.

  20. tim c says:

    This is just another way for him to push for global governance and the lowering of the American standard of living .Facts mean nothing to a progressive.

  21. Adam from Kansas says:

    Apparently it may be a sign that people think climate change isn’t the apocalyptic threat it’s made out to be.

    Could be people are starting to understand how extra CO2 is good for the biosphere and that it can’t have too much warming effect at the current level.

    Perhaps people are noticing the ice is starting to increase, hurricanes aren’t increasing in number and strength, and temps. not consistant with a coming thermal apocalypse.

    When it comes to climate and such. We’re at that stage again where it seems solar cycle 24 will start up (or go into another long quiet spell like last time), and TAO is showing some stronger positive anomalies at the right edge of their chart despite Unisys showing the ‘non’ Nino still stagnant.

  22. Robert Wille says:

    “On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees.”

    Sea level has risen about an inch in the last couple of decades. If an inch causes their home to be uninhabitable, what did they do they do when it was stormy?

  23. George E. Smith says:

    Well I actually heard the beginning of his speech on the radio this morming; and I can alwasy tell when the BS is erupting. The man speaks with the most affected speech delivery, when he is just mouthing nonsense; the way he gets his esses tied up in his tongue you ust know it is fake to the core.

    A recent poll of yuppies who stated that they voted for this man for President of the United States, and though he is doing a good job also revealed when given a multiple choice quiz (four choices) of well known Obamaisms, revealed that these people knew absolutely nothing about him, and were quite unaware of highly controversial positions he has publicly taken.

    So we live in a country run by idiots; but idiots who were voted into power by their peer idiots.

    And like some tyrants of the past; who wrote books about what they planned to inflict on humanity once they achieved the power to do it; this one also wrote books laying out his intentions; yet people voted for him anyhow.

    And too late, they may yet read his books; to find out in arrears what they should have known up front.

    Seems like Jim Jones had a similar unfortunate bunch of followers.

  24. Russ R. says:

    “Climate change ranks dead last in importance.”

    As it should. The public understands the difference between a real problem, and a possible problem.
    How about we link the amount of effort, we devote to reducing our GHG emission, with the actual temperature? The fact that this is not discussed tells me more about the “experts”, than all the rhetoric they have produced.
    So far, we have it about right. Study it, talk about it, and when we find the need to act, we act. We have a long way to go, before there is any need to act.

  25. K-Bob says:

    “Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge.”

    Is anyone aware of what these subsidies are? Helping poor people pay their electric bills?

  26. Mr Lynn says:

    “Carbon pollution”!!

    One abject falsehood after another, and at the root of it all:

    “Carbon pollution”!

    Time to shout from the rooftops,

    “CO2 IS GOOD FOR PLANTS, GOOD FOR THE EARTH, AND GOOD FOR YOU!”

    /Mr Lynn

  27. John Silver says:

    A second civil war brewing, eh?

  28. Manfred says:

    “everybody wants to be useful”

    (quote Thomas the Tank Engine)

  29. Neo says:

    With the Dot.Com bust, the subprime/real-estate bust, “Cap and Trade” is the next big scam. Hold on to your wallets.

  30. Pofarmer says:

    Is Barack Hussein possibly jumping a shark here?

    EVERYTHING can’t be a catastrophe caused by somebody else.

  31. myrick says:

    So he truly has the arrogance to think that we can “control” the climate. Or need to.

  32. MartinGAtkins says:

    And already, we know that the recent drop in overall U.S. emissions is due in part to steps that promote greater efficiency and greater use of renewable energy.

    Earth to Obama….. It’s the economy stupid.

  33. Stephen Brown says:

    “And already, we know that the recent drop in overall U.S. emissions is due in part to steps that promote greater efficiency and greater use of renewable energy.”
    And it’s a very SMALL part. Almost all of the reduction in what are smeared as ‘emissions’ comes from factories and businesses which have shut up shop and closed because of the awful state of the economy.

    On an entirely different tangent, can ANYONE name just one coastal village anywhere in the world which has had to have been abandoned solely because of sea level rise?

  34. Stoic says:

    Mr Obama, you are a great man but you have been very poorly advised. Carbon dioxide is not pollution. It is essential to life.

  35. Don B says:

    President Obama failed to state that one of the most horrific dangers of climate change is that Oregon could be invaded by tamarisk. :)

    http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/09/climate_change_could_mean_more.html

  36. whitty says:

    “Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees.”

    Uhm, examples, please? Oh, it’s those “model predictions?” Fine then.

    Gotta love the self-loathing liberals.

  37. Dave L says:

    >We’re making our government’s largest ever investment in renewable energy — an investment aimed at doubling the generating capacity from wind and other renewable resources in three years.<

    Last time I checked, 2 x 0 = 0
    Well, it is a close analogy. Wind and solar power account for 0.00167 of the energy needs of the USA (one sixth of one percent per Keith Rattie, CEO of Questar Corp.). Doesn't amount to a hill of beans considering energy demands in the USA were increasing at 1-2% a year prior to the current recession.

  38. Ron de Haan says:

    Health and Climate Bill, onslaught of oppression!
    Nice to hear that from an US politician.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59759-rohrabacher-health-and-climate-bills-threaten-onslaught-of-oppression

  39. Jeff in Ctown (Canada) says:

    Propaganda!

    I hope he fails to pass his green laws, because Canada (is just going to follow his lead.

  40. Richard deSousa says:

    Stupid speech. It will be even stupider when Washington DC and the entire N.E. gets snow bound this entire winter. With those volcanoes erupting in Kamkatcha and Alaska, it’s coming.

  41. Retired Engineer says:

    Bad Science! (and other snippable thoughts)

  42. Don B says:

    I should have explained the joke, about “Oregon could be invaded by tamarisk,” (13:25:49) which is salt cedar, which thrives in drought conditions. Contrary to some claims, the Pacific Northwest snowpack has been growing in recent years.

    http://www.iceagenow.com/Pacific_Northwest_Snow_Pack-the_True_Story.htm

    Obama will never hear about increasing snowpacks from the people he has appointed to shield him from these inconvenient truths.

  43. H.R. says:

    “[...] We know that our planet’s future depends on a global commitment to permanently reduce greenhouse gas pollution. [...]“

    Who’s “we”? Did the President have a mouse in his pocket?

    From the polls there doesn’t seem to be a lot of “we” out there.

  44. L says:

    Mr. O’s rapidly growing probiscis is becoming a threat to other people’s eyes!

  45. Mike T says:

    The problem with the public having such little interest in Climate Change is that the politicians can get away with doing almost anything they like and that same public wont realise how they are being fleeced from all angles. Lack of interest means lack of knowledge – no listening to any discussion or arguments against government proposals.

  46. “The journey is hard. And we don’t have much time left to make it.”

    Is that the “journey” to end global warming? Or is it the “journey” to end climate change?

    If he’s talking about ending global warming, we already ran out of time 5-10 years ago when the globe stopped warming… But we’ll get another shot at ending global warming when the PDO switches positive again in about 25-30 years.

    If he’s talking about ending climate change, his delusions of grandeur syndrome has worsened.

  47. TERRY46 says:

    Now this makes since of importance.Dead last and were going to spent billions with a CAPITAL B. on something that is nothing more than A cycle.Where is the outrage .When Presient Bush was in the White House all we heard was how we could use the money being spent on the war in Iraq to help the people in the U.S. Now Obama is spending it faster than they can print it and were still in Iraq and were going to send more troops,40000, to AfghanIstan and the media says nothing.I thought Obama was going to bring the troops home???

  48. JC says:

    The final sentence says it all.

    “and a future that is worthy of our children.”

    Whenever a politician says it’s “for the children” grab your wallet and run for cover.

  49. Dr A Burns says:

    Climate change is a wonderful issue for politicians because it can be used to gain support from both greenies, industry and the public simply by a new tax system.

    New taxes are politically expedient for politicians. For example, the ignorant Australian masses even voted in a new government when we were promised a new tax … the GST (Goods and Services). The masses are easily convinced without having to rely on science or logic. The best motivator of all, is to use fear.

    Australia has lost 70% of its natural vegetation by deforestation and land clearing. It is the world’s leader in species loss. However addressing these critical issues is politically difficult. It is far easier for politicians to divert attention to nonsensical issues such as AGW … and to promise us more taxes, that will do nothing for the environment.

  50. John W. says:

    This issue has never been about the climate or protecting “Mother Earth.” From the start, this has been about establishing totalitarian governance on a global scale.

  51. rbateman says:

    There is no other way.

    That spells “Cap & Trade” and “we must act quickly”.
    Maybe he is telling the UN what it wants to hear. Maybe not.
    Maybe he is telling us what we think.
    The disconnect is huge, either way it’s sliced.

  52. Ayrdale says:

    Failure for the green left propaganda machine.

  53. Thomas J. Arnold. says:

    Leaders across the western world are upping the ante, Copenhagen is around the corner blah blah.
    Obama is a little off, on the street Americans of all political persuasions are more concerned with matters closer to home ie jobs/health, this worries the Democrats and Obama particularly, he has staked a lot of political capital on his climate bill.
    The weather/climate is the last thing on peoples minds in the States seemingly and I don’t blame them, some things are more important and immediately pressing. Much to the chagrin of Obama. Good on yer – ole uncle sam -where the people are showing climate sanity!

  54. D. King says:

    MartinGAtkins (13:22:45) :
    Earth to Obama….. It’s the economy stupid.

    And from the originator of that quote.

    This is from Jan 2008
    Clairvoyant Clinton
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bill-we-just-ha.html

  55. “a world that is safer, cleaner, and healthier than the one we found; and a future that is worthy of our children.”

    Do it for those ±30.000 childeren below the age of 5 that will DIE TODAY because they lack that safer, cleaner, and healthier world. So how much time do we have left, 2 years, 5 years or perhaps 10 years? In 10 years time of doing nothing about those problems another 110 million kids under the age 5 will have died because they have no future at all.

    How many people will have died of causes directly related to global warming in 10 years time?

  56. Cassandra King says:

    Its a nice speech isnt it? But there are a few incorrect assertions in the presidents speech, he makes the basic error of confusing actual reality with a constructed artificial reality, its the departure from reality which is a little disturbing, more so when you consider this isnt me or you engaging in a flight from reality like buying a lotto ticket, it is the most powerful man in the world under the illusion that the words he speaks are true.

    There is no sea level rise to speak of, there are no refugees fleeing some kind of anthropogenic global warming catastrophe because there are no effects from global warming.
    There is no increase in violent storms/typhoons/hurricanes, the polar ice caps are stable, there is no tipping point on the horizon, no death spiral or irreversible catastrophe looming, there is no global warming because the planet is cooling and its as simple as that.

    Obamas speech claims to present actual events whereas in fact he was talking about events yet to happen based soley on computer models of what may happen if the computer models are correct.
    In effect the president is lying to us all, the leader of the western world telling lies before the UN.
    What have we as a civilisation come to when the most powerful man in the world with instant access to the finest scientists and scientific institutions the planet has to offer and he cannot tell actual reality from a computer model prediction, has he not been told that the events in his speech have not actually happened yet and there is no real evidence they ever will happen?

    The president talks about “carbon pollution” yet atmospheric CO2 is the key to life, a gas essential to all life on earth isnt a pollutant in any sense, when you cut to the chase its that simple, CO2 is life and it means life, it is no more a pollutant than O2.

    I was left with the feeling that unless reality comes a knockin on the whitehouse door soon then we are all screwed.

  57. GW says:

    This nonsens is mindnumbing !

    I feel like Jack Nicholson’s character in One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest !

  58. crosspatch says:

    “Do it for those ±30.000 childeren below the age of 5 that will DIE TODAY because they lack that safer, cleaner, and healthier world.”

    We could save something closer to 5 million children under 5 who die of diarrhea every year, spend a lot less money, save a lot more lives and do much less damage to the economy.

  59. Leon Brozyna says:

    Obooboo talks…

    Joe Wilson answers…

    Meanwhile, the climate proceeds at will, barely noticing mankind’s presence. And on the solar front, after taking a month long break, we’re getting a couple of quickly growing spots. Much more interessting than all that hot air at the UN.

  60. Paul revere says:

    I think I need to [snip].

  61. evanmjones says:

    Overstatement from an understatesman.

  62. Don B says:

    Court OKs global warming suits against power utilities.

    http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_13389821

    Obama’s support of AGW will only encourage more of this.

  63. Claude Harvey says:

    Our President intends to funnel massive additional revenue into the federal till one way or another. If he can’t do it through legislation, he has served notice he will do it from the Executive Branch through EPA rule-making. Unfortunately for us all, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way with their ruling that CO2 is subject to regulation by the EPA.

    I’ll give heavy odds that the postulated EPA “rules” will translate into “revenue” lifted from your pockets and placed in the federal coffers. The President is on film record saying that he did not intend to ban coal-fired power plants in the U.S., but only to make it so expensive to operate they would go broke trying.

  64. beng says:

    Sorry, I don’t have the stomach to read the Obaminator’s speech. About the same as trying to read Realclimate.

  65. savethesharks says:

    It is ASTOUNDING that the president can say all of that with a straight face. He truly must believe it. It is really bizarre how politicized science has highjacked the world.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  66. Dave Andrews says:

    Robert

    “Do it for those ±30.000 childeren below the age of 5 that will DIE TODAY because they lack that safer, cleaner, and healthier world”

    Precisely! There are so many areas in which we could improve the world, but the obsession with climate change means that money that could achieve the former will probably largely be wasted on attempts at mitigation of the latter.

    I believe an old saying was “adapt and survive”.

  67. Ack says:

    A near record corn crop this year in the US. Yep hard times for the ag industry.

  68. Philip_B says:

    Joel Shore, the survey questions from your link.

    1. When compared with pre-1800s
    levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
    have generally risen, fallen, or
    remained relatively constant?
    2. Do you think human activity is a significant
    contributing factor in changing
    mean global temperatures?
    With 3146 individuals completing

    I’d answer ‘risen’ and ‘yes’ to these questions and I am most definitely a sceptic.

    The fact of the matter is we don’t even know how many of the scientists who participated in the IPCC agreed with its published conclusions. And the IPCC participants would have been far from a random (ie representative) sample of scientists.

    The scientific consensus claim is wholey political and has scientific validity at all.

    The IPCC could easily have conducted a scientific survey of participants. I can only conclude they haven’t because they won’t like the results.

  69. MDM says:

    Anthony, are you implying that Obama (or anyone else) should use polls to dictate climate policy? How is that any different from the “concensus science” Al Gore promotes? Should we also take a vote on whether or not to teach creationism in schools? That’s a scary proposition in my part of the country. Policy-makers have to rely on “expert” advice, flawed as it may be. It is dogmatic science that needs to be exposed and scrutinized.

    REPLY: I’m simply pointing out that the vast majority of public opinion doesn’t agree with the President’s position on climate. Anything you read into it is your own conclusion. – A

  70. savethesharks says:

    “More powerful storms will threaten every continent.”

    Perhaps the President should take a look at Ryan Maue’s Accumulated Cyclone Energy chart and the nosedive it is taking before he opens his mouth too quickly on this issue.

    Oh but that’s weather and not climate I forgot silly me.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  71. Bill P says:

    Lost: One crisis. Hairy. Black and White. Lost since February.

    Where, oh where, oh WHERE is our little pet crisis??

    Please contact Rahm Emanuel, co the White House at the end of the block.

  72. Kevin Kilty says:

    To say that the “United States has done more in the last eight months…” is just a way to give the Democrats credit for something, I am unsure what, without appearing blatantly partisan. By the way, what are these concrete things being done, other than a recession being underway which reduces demand for energy anyway? Politics is exactly the antithesis of science.

  73. Jerry Lee Davis says:

    I’m fairly old now, and have seen several Presidents come and go. I can recall that many times I felt confused about which way America should go regarding some issue or the other. But no more!

    Now, all I have to do is figure out what Mr. Obama says America must do (easy in this case, tougher in most other policy areas). Then, knowing what Mr. Obama thinks, I can be fully confident that the truth lies in the exactly opposite direction.

  74. Philip_B says:

    On an entirely different tangent, can ANYONE name just one coastal village anywhere in the world which has had to have been abandoned solely because of sea level rise?

    There are many thousands of villages in SE Asia built on stilts due to rising sea levels. As far as I am aware they all pre-date WWII and most pre-date the 20th century.

  75. Ron de Haan says:

    Robert van der Veeke (14:00:42) :

    “a world that is safer, cleaner, and healthier than the one we found; and a future that is worthy of our children.”

    Do it for those ±30.000 childeren below the age of 5 that will DIE TODAY because they lack that safer, cleaner, and healthier world. So how much time do we have left, 2 years, 5 years or perhaps 10 years? In 10 years time of doing nothing about those problems another 110 million kids under the age 5 will have died because they have no future at all.

    How many people will have died of causes directly related to global warming in 10 years time?”

    Robert,

    Is it not a bloody shame that our Governments have spend over 79 billion dollars to sell the blatant lies about Global Warming and Climate Change?

    No child will die from causes directly related to Global Warming.

    They will die in the millions from Bio fuel projects, high food prices, energy rationing, corruption, price dumping and the destruction of our economies.

    Green Plans, black death!

  76. Benier duster says:

    O/T but there seems to be two new solar Cycle 24 spots appearing, one on the northern hemisphere and one on the southern, both at similar latitudes. There like london buses these spots!
    http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html

  77. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    There are so many errors in Mr Hope N’ Change’s speech and I have no doubt it was written by Gore because THAT IS his syntax.

  78. Josh says:

    I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Amazing how a man can lie straight-faced to millions of people and get away with it. Worse, maybe he believes the lie, or even worse, maybe he knows fully that he’s lying. Where are the virtuous leaders? Where is the integrity? We’ve gotta fight these people tooth and nail. The U.S. Government is oppressive and the U.N. is corrupt to the core.

  79. MDM says:

    Jerry, I would hope that you eventually realize that “truth” is rarely black or white (no pun intended).

  80. Tenuc says:

    Well, no surprises here. BO is clearly supporting the UN position on this issue.

    Any takers on who will be the first president of the soon to be ratified World Government?

    It will soon be time for each of us to decide if freedom is worth fighting for.

  81. Ron de Haan says:

    While her husband spoke about 30.000 children who are are dying from Climate Change Michelle did some shopping:

    Obama is not the only one who is “disconnected”.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091703679_pf.html?=no

  82. Michael says:

    The oceans that cover 3/4 of the planet are like a giant battery storing the energy of the Sun. There is an 18 to 24 month lag time before the diminishing effects of solar warming are noticed in the data. Even if the Sun were to dramatically heat up with activity, the effects would not be noticed in the data due to the same lag time.

  83. Philip_B says:

    We could save something closer to 5 million children under 5 who die of diarrhea every year, spend a lot less money, save a lot more lives and do much less damage to the economy.

    We could also save another 750,000 children under 5 who die of malaria each year by reversing the prohibition on DDT.

  84. Richard deSousa says:

    That’s all we need…. another trillion dollar boondoggle (Cap and Trade aka American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009) and tax bill. Representative John Dingell had it right… it’s a massive tax burden on the American taxpayer.

  85. Mark says:

    It may rank next to dead last in importance but this is the most important and game changing piece of legislation ever crafted in modern times and we need to make sure it gets top priority in our attempts to stop it.

    If the dems want energy security, just have the Treasury print up a hundred billion dollars, give it to firms, scientists, and physicists, and let them come up with alternate energy sources. There is no reason to ration oil to Americans nor is there any reason for us to send hundreds of billions of dollars per year to developing countries so they can build infrastructure, then take our jobs so they can then sell us things.

    I’d be surprised if democrats aren’t working to help the world’s poor. I’d also be surprised if there weren’t any foreign operatives inside the DNC working on behalf of the interests of foreign nations.

  86. CodeTech says:

    Actually, this speech proves my theory.

    Dems want, more than anything, to outdo the GOP. The Dems perceived that the last President was stupid and inexperienced. So, they found someone even stupider, and with even less experience.

    Brilliant strategy.

  87. Michel is right. What happens to the credibility environmental science when Mother Earth fails to play Obama’s scare game?

  88. In his disconnected brilliance he has previously stated, regarding the cap-and-trade bill: “At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe” — so even CO2 carbonation in soda is viewed by obama as dangerous pollution.

    Previous polls also show the disconnect. See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ObamasGovernment.htm

  89. slow to follow says:

    Steven Chu – please read the Wegman Report and then examine the subsequent multiproxy temp. reconstructions and see which of the problems Wegman identified have been eliminated and which have been repeated.

    And please clarify what is meant by “carbon pollution” – is this meant to be carbon dioxide?

    Science at the top table in politics should not be afraid to speak its name.

  90. Paddy says:

    Now the UN and AGWers claim that the global recession caused the first significant reduction in CO2 emissions in 40 years.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/earth/22emissions.html?ref=instapundit

    How is it that a reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, a small portion of total emissions, can be significant? It seems more likely that the cooling oceans are the primary cause of any significant reduction in atmospheric CO2.

  91. Richard Hill says:

    If you summarise comments so far it is about 99 saying the president has made a mistake and just 2 saying that it is not so.
    The 99 miss the key point. Politicians have to take advice. How can they be
    expert on anything, let alone a complex scientific topic? The issue is that a good politician knows who to take advice from. If I was president and the issue was climate I would take advice from the American Meteorlogical Society, Physical Society, etc. And what do these groups say? Anthony, your commenters seem to be technical types on the whole. You should encourage commenters to act through their own professional societies to get their views known. Better than ranting against a guy who is just doing his job.

  92. Tom in Florida says:

    As several have stated previously on this thread and others, it is not about climate or healthcare. It is about a one world government. The only way to bring this about is to destroy the U S economy. Every subject is twisted in order to levy more taxes until almost everyone in the U S will be dependent on the government for something. So let’s not waste our energy trying to educate those that aren’t interested in the truth. Better to keep your muzzle clean and your powder dry.

    “That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government…..”

  93. Robert Wood says:

    I too was amazed a Chu’s speech. Clearly the American People just aren’t as sensible as us sages. How could you people not agree with us, you betters, and we know ideology too!

    {Political Rant Mode ON} Truth is, this US government is ideologically driven and not just deaf to the citizenry, not even contemptuopus of it, but blind to vox pop. To them, all opposition is artificial and mercenary; all opposition to the president is racist.
    {Political Rant Mode OFF}

  94. Robert Wood says:

    BTW Are those two spots near the equator cycle 23? They have odd magnetism.

  95. Robert Wood says:

    Joel Shore @12:54:15

    In this case, Joel, your leaders are leading you down the garden path.

  96. Michael says:

    “Michel is right. What happens to the credibility environmental science when Mother Earth fails to play Obama’s scare game?”

    Annsnewfriend,
    Thanks

    The Sun is making a monkey out of Obama and many others who claim to be intelligent thinkers. No sunspots for them till they learn a lesson they will never forget.

  97. jeroen says:

    anybody counted the ‘lies’

  98. Rick K says:

    [hand slaps forehead]

    Anthony, to save you the effort, I’ll do this one for you in advance:

    {snip}

  99. mr.artday says:

    The insane running the asylum does produce interesting times doesn’t it.

  100. Adam from Kansas says:

    Spots with a given solar cycle have opposite polarity on the other side of the solar equator.

    There’s still time for Lief to be right about solar flux as the second spot isn’t directly facing Earth yet, if we see a third group yet than that may be a sign that the Sun finally turned itself on.

    Meanwhile we’re having a cool start to fall here and my city paper has acknowledged that the leaves are turning a few weeks ahead of schedule because the cool nights that usually sets that off started in late August instead of mid September.

  101. tarpon says:

    Just some short thoughts —-

    I wondered who Chew Chu thought he was addressing … Or for that matter, who Obama was talking to or for.

    And so why do you think Obama cares what Americans think about anything?

    I stand by my statement about what global warming is all about — Pay more in taxes to the government, so government scientists can pretend to control the weather.

    And when nothing happens in 50 years, we will mostly all be dead so who is going to complain. The perfect guilt trip scam for more taxes. The only problem, the sun decided it was time for anap after blwoing and going for the last 50 years.

  102. slow to follow says:

    Richard Hill (15:49:15)

    “You should encourage commenters to act through their own professional societies to get their views known. ”

    Steven Chu is a public officer – I suggest polite but direct questions to him on specific points are the best approach. He will be obliged to research and support his answers.

  103. Britannic no-see-um says:

    Slightly O/T but related. The Daily Telegraph is generally regarded as one of the UK’s leaders. Although it carries an environment (earth) column infested with typical AGW alarmism trivia, it also carries a respected comment column and popular blog section for current affairs of note where scepticism is not, as yet, censored. Yesterday, an pro-AGW commentary on the Copenhagen Conference appeared in the comment column, where usually they stay for a lengthy sojourn. Today. it rapidly retreated to a suitably well buried place in the ‘earth’ fest area, after a cateract of unanimously sceptic comments. It is still accessible however, and still presumably postable, at

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6216184/Political-will-can-deliver-change-in-Copenhagen.html

  104. BO is obviously a socialist mole, based on the number of blatant lies in this speech. No lie is too false, no claim is too bizarre for the New Socialist Manifesto. The man is a creation of the media. Watch him as he speaks and see what is within.

  105. Smokey says:

    Mark (15:15:17) :

    I’d be surprised if democrats aren’t working to help the world’s poor. I’d also be surprised if there weren’t any foreign operatives inside the DNC working on behalf of the interests of foreign nations.

    I just noticed this in the September 21 issue of Forbes magazine:

    In 1991 a reporter [Tim Sebastian] came across a 1983 memo addressed to Yuri Andropov [who was KGB chief and U.S.S.R. leader].

    “Subject: Senator Edward Kennedy. On 9 – 10 May of this year Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. The Senator charged Tunney to convey the following message.” The offer from Kennedy: a quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan; in return, the Soviet leader would lend Kennedy a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential race.

    Aid and comfort to the Soviet Union, which was working to subvert the U.S. Done in secret.

    The KGB changed its acronym to the FSB after the Berlin Wall came down. But the people are the same, and their goals are the same. It is astonishing [to me, anyway] that any U.S. citizen, much less a Senator, would treacherously sell out his country for personal gain.

    Based on what’s happening now, it is clear that the problem has gotten much worse.

  106. chillybean says:

    Phillip Bratby (12:39:18) ..
    To use scientific terminology, the speech was a load of bollocks from start to finish

    Ah yes, but we have moved beyond this now. We have built upon those original bollocks. And yes, those bollocks have risen from the ground and behold, we now have bollock towers. But behold the Sun, it is written that soon, these bollock towers will come crashing down and (self snip)

    (The book of Phil (istein))

  107. Gary Hladik says:

    Philip_B (14:51:59) : “There are many thousands of villages in SE Asia built on stilts due to rising sea levels. As far as I am aware they all pre-date WWII and most pre-date the 20th century.”

    References? (I’m actually curious.)

  108. rbateman says:

    Spot area currently stands at 147 x 10 E6 (derived from SOHO MDI cont. 20090922 20:32UT)
    Flux is at 75.

    Roughly about the same ballpark as the 1024 spot, flux up a point., spot area down a bit.
    So far. Both spot groups measured, 1026 & 1027.

  109. We finally have a leader in the White House that consults the scientific experts on these matters instead of his horoscope.

    Clap, clap, clap, for a President that finally has intelligence and courage to try to do what is right for Americans and the rest of the world.

    Health care and climate change in the same year – truly courageous.

    BTW, before you all start shouting Gore at me, I always vote and I have only voted for a Republican or Democratic Party candidate twice in my life: Reagan in 1984 and Obama in 2008. (I know that Nancy Reagan consulted her horoscopes so forgive me.)

  110. Mark says:

    Re, Smokey (16:21:31) :

    Hey, nice find Smokey. I found the link to this and am getting ready to read it right now.

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

  111. Mike Strong says:

    The record low temperature in December in Copenhagen is 9 degreees F.
    We can all pray that when the Dec 12th summit occurs…that they have another all time low and a ton of snow.

  112. Jesse says:

    “No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees.”

    How can anyone say these things and keep a straight face. Maybe he’s practicing for another late night talk show?

    Jesse

  113. Jerry Lee Davis says:

    MDM (15:00:00) :

    “Jerry, I would hope that you eventually realize that “truth” is rarely black or white (no pun intended).”

    OK, MDM. You are obviously correct. Therefore I hereby withdraw the word “exactly” from my comment.

  114. Curiousgeorge says:

    I think it’s very interesting that Obama’s pet media (CNN) basically ignored his UN speech on the climate today. That’s progress. And others have labeled it Ho-hum, boring. Good deal. :)

  115. the most foolish ruling the Supreme Court ever made was calling CO2 pollution.

  116. Richard says:

    MDM (14:41:35) : Anthony, are you implying that Obama (or anyone else) should use polls to dictate climate policy?

    That was conjecture about what Anthony was implying – an implication which is highly doubtful – and then passing a value judgement on that conjecture.

    The caption was: ‘Obama’s disconnect with America on the climate issue’. From Obama’s speech “Taken together, these steps represent an historic recognition on behalf of the American people and their government. We understand the gravity of the climate threat.”

    These words taken with the poll does indeed show a disconnect between what Obama claims that the American people recognise, and what he purports to understand, about the gravity of the climate threat.

    And whereas the should not use polls to dictate climate policy, he should not use economically damaging and unintelligent policy either that will not solve anything but will surely bankrupt an already crippled America and western nations.

  117. Jack Simmons says:

    michel (12:57:41) :

    Yes, this is quite dangerous. It is going to blow up, and it will take sensible, moderate environmentalism with it, and we will all lose heavily from that.

    Q: What do you call a moderate environmentalist?

    A: One with an empty gas tank.

  118. Michael says:

    “Curiousgeorge (17:01:48) :

    I think it’s very interesting that Obama’s pet media (CNN) basically ignored his UN speech on the climate today. That’s progress. And others have labeled it Ho-hum, boring. Good deal. :)”

    I noticed that too. Blitzer only talked about his pet subject, Israel. What has Israel done for the US lately? I usually only watch Dobbs on CNN but I wanted to see what the Israeli shill was going to say about BO’s climate speech at the UN.

  119. Mike Lorrey says:

    “And already, we know that the recent drop in overall U.S. emissions is due in part to steps that promote greater efficiency and greater use of renewable energy.”

    This is why destroying the economy is so important: people living in caves (those that survive the culling) will emit less pollution. If we don’t do it naturally, thats what those FEMA camps are for.

  120. Michael says:

    There should be a new category for sun spots, call them sun blemishes. Galileo would laugh at what we call sunspots these days.

  121. Mr Lynn says:

    Cassandra King (14:05:49) :
    Its a nice speech isnt it? But there are a few incorrect assertions in the presidents speech, he makes the basic error of confusing actual reality with a constructed artificial reality, its the departure from reality which is a little disturbing, more so when you consider this isnt me or you engaging in a flight from reality like buying a lotto ticket, it is the most powerful man in the world under the illusion that the words he speaks are true. . .

    The president talks about “carbon pollution” yet atmospheric CO2 is the key to life, a gas essential to all life on earth isnt a pollutant in any sense, when you cut to the chase its that simple, CO2 is life and it means life, it is no more a pollutant than O2.

    I was left with the feeling that unless reality comes a knockin on the whitehouse door soon then we are all screwed.

    I think we can be sure that this speech was written by Stephen Chu or John Holdren, both poseurs as science advisors and notorious practitioners of junk science and radical alarmism, then refined by a professional speechwriter or two, and proffered to Obambi’s teleprompter for him to recite as imposingly as he could.

    Those presidential advisors are quite immune from reality, however hard it comes a-knockin’, and the ersatz President cares only how well he reads these fairy tales to his childlike admirers.

    /Mr Lynn

  122. Noelene says:

    Only 46 percent think the economy is the most important issue?54 percent didn’t care or put other higher.How strange.For me, the economy is a always number 1(national security number 2),and doesn’t belong in such a poll.I wonder how people would answer if asked
    can a country with a weak economy have decent health care for all?
    I find that poll depressing,just as the GW hysteria is depressing,because it will not be stopped.The writer in the Age knew it,when he made the quote of the week.

  123. matt v. says:

    From Rasmussen reports for Sept 2009

    Forty-seven percent (47%) of U.S. voters say global warming is caused by long-term planetary trends rather than human activity.

    However, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% still blame human activity more for climate change, while five percent (5%) say there is some other reason.

    Except for June when the two points of view were virtually tied, voters have been trending away from blaming human activity since January.

  124. Benjamin says:

    If government always has its priorities backwards, then here’s what *their* list would look like…

    1. Unsure
    2. Other
    3. Climate Change
    4. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
    5. Budget deficits
    6. Healhcare
    7. The Economy

    Sounds about right!

  125. lucklucky says:

    But no disconnection with Journalists.

  126. 3x2 says:

    Fairly sure that the one tax fits all is, and always has been, a recipe for riots on the street. (see UK Poll Tax, peasants revolt and numerous other attempts)

    I see no graded tax here. Florida energy taxes will be the same as those in Maine. If Florida residents use energy to be comfortable in Winter but the residents of Maine use it to stay alive (scale that planet wide). What exactly happens to residents of more northerly regions compared to the more equatorial? Don’t tell me “we give you a tax rebate proportional to your average GPS position for the last 12 months”

    Strange, looking back, that even up to a decade ago I really believed in global government but now I have come to see the EU/UN as the enemy – alien, something to be destroyed before it destroys me and mine. By force of arms if necessary. I suppose it was inevitable – one size fits all never lives up to the advertising. There is no way the UK Gov. would ever re-run the 1970’s “do you want to be in the EU?” vote. They already know the result for 2009.

    Two Wolves and a Sheep at the table deciding on dinner – the Sheep flicks the “safety” off his AK47.

  127. Robert Wood says:

    Adam from Kansas (16:11:37) :

    There’s still time for Lief to be right about solar flux as the second spot isn’t directly facing Earth yet, if we see a third group yet than that may be a sign that the Sun finally turned itself on.

    If a third set of sunspots occur within the next 15 days, so all three groups are present at the same time, I will send Lief $20US.

  128. John M says:

    Philip_B (14:40:24) and Joel Shore (12:54:15) ::

    I’d agree with Philip_B’s comment wrt to the survey of scientists and similar surveys that are often bandied about—they are worded in such a way that even a hefty number of skeptics would answer the “correct” way. Somehow, though, that leads to leaps in logic such as these from our friends at the BBC.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8265974.stm

    The vast majority of climate scientists say there must be no further delay in emissions cuts.

    But for all Mr Brown’s promise of leadership, the UK has not yet committed to the 40% CO2 cuts most scientists say are needed from rich nations by 2020 to contain climate change.

    Someone please point me to a poll where “most scientists” say “rich” nations have to cut emissions by 40% to “contain climate change.”

    And Joel, that Zogby poll you link to doesn’t seem to have anything in the question about costs and sacrifice. Maybe this is why?

    The Zogby International telephone survey of 1,005 likely voters was commissioned by the National Wildlife Federation and was conducted from July 31-August 4, 2009.

  129. Trevor says:

    There is a touch of a “Messiah Complex” in some of the statements of Obama.

    There is a great similarity between the nations of USA and Australia: We are both headed by men who have vastly inflated opinions of themselves and yet they were both elected by a large popular vote. Say’s a lot out our respective populace, we deserve what we get, unfortunately.

  130. 3x2 says:

    Tom in Florida (15:50:28) : (and of course the US DoI)

    Better to keep your muzzle clean and your powder dry.

    “That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government…..”

    Adding ..

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    Ah … how times don’t change eh?

  131. Ron de Haan says:

    michel (12:57:41) :

    “Yes, this is quite dangerous. It is going to blow up, and it will take sensible, moderate environmentalism with it, and we will all lose heavily from that”.

    I don’t believe it will.
    If this blows up, common sense will rule again.

  132. Paul James says:

    To quote a fine lady of my aquaintance

    “He couldn’t lie straight in bed”

  133. George S. says:

    Thanks for yet another emetic Obama address. The text of this speech provoked in me a physical response and some sailor-like cursing.

    Barry Soetero (Der Leader) and his band of merry men know what’s best for us. Nothing to see here…keep moving along.

    I haven’t heard about any outbursts of “you lie” from any of those in attendance.

  134. Tom in Texas says:

    “the GW hysteria is depressing, because it will not be stopped.”

    It takes 67 votes in the Senate to ratify a treaty.
    They may (or may not) get 60 to pass obamacare, but they’ll never get 67 to
    chain the U.S. to an international Cap & Tax or Spread the Wealth (what’s left of it) Plan.

  135. Robert Wood says:

    evanmjones @14:14:52

    Overstatement from an understatesman.

    Applause!!! clap. calap!!

  136. Robert Wood says:

    Trevor @18:34:21

    There is a touch of a “Messiah Complex” in some of the statements of Obama.

    Just a touch? He is Mr. Vanity Megalomania Himself.

    It’s all about him; his reflection in his own miroire

  137. Roger Sowell says:

    @ Richard Hill:

    “You should encourage commenters to act through their own professional societies to get their views known. “

    I agree, completely. In fact, I give a formal speech to professional societies, on the subject of global warming laws in California (AB 32) and the impact on engineers. I gave this speech on September 17 to the Northern California section of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and earlier in June to the Los Angeles section. I make my skeptical views known, and the reception was enthusiastic.

    see http://www.aiche-norcal.org/Meetings/sept09_north.php

  138. Michael says:

    [snip way off topic - likely spam]

  139. Mike McMillan says:

    Scott A. Mandia (16:46:28) :
    We finally have a leader in the White House that consults the scientific experts on these matters instead of his horoscope.

    Current data suggests that the horoscope has tighter error bars.
    Grammar n*zi suggests using ‘who’ instead of ‘that’ when referring to a person.
    .

    Philip_B (14:51:59) :
    There are many thousands of villages in SE Asia built on stilts due to rising sea levels. As far as I am aware they all pre-date WWII and most pre-date the 20th century.

    They were built on stilts as the population expanded because the dry land was already taken. The water pre-dated the villages.
    .

    Perusing Axelrod’s BO’s speech, my b.s. meter pegged out high. But he is right about time running out. He has until November 2010, inshallah.

  140. Joel Shore says:

    John M says:

    And Joel, that Zogby poll you link to doesn’t seem to have anything in the question about costs and sacrifice.

    Well, it did ask a question about how they thought the plan would affect jobs. Mind you, I am not saying it is a perfect poll and I have already noted that there is definitely a disconnect between what the public believes and what climate scientists believe. But, the disconnect is not as large as Bloomberg poll that Anthony cited might lead you to believe.

  141. Pamela Gray says:

    I voted for this idiot. To be sure, I posted a letter on his campaign website to please reconsider his stance on climate change and instead consider the Science on its own merit. He must not have read it. Or if he did, he didn’t take the feedback seriously (sarc off). Next time I am voting Libertarian. Unless he backs off of this climate bill, I will not vote for him again. Nor any of his ilk.

  142. evanmjones says:

    Ah, Pamela. Remember when I told you that we liberals had been orphaned?

    What you describe is how it feels; I sympathize very much.

  143. Nick says:

    Unusually for me I happened upon the speech live.

    He sounds **exactly** like George Bush. (who was a wonderful listen, for the gaffs)

    I think it is the dreadful rhythm and monotone drone. Presumably this is the result of terrible coaching.

  144. rbateman says:

    I believe a lot of folks sent those letters, Pam.
    They obviously were not read. One look at the new offices created tells me why.

  145. Bulldust says:

    I miss the ole terminology… were it the Republicans pushing this agenda
    (I know… it’s a stretch of the imagination) they would be declaring a “War on Climate!” So, is it time to The South to rise again?

    Incidently I saw a good cartoon in an Aussie paper today… middle aged couple sitting watching TV:

    Husband: What does hugh Jackman know about climate change?
    Wife (sweating profusely & fanning herself): Is it hot in here?

    Yeah Hugh might be hot, but that is where it ends in respect of his impact on climate change.

  146. Bill McClure says:

    If the voters are not driving this issue,who is? In this blog I know that is a retoricial question but Why is the answer. Greed,power,out of control goverment, lobbiest and money the ingrediants of a great mystry novel.

  147. Roger Knights says:

    Here’s the case of island inundation Obama was probably referring to, at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Carteret_Islands

    The Carteret Islands (also known as Carteret Atoll, Tulun or Kilinailau Islands/Atoll) are Papua New Guinea islands located 86 km (53 mi) north-east of Bougainville
    The atoll has a scattering of low-lying islands called Han, Jangain, Yesila, Yolasa and Piul, in a horseshoe shape stretching 30 km (19 mi) in north-south direction, with a total land area of 0.6 square kilometers and a maximum elevation of 1.5 m (5 ft) above sea level.

    Flooding
    It was widely reported in November 2005 that the islands have progressively become uninhabitable, with an estimate of their total submersion by 2015. The islanders have fought a more than twenty years battle, building a seawall. However, storm surges and high tides continue to wash away homes, destroy vegetable gardens and contaminate fresh water supplies. The natural tree cover on the island is also being impacted by the incursion of saltwater contamination of the fresh water table.

    Cause of Carteret Inundation
    Huene Carteret Islands
    Paul Tobasi, the atolls’ district manager with PNG’s Bougainville province, and many other environmental groups have suggested that the flooding is the result of sea-level rise associated with global warming. He also stated that small tidal waves were becoming more frequent.

    The Carteret islands likely consist of a base of coral that sits atop an extinct volcanic mount. In the usual geological course of events first proposed by Charles Darwin, such islands eventually subside due to weathering and erosion, as well as isostatic adjustments of the sea floor. It has also been speculated that dynamite fishing in the Carterets such as occurred in the island during the prolonged Bouganville
    Bougainville Island conflict may be contributing to the increased inundation. Coral reefs buffer against wave and tidal action, and so their degradation may increase an island’s level of exposure to those forces. Another suggestion is that tectonic movement may be causing the gradual subsidence of the atoll.

    Ongoing Relocation
    On November 25, 2003, the Papua New Guinean government authorized the government-funded total evacuation of the islands, 10 families at a time; the evacuation was expected to be completed by 2007, but access to funding caused numerous delays.

    In October 2007 it was announced that the PNG government would provide two million kina (USD $736,000) to begin the relocation, to be organized by Tulele Peisa of Buka, Bougainville.

    CNN has reported that the Carteret islanders will be the first island community in the world to undergo an organized relocation, in response to their island sinking. The people of the Carteret are being called the world’s first environmental refugees.

  148. Justin Sane says:

    Who’s Obamas speech writer anyway, Al Gore?

    If the Senate won’t pass the energy & security law then the EPA, a non-elected, partisan hand picked Obama group will dictate to the entire country what the noisy misguided green Luddite minority wants. I just hope it won’t be too late to undo this pile of BS in the next election!

  149. Roger Knights says:

    “China’s Carbon Emissions Pledge Leaves UN Negotiators Guessing”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aenpm99Ba8Pc

  150. Patrick Davis says:

    Glad I didn’t vote (Couldn’t anyway) for KRudd747. But here’s the results from the Youth decide site;

    http://www.youthdecide.com.au/

  151. Back2Bat says:

    … but Why is the answer. Greed,power,out of control government, lobbiest and money the ingredients of a great mystery novel. Bill McClure

    When I was younger I heard people blame the bankers. I attributed this to envy or perhaps antisemitism. Later, I noticed how the Fed under Greenspan could drive the Stock Market wild with low interest rates. Much later, I studied banking a bit and came to the stunning realization that banks don’t lend depositor’s money; they create it as they lend it! This practice leads to the boom/bust cycle, environmental destruction, wars, social degeneration, etc., etc.

    All that to say this: Our banking and money creation system is a root of very much of the evil in the world today. It IS the bankers after all.

    “Respectable banker” is an oxymoron. They have set the population against itself when their banking model is to blame.

    You wanted to know “Why”. It turns out to be systematic, government backed violation of “Thou shall not steal”.

    Hi Pam :)

  152. John Andrews says:

    I watched the first part of Obama’s speech today. I watched him for a while and listened carefully to what he said. I soon understood that he did not understand the truth and was simply talking to the teleprompter. He never looked at me (the camera); not once! Unfortunately, I think he believes what he is saying is the truth. It bodes ill for all of us. Buy gold.

    John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee

  153. F. Ross says:

    Obama and climate change: trying to “fix” something that “ain’t broke.”

    …I guess the fix is in.

  154. Roger Carr says:

    “You lie!”
    Harsh words in the blogs responding to Obama’s speech to the UN.
    Harsh words, but accurate, as the US President spills out all of the old chestnuts of doom, disaster and death espoused by the carperbaggers of the C02 industry as though he were a paid spruiker for their wares.
    Patsy or deluded? Or just too young to have yet gained wisdom, and too proud to acknowledge it? Or really too green to yet know what wisdom is?
    Any one or all of those would be better than another possibility: that he attempts to manipulate to feed an ego. That would place him in the ranks of the despots of history.
    We must hope he is not one of them.
    Better for the world he is just a patsy or deluded.

  155. Can't Win says:

    We should do nothing about GW. If it still happens this will be a great way to cull the Worlds population and the survivors WIN. OTOH if we do stop GW the population will continue to rise and the energy/food will fail and many will die and the earths population will again be reduced.

  156. David says:

    Most cogrent point supporting the one…Policy-makers have to rely on “expert” advice,…
    Expert is a curious word, within the field of science over 30,000 signed the oregon petition, with far more PHDs then the IPCC, perhpas people listen to “their” expert, you know, the one they pay to get the result they want for their own POLITICAL agaenda.
    Obama has only one agenda, to change the foundation of the, in his own words, “flawed” constitution, he does not care if our economy is destroyed, it does not matter because this will just make more people turn to HIM for aid, changing forever the structure of our country. Bye Bye Miss American pie indeed. Millions unemployed is simply more fodder for the one’s “national security force as large and well funded as the US military”.

  157. Back2Bat says:

    “OTOH if we do stop GW the population will continue to rise and the energy/food will fail and many will die and the earths population will again be reduced.” can’t win

    Until evan pounds your comment, this:

    To Chicken Little with Love

    When the sky don’t fall
    like we think it should
    has reality
    been misunderstood?

    When things are better
    than they’ve a right to be
    is it just blind luck
    or was it meant to be?

    Are we just vain
    and a mockery?
    Deluded bags
    of biochemistry?

    Are the adults right
    and the children wrong?
    Should we crush their hopes
    and still their songs?

    When the sky don’t fall
    like we think it should
    has Reality
    been misunderstood?

  158. p.g.sharrow "PG" says:

    Pamela Gray; Welcome to the light. Carter was the last democrat president I voted for as a life long democrat. Was damned disappointed on that one.

    Maybe we can start a New Democratic party as the old one is going to be so discredited it will be 24 years before anyone will vote for them for anything.

    2012 is the end of time (the old ways) and the start of the next, new time. The Obama nation think they are the start of the new way but really they are the last gasp of the old ways.

    May we all live in interesting times.

  159. Jack Hughes says:

    The Carteret Islands are disappearing under the sea. The cause is disputed – the islanders have decamped to nearby Bougainville which has not disappeared.

    Wikipedia tells us more than the CNN piece:

    “The Carteret islands likely consist of a base of coral that sits atop an extinct volcanic mount. In the usual geological course of events first proposed by Charles Darwin, such islands eventually subside due to weathering and erosion, as well as isostatic adjustments of the sea floor. It has also been speculated that dynamite fishing [5] in the Carterets such as occurred in the island during the prolonged Bouganville conflict may be contributing to the increased inundation. Coral reefs buffer against wave and tidal action, and so their degradation may increase an island’s level of exposure to those forces. Another suggestion is that tectonic movement may be causing the gradual subsidence of the atoll. [7]“

  160. Richard says:

    I listened to the news on our TV. The political correspondent said that in Obama’s carefully scripted speech he left out anything specific that he would be doing for “global warming” (I prefer to call it by its correct original name). John Key our PM was very “disappointed”. Maybe Obama is not all that silly after all, unlike our John Key, who must join the bottom of the heap among the leaders who are lacking in intelligence.

    He staunchly believes in AGW as advised by his science advisor, who is an expert in premature babies.

  161. Richard says:

    PS – they said that China would be planting trees, the total area the size of Norway. Very sensible. It will do them good and they can afford it with all the money they are generating in their factories powered by coal and oil.

  162. Philip_B says:

    Gary Hladik,

    I thought I would find considerably more information on these stilt villages than I did. And somewhat confusingly the same Malay word -kelong – is used to mean a group of houses on stilts and a fishing platform.

    I was referring specifically to kelong located on offshore reefs close by islands in places like the Riau archaepeligo. They are common and large enough to house at least a dozen people and some many more. Typically they are a hundred to a couple of hundred meters offshore. I’ve seen a couple up close and they were built on reefs perhaps 2 to 5 meters below sea level rather than flat ocean floor. Apart from the reefs the ocean is deep in this area.

    I recall seeing a paper that said they were originally built in response to rising sea levels on islands that were originally above water and/or the technology developed slowly as sea levels rose, which makes sense given the difficulty in building on a rocky reef in several meters of water. Note the tidal range here is small and there are no cyclones.

    This book describes human impacts of holocene sea level changes. I learned that a rapid fall in sea level around 1350AD of half a meter or more caused widespread social disruption in the Pacific. Sea levels stayed low during the LIA and rose into the modern era, but not surpassing the 1350 peak.

    Climate, environment and society in the Pacific during the last millennium

    Sea levels have risen since 1850 and there is no evidence that any of the kelongs has been forced to relocate as a result, even though houses built below sea level are necessarily impacted by rising sea levels.

    So whether the kelongs were built in response to rising sea levels or just protected from rising sea levels as an unintended consequence of their location is unclear. And Google gave me no hits that any have been abandoned in modern times due to rising sea levels.

  163. Mark H says:

    DID HE SAY THAT CO2 IS POLLUTION.UNBELIEVABLE-NUFF SAID.
    IF this is what the majority of uninformed people think? Theres no hope for us.

  164. Mike Nicholson says:

    Given the recent speech of President Obama, I would reccommend everyone to re read, or read for the first time, 1984 by George Orwell. Written in 1948, he describes a world, supposedly permanently at war, where news to the masses is filtered and controlled, history is snipped to remove anything which contradicts the current political views,and even free thinking is monitored by the Thought Police. Ring any bells??!

  165. Bruce Cobb says:

    Pamela: Yes, I voted for him too, but really, what choice did we have? Hopefully the Republicans can come up with a better candidate in 2012. Meanwhile, change is coming in the mid-terms, and it won’t be the type of change Democrats can believe in, either.

  166. Chris Schoneveld says:

    Come on guys, give Obama a break. He is as erratically parroting the global warming mantra as all the other presidents, prime ministers and what have you in the world from left, right to centre with the exception of Vaclav Klaus. So it is not a socialist hobbyhorse per se.

  167. Chris Schoneveld says:

    Come on guys, give Obama a break. He is as erratically parroting the global warming mantra as all the other presidents, prime ministers and what have you from left, right to centre with the exception of Vaclav Klaus. So it is not a socialist hobbyhorse per se.

  168. Stefan says:

    If I was Obama I’d be looking to sell the third world a whole lot of nuclear power stations, all inspected and legislated by an international authority, giving direct control to the West of the rest of the world’s energy supply, and giving the west a reason to put its own governing structures into every part of the world, and where necessary, its own armies. Iran building its own nuclear power? Not allowed. But put it under Western control, and that would be ok. Repeat for rest of world.

    Remember, as the rest of the world develops, it will also increase its prosperity and military power. We can’t have countries in Africa starting wars with each other. We need something that will give the West control over all these places. And they’ll pay us for those nuclear stations, like we pay for oil today. In the meantime, we’ll probably carry on using oil as it is convenient. But they’ll develop how and where we say so.

    We already have enough divisions in the world, between rich and poor, and between cultural blocks. Islam and Christianity are growing rapidly in Africa, China is having ever greater influence, and so on. The tectonics of the global system are ever shifting.

    The money the West gives to the third world now will be used to buy stuff from the West, and kickstart their development and help guarantee repeat custom. That’s what I’d be trying to do, if I was Obama.

    Nuclear proliferation continues to be the number one threat from man to man. It was bad enough having a small handful of technologically advanced countries with nukes. We don’t know how we survived those decades. But imagine, seeing as people are so fond of projections and forecasts by experts, imagine a world in 20 years where 50 countries have nukes, and somebody sneezes. That’s what we are heading for.

    International laws and control of countries where any rogues country is immediately identified, and effectively stopped, will be absolutely necessary (in my expert judgement) if we are to survive. We will need to stop them using the least damaging means. This means we need to control them. This means we need to control their energy supply.

  169. Mark H. says:

    And from the “Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain” category, the NY Times this morning reported that advancement on the GW issue has been bogged down by an uncooperative climate. Apparently the Earth has just stopped warming (and may be cooling, darn the luck!), and it’s throwing a major wrench into the works. In addition, the article says:

    “The plateau in temperatures has been seized upon by skeptics as evidence that the threat of global warming is overblown. And some climate experts worry that it could hamper treaty negotiations and slow the progress of legislation to curb carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. ”

    Wouldn’t you know it? Just when they thought they had GW sewn up, the Earth has to go and cool off. Well, back to the old drawing board. Now they’ll have to search for another way to convince us all the world is ending.

    The entire article can be accessed here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?_r=1

  170. Craig D. Lattig says:

    Jerry Lee Davis (14:50:51) :
    Now, all I have to do is figure out what Mr. Obama says America must do (easy in this case, tougher in most other policy areas). Then, knowing what Mr. Obama thinks, I can be fully confident that the truth lies in the exactly opposite direction.

    My lady and I observed this a few months back and named it the “180 Rule”.
    So far, it has very high predictive value.

    I heard the first few minutes of the speach and switched to a CD…if I want to hear whoppers, I drop down to the pier and listen to the fisherman for a while…and they generally have a better grasp of scientific facts…or at least the ones that actually catch fish do…..

    The President has been averaging more than one speach a day since he was sworn in…doesn’t leave much time for him to be in his office…makes me curious….just who the heck is actually running things???
    cdl

  171. Robert says:

    @Mike Nicholson (04:06:47) :

    I said it before, 1984 was meant as a warning, not as a manual.

  172. wilbert Robichaud says:

    Remember in 11 days the Olympic committee will announce who will get the Games from Copenhagen Denmark. Chicago is on a the list and Obama want the games in Chicago . the Copenhagen talks in December will need the US to be on board if it is to succeed. a deal in the making?

  173. IanM says:

    Back in the fifties there was a pop song “Two different worlds”. The title describes so well the world inhabited by the presidents, prime ministers, AGW activists, etc., etc., ad nauseam, who continually preach about a coming “climate crisis” due to CO2 emissions (formerly known as “global warming” until the warming stopped), and the world inhabited by those of us who look at what the world is actually doing.

    IanM

  174. Back2Bat says:

    “This means we need to control them.” Stefan

    Another control freak. And you assume, it seems, that a post-Christian West is benevolent. But look, we already have Western leaders that think CO2 is a pollutant and you wish to give them more power?

  175. Ron de Haan says:

    Henry chance (12:43:53) :

    “Is Europe angry about this or are we just being told Europe has issues with our ambivalence?
    I don’t have a problem with strong energy consumption because we consume so much producing crops.
    Resident Obama’s teleprompter is soft on facts and science as it is soft on economics”.

    Forget all about the Europeans,
    The people of Europe have got their freedom freedom stolen and EU does not agree on anything but further reducing the people’s liberties.
    As we speak they are destroying the agricultural infra structure by bankrupting the farmers. Millions are out of a job and by the next year they will stand in lines for food.

    If they don’t watch it Europe will be a part of Russia soon.

  176. deadwood says:

    Mark H. (05:52:34) :

    And from the “Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain” category, the NY Times this morning reported that advancement on the GW issue has been bogged down by an uncooperative climate. Apparently the Earth has just stopped warming (and may be cooling, darn the luck!), and it’s throwing a major wrench into the works.

    Andrew Revkin, while solidly in the AGW camp, is not your typical lemming. He quite often gets in trouble with the alarmists for speaking out about heir excesses.

  177. Vincent says:

    Out of the disconnect between Obama and the public, the proposition has been raised on this blog that the leader is doing what a leader is meant to do – lead! This is a worthy point of view that deserves serious consideration.

    I would start by questioning whether in fact Obama is indeed leading at all. What should not be underestimated is the amount of pressure that is continually being applied to world leaders “to fight climate change.”

    This pressure comes from a continual barrage of press articles that are universally critical of the perceived lack of urgency to the (imagined) problem. It comes from publicity seeking NGO’s (such as the normally low profile Christian age’s organization of a mass tresspass and email petition of Obama & Brown). It comes from authority figures in the UN (Moon et al). and last but not least it comes from a small coterie of the climate science clique who constantly sound the WTPT alarm (worse than previously thought). And yet still it comes from the figurative slaughter that any leader knows would be visited upon him if he expressed a skeptical opinion.

    That is the negative. Of course, the opposite is also true. By embracing the issues head on, by showing “leadership”, he is in effect seeking, and winning approval from the people that matter. This need for ego-grooming is at least as important as avoiding the pyschological pain that he would suffer from pushing the other way. It is a very powerful carrot and stick situation – and Obama has chosen the carrot.

    Thus Obama is simply being swept along in a torrent of opinion: a tide so powerful that reason and rational thought are but driftwood tossed in the waves. Therefore, if this is leadership then leadership be no more than bowing to the prevailing wisdom. But should not leadership be more than this? Where is the process of due diligence, the act of seeking confirmation of the facts? Obama is surely aware of dissenting views on climate change. Yet he chooses to deny their very existence. Why? Because to acknowledge that there exists dissent is to acknowledge that the science is not settled. To acknowledge that is to bring forth the approbation of all those from whom Obama seeks approval.

  178. Mike86 says:

    Here’s another comment by USA leaders on AGW:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/09/21/steven-chu-americans-are-like-teenage-kids-when-it-comes-to-energy/

    I’m thinking they’re also working on lowering our allowance and adding a curfew.

  179. Ashtoreth says:

    Its interesting the level of control that our ‘leaders’ seem to think they can get away with at the moment.
    Fuelled by the conspiracy of corrupt politicians, greedy media publishers and the people behind the curtain.

    One wonders what they will do if the globe continues to cool as it has in recent years? There comes a point when the public (who arent stupid so much as misinformed) decide the message is fake. At which point, continuing to beggar them on behalf of that message tends to lead to somewhat violent protest.

    The people in charge of the current scam obviously think that they have enough control that nothing will happen. I do wonder if they read history….which shows that no matter how much control you have, at some point it all falls apart. And the longer you keep the lid on, the more violent the backlash is.

  180. Chris Schoneveld says:

    Vincent (07:31:48) :

    Well said! And, again, this applies to most leaders in the world. Obama is no exception, unfortunately.

  181. Mark H. says:

    I love this quote from Energy Secretary Steven Chu:

    “The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue [climate change] is.”

    Translation: “You just aren’t smart enough to figure out this climate change stuff, so shut up, sit down, and hand over your tax dollars.”

    He left out (with a nod to Mike86): “And you’re grounded until you learn how to appropriately embrace climate change!!”

  182. Paul Tonita says:

    So…apparently the message here is one can’t walk and chew gum at the same time? That’s pretty lame. How many issues is he dealing with concurrently? Economy, health, war, climate…

  183. Richard says:

    Obama’s speech seems sensible:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8270174.stm

    Talks about building new coalitions and cooperation to solve world problems – sensible.

    The only thing that is not sensible is the endorsing of IPCC’s way to tackling climate change.

    “His speech received warm but not effusive applause, a sign perhaps that in the face of real world problems the expectations surrounding the president are gradually being adjusted to reality”. Adjusted to reality is right.

    As for Gaddafi: “It shouldn’t be called the Security Council, it should be called the Terror Council” yeah right from the guy who organised the Lockerbie bombing. We need to have him on the security council for it not be called the “Terror Council”.

  184. Richard says:

    Here’s a message from our Great Leader – John Key. He has led by example – he has shown us how each one of us can do their little bit in influencing ‘Climate Change’ aka Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    And how has he done this? – By walking from his hotel to the UN venue – all 500 yards of it, after flying to New York from New Zealand by jet plane and going by car from the airport to his hotel, thereby reducing his carbon footprint and saving the world.

    So next time you get home from work please follow my great leaders example. Stop your car at the end of your driveway and walk the rest of your way home. You will feel good about it and you will have contributed to saving the world.

    Anthropogenic Global Warming is a real threat to the world. Our science advisor, who is a world renowned expert on premature babies says so. And the solution is simple. Switch off your lights and pay your taxes.

  185. Craig D. Lattig says:

    Paul Tonita (09:50:49) :

    So…apparently the message here is one can’t walk and chew gum at the same time? That’s pretty lame. How many issues is he dealing with concurrently? Economy, health, war, climate…
    ………..
    No Paul, no one here is questioning the Presidents intellegence or ability ….or that he is doing one of the toughest jobs in the world.
    We do, however, have some doubts about his priorities…..
    cdl

  186. thurgood says:

    About 20% of registered Republicans are not sure if Obama is born in the US, so that’s the next thing he’s got to worry about.

    Steven Chu should know how smart the American public, he’s got a Nobel Prize after all and has been a professor of renown for over 3 decades. But then obviously he doesn’t know as much about policy as Limbaugh right?

  187. Bulldust says:

    Richard (12:46:11) :

    Libya is on the UN Security Council:
    http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp

    Clearly our friend Gaddafi was describing himself :) He must have a sense of humour that man.

  188. evanmjones says:

    We should do nothing about GW. If it still happens this will be a great way to cull the Worlds population and the survivors WIN. OTOH if we do stop GW the population will continue to rise and the energy/food will fail and many will die and the earths population will again be reduced.

    Aak! (POUND-POUND)

    a.) Even if it does warm up a bit, or even quite a bit, things will be just fine (if history is any indication whatever).

    b.) Energy/food will not fail; both will greatly increase, regardless (if history is any indication whatever).

    But then obviously he doesn’t know as much about policy as Limbaugh right?

    Speaking as a liberal, judging by their respective public statements on the matter, I would be forced to say it would appear not . . .

    And when has having a Nobel Prize and being a professor of renown for 30 years (strike two) ever resulted in an accurate appraisal of the intelligence of the American people? And compared with whom?

    (Come to think of it, Americans do seem to win a disproportionate percentage of those Nobel Prizes. But please don’t hold that against us!)

    OTOH, since you want to play that game, a third of democrats think dubya did 911, so maybe Doc Chu has a point, at that!

  189. Mark H. says:

    “Steven Chu should know how smart the American public, he’s got a Nobel Prize after all and has been a professor of renown for over 3 decades. But then obviously he doesn’t know as much about policy as Limbaugh right?”

    thurgood–What in the world does Limbaugh have to do with this? Focus on the issues and not the straw man. The point is, Chu is announcing that anyone who doesn’t embrace and believe in AGW is a fool. In fact, he’s equating the skeptics to “teenage kids.” How arrogant is that? I’m dismayed that Chu–a former professor and winner of the Nobel Prize–is so quick to close his eyes to scientific debate, especially when there is obvious and substantial evidence that at the very least calls into question the theory of AGW (and yes, it is still nothing more than a theory).

  190. Bruce Cobb says:

    Scott A. Mandia (16:46:28) :

    We finally have a leader in the White House that consults the scientific experts on these matters instead of his horoscope.
    Yes, but what do these so-called “experts” consult? They are more like the soothsayers of old, rather than scientists.

    Clap, clap, clap, for a President that finally has intelligence and courage to try to do what is right for Americans and the rest of the world.

    Shooting ourselves in the foot on energy policy, and further jeopardizing our already fragile economy can never be considered “what is right” for either America, or the world. So, Boo, hiss, hiss.

  191. wattsupwiththat says:

    Yeah Scott, Holdren’s a real gem of a scientist. This is well worth the read:

    http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/

  192. p.g.sharrow "PG" says:

    A pathological lier is not concerned with the accurateness of the facts used, just creating a good argument, “If you can’t convince them with what you know, then dazzle them with B.S.” Obama is the best speachifier I have ever heard, the best law schools, finest argument presenter, ever. Now the great deceiver is also chair in the world government and he says “follow me to a wonderful new future”, they will for a while.
    His time is nearly over, the house of cards that his life has been created from is beginning to collapse behind him. 2012 is the end of the Old ways and the beginning of the new. An unknown wise old man will set things on a new path.

    “May you live in interesting times.”

Comments are closed.