Last night at the DNC, President Obama released a climatic whopper to appease those donors that were threatening to withhold funds if he didn’t say something about climate in his speech. Prior to his speech, Joe Romm had the best line ever about the way Obama has been treating the climate issue:
Why have you and your administration been treating climate change like Voldemort — “The Threat-That-Must-Not-Be-Named.”
So, when Obama said last night ‘please send money’ :
And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future. And in this election, you can do something about it.
…Josh sharpened his funny pencil:
Bonus funny:
At Climate Depot, we have this today:
Obama mocked for claiming his presidency can control extreme weather: ‘Had FDR claimed that he could control the dust bowl drought, he would have been locked up in a loony bin’
- ‘There isn’t one shred of evidence that droughts, floods or wildfires have increased. There also isn’t one shred of evidence that American voters can change the number of droughts and floods and wildfires’
Not one shred of evidence? Sounds like post-normal politiscience!
A completely non scientific President !!
Obama may sound ridiculous when viewed in a certain way but these empty promises are not materially different from those of many other great religions which, for your allegiance, promise eternal salvation from a non-existent threat of eternal damnation.
The joke is not so much “Climate Change”, really it is the gullibility of the human race that is such a big “joke”.
If reelected, he will probably continue to drive down CO2 emissions — by further damaging the economy
Can anyone honestly think of a bigger threat to our children’s future than the massive debt we are forcing them to pay, while saddling them with higher energy costs and ballooning federal expenses, like social security and Obamacare?
The present course in Washington is by far the biggest threat to our children’s future. When they become homeless or can’t afford the energy to keep themselves warm, our children will wish it was a few degrees warmer. Too bad it won’t be.
Jeremy,
Say what? When your close to death, send me an e-mail. It won’t be a joke I can assure you.
As for Obama,
The EPA is damaging our supply of low cost electricty everyday. With double energy costs in this nation and union wages, let’s see how the USA stacks up with the economies of the world. I am betting that we won’t be able to sell anything, but I think that’s his plan anyway. Total dependence of Government, it’s working all over Europe…..LOL
Cynical pandering to donation sources.
And this:
You know what else is a threat to our children? $16 trillion in debt. Keep spending Obama but worry about the plant food (aka see oh two).
Based on some of the buttons on display at the convention, Obama has the slut vote locked up. He previously made a strong appeal to
illegal immigrantsundocumented residents. Now it looks like he has moved to solidify support among the Carbon Cult.With leadership like this, how can we go wrong?
Anybody looking over the shoulder of whoever is currently in charge of CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa?
When global temperatures drop, as seems likely with the solar flux on ration, I expect CO2 levels to level off then drop – together with levelling then falling sea level.
But who dare admit it? And we have been lied to before now. This is what I see, now I am for the first time actually looking at evidence linked to various of awful Lewindowsky’s “conspiracy” items. However, unlike what L. would like to foist on me, I am not, nor never will be, a “believer” in his terms, since the only thing I value is evidence from all sides, and the visible application of Scientific Method.
We need a dedicated advertising / PR campaign to change public opinion. O wouldn’t have gone out on that limb if public opinion was not somewhat on his side. And there are so many races in which the conservatives would gain a benefit if the needle of public opinion was moved against the climate change joke. And the arguments are on our side. So it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
The MSM controls most of the media, so our only outlet beyond blogs (not widely viewed) and Fox (only viewed by conservatives, pretty much) is to run a self-directed campaign. Importantly, conservatives are now energized by the issue, so any effective ad campaign would be self-sustaining by conservative contributions. So a minimal investment could get things running.
In addition to wanting to ban CO2, DNC delegates also seem to want to ban all corporate profits.
Here is a recent Peter Schiff video showing interviews with DNC delegates. No wonder the US is in such terrible shape and US national debt just hit $16 TRILLION this week…
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=07fTsF5BiSM
I’ve been waiting for Obama to mention the unmentionable. I really liked his speech including the comments on climate change, renewable energy and energy independence. It earned a campaign contribution from me.
BillD,
Fools and their money…
Grow the economy whilst reducing CO2 simps…more fracking!
“carbon pollution” presumably he means CO2? Its not a joke but his grasp of science definitely is isnt it? CO2 is a harmless trace gas and plant food essential for life on earth. How did it come to this that a plant food could be deemed to be a pollutant? Plant life takes in CO2 and gives out the O2 without which we would die, does this sound like a pollutant to you? If anything there is not enough CO2, more CO2 = more life.
Try withholding CO2 from a plant and it dies, that is no pollutant that any sane person would recognize, mercury filling the ridiculous and expensive light bulbs his regime worked so hard to foist on the American people is a genuine pollutant and some of the truly toxic ecofascist inspired legislation peddled by the EPA is nothing less than toxic but the CO2 that makes your soft drink enjoyable and that feeds the plant life which feeds the animals we eat is not a pollutant, to claim it is would be the sick joke of the age. See ya around then Mr one term turkey, dont let the swing door hit you on the way out.
Smokey says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:59 pm
BillD,
Fools and their money
—
Smokey,
Folks like BillD realize that the climate industry ™ requires MASSIVE government funding in order stay afloat, so naturally that constituency is going to donate money to keep the climate ca$h spigot flowing.
And this is yet another opportunity to stress to our U.S. friends that their vote in November to unelect our current president is vote to finally cut-off the bloated, unnecessary climate ca$h gravy train from the climate science elites. Remember that in 2011 the Republican congress was finally able to remove IPCC funding from the budget – a small, but important first step. We need to go MUCH further…
Obama v Romney answer 14 science and technology questions, including:
2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
Answers here->
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-romney-science-debate
Lucy – My own thumbnail assessment of the ‘conspiracy’ scene suggests that:
– There are two main classifications of conspiracy theory: (a) those that replace science with science fiction (NASA’s fake moon landings, aliens, etc) and (b) those that suppose venal corruption on the part of politicians and their owners (take your pick …).
– Generally speaking, those in class (a) are plainly false; while those in class (b) generally turn out to be true, when the facts come home to roost. (See “33 Conspiracy Theories that Turned Out to be True” – the list has been around for awhile.)
Hope this helps.
“Last night at the DNC, President Obama released a climatic whopper to appease those donors that were threatening to withhold funds if he didn’t say something about climate in his speech.”
—
Can anyone imagine Einstein demanding that the President affirm the validity of his Theory of Relativity in an acceptance speech? Einstein knew that public opinion was not the deciding factor. It didn’t even matter how many scientists disapproved of his theories because, as he stated, “it only takes one of them to prove me wrong.”
President Obama is not a scientist. That doesn’t mean he is wrong. It just means his opinion is political and should have no bearing on science. The idea that AGW proponents think his opinion is the deciding factor in climate science is what constitutes a “joke.”
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
— Albert Einstein
A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.
— Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
I stand with WUWT on climate science, and disagree with the President’s statements regarding climate change. However, I’ve seen others here who seem to suggest that Romney would make the economy better. I haven’t seen anything from Romney which suggests that he will. Romney is little more than a corporate puppet at this point. As a corporate puppet, he will continue an agenda which gives corporations more money and power, and average citizens less.
For me, Ron Paul was the only legitimate option for a presidential candidate that wasn’t a corporate puppet. Gary Johnson is an option, but he’s a Libertarian, and I haven’t seen anything which suggests that the Libertarians will be taken seriously this election.
I view US politics and climate science in much the same boat. The people up top are doing their best to prevent dissenting views from being heard. As long as we allow that to happen, things won’t get much better.
I digress… This is off point for WUWT. I would hope that climate change isn’t the single deciding factor of who people are voting for.
Heck with natural gas doing all the heavy lifting we will easily surpass any target any administration could have thought of. They will still want to tax you 3 ways from Tuesday for your “carbon footprint” of course but what else is new?
They will implement stupid measures and give buckets of money to their friends and claim victory and ignore that it was all natural gas not their policies.
Stephanie Clague says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:10 pm
“carbon pollution” presumably he means CO2?
===========================================================
Not necessarily. After all, he is, as they say in science fiction circles, a carbon-based life form.
OT
Jo Nova down again?
Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access /wp/index.php on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
http://joannenova.com.au/
What a scientific train wreck this man is! Carbon…really?
Anyone can become president but few should, especially those without any related experience.
As a Canadian I hope America thinks carefully regarding the consequences of re-electing this man
Josh:
I think this toon should be sold and syndicated as a political cartoon for nationwide (& international) publications!
Truth hurts and this one should really peg the pain receptors.
Bill D – You must be one those arrogant people who think the fleas can cure the dog when it gets sick; are you serious or is your mind going with all the so-called climate change? I’m so tired of all the idiots, like you and my representatives Boxer and Pelosi who think they can ‘save the planet’. It’s so ludicrous, it’s laughable,
I’m an atheist, but I don’t have that arrogant attitude. It seems clear that many of the CAGW crowd are atheists, they have no real belief or faith that God or the planet itself will take care of its inhabitants, so they hector the rest of us into thinking the end is nigh, even though we’re at 13 billion years and counting…
“Can anyone imagine Einstein demanding that the President affirm the validity of his Theory of Relativity in an acceptance speech?”
It’s not about the science, it’s about the money. The discussion should move to identifying the donors and their business interests.
1. Lefties can’t because they lose all sense of judgment about something dressed up as “green.”
2. Righties will scream down the argument if it moves towards embarrassing their cultic like embrace of “business” having everyone’s best interest in mind by pursuing their own self interest. E.g., showing that nukes, gas, and wall Street finance are the major puppeteers, not the leftie greenies. Rush Limbaugh is a master of that, and it shows in a not-insignificant portion of the American population.
Both of those sides talk endlessly like they are smart, but have huge holes in the head. All the lefties are smarter, they know how to turn a discourse away from “positive feedbacks” and frame all dissent as merely being about the CO2 molecule, aka, “carbon.”
FTM. Who are the “donors.”
BillD says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:52 pm
I’ve been waiting for Obama to mention the unmentionable. I really liked his speech including the comments on climate change, renewable energy and energy independence. It earned a campaign contribution from me.
=================================================================
Well, BillD, at least your donation was your choice. I work for the government. In my particular job, I’ve no choice but to give money to AFSCME. My “donation”, via a labor union, was not my choice.
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=American+Fedn+of+St%2FCnty%2FMunic+Employees&cycle=2012
Don’t you think it should be? To work for the government, I have to give money to a particular political philosophy? Is that honest?
As honest as “climate science”, it seems.
Actually, most of the evidence has, in reality, been shredded, no? sarc/off
Are the opinions expressed here concerning climate change as off base as those concerning the US economy? Gotta wonder….
From the Wall Street Journal:
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor
As for Obama,
The EPA is damaging our supply of low cost electricty everyday. With double energy costs in this nation and union wages, let’s see how the USA stacks up with the economies of the world. I am betting that we won’t be able to sell anything, but I think that’s his plan anyway. Total dependence of Government, it’s working all over Europe…..LOL
Steven, that’s a darn good parody of the cockamamie American right wing scream machine-business fetish wing. Would perfectly fit with the half-smart/totally dumb ignorance Rush Limbaugh spews.
However, I advise you to seek help. You are not parodizing, you are projecting. Is there a disease called Munchausen’s Projection by Proxy? You may have it. You created the wacky quote as a ego defense to give yourself less reason to consider the gravamen of the thread. :Like a strawman set up to be torn down; a distraction, hand waving.
Incredible that “the things we do to create energy independence will also allow us toput less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
CAFE standards, economic incentives, and a possible carbon tax, all can give us energy independence, according to Romney.
Either way, I can’t afford Obama lowering the oceans, or Mitt Romney “helping my family.”
Geez. It’s almost as if someone is intentionally giving Sen. Ryan material. Inbound electoral bitchslap in 3….2…
Robert Olsen says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:41 pm
I stand with WUWT on climate science, and disagree with the President’s statements regarding climate change. ….
I digress… This is off point for WUWT. I would hope that climate change isn’t the single deciding factor of who people are voting for.
==================================================================
I’d rather someone besides Romney was running but I know that Obama is running and I can see what he’s done. I don’t want him to have another 4 years to keep doing it.
And remember that all of the House seats are up and many of the Senate seats. Whoever wins, he can’t do what he wants without the Congress.
(For our non-US readers, Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate.)
PS to BillD: Last year about 42% of union dues where I work were spent on politics.
Louis says,”President Obama is not a scientist. That doesn’t mean he is wrong.”
No, Louis, it means he is not *even* wrong, as Richard Feynman always used to say. Obama’s comments and indeed many of the climate change comments, don’t reach even the lowest bar of credibility. I don’t like Romney, never have and while Obama is likable, his energy and environmental ideas are absolutely inane; so this means I have no one to vote for, again. At best I can only vote against. Nice.
Sorry, Mods, I don’t want to take this off topic. I won’t reply to union-type stuff if you don’t want me to.
Great post! Loved it!
Josh (whoever he is) rocks!
Nixon: “I am not a crook”
Clinton: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
Obama: “climate change is not a hoax”
mfo;
Obama v Romney answer 14 science and technology questions, including:
2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
Answers here->
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-romney-science-debate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Excellent link mfo !
Anyone who wants to see the position of the two candidates on this matter, this is well worth a read. Obama is clearly playing to his consituency. I expected the same from Romney. I was pleasantly surprised to read a rather cogent and detailed response. I doubt their positions on climate will influence the election to be honest, but the reality of the situation was rather well articulated by Romney.
I wonder if @Jeremy will be remembered as Blaise Pascal has been or for so long a time. See Pascal’s Wager – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ ““Pascal’s Wager” is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God. The name is somewhat misleading, for in a single paragraph of his Pensées, Pascal apparently presents at least three such arguments, each of which might be called a ‘wager’ — it is only the final of these that is traditionally referred to as “Pascal’s Wager”. We find in it the extraordinary confluence of several important strands of thought: the justification of theism; probability theory and decision theory, used here for almost the first time in history; pragmatism; voluntarism (the thesis that belief is a matter of the will); and the use of the concept of infinity. “
“Carbon Tax could raise $1.5 Trillion for the US government.” JoNova
No, I doubt their positions on carbon legislation will influence the election. But there is always an ant at the picnic who brings these things up.
mfo says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Obama v Romney answer 14 science and technology questions, including:
2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
Answers here->
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-romney-science-debate
Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response.
— Mitt Romney —
How very Ravetzian of him.
tallbloke,
Politics is an arena where Ravetz-type speech is commonly used. It is not science.
tallbloke;
Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response.
– Mitt Romney —
How very Ravetzian of him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You didn’t take enough punishment in the University of Colorado Seminar thread?
Romney has it right. Policy should be informed by science. Ravetz argument is for politics to inform science. Your defense of your friend is admirable, but you increasingly are defending the indefensible and making it clear that you don’t even understand what it is that you are defending.
mean while in australia best snow in 20 years season extended to 10/7/12 http://ski.com.au/reports/australia/nsw/perisherblue/index.html
You’re probably right; we could use another 4 years of worth of substandard ‘buddy-buddy’ supreme court nominations PLUS another 4 years of blocking pipelines and denying drilling permits AND THEN there are going to be continued cash ‘infusions’ to assure profitability of GM and the ‘solar’ and ‘wind’ industries …
We will ALL become ‘winners’ in life’s lottery due to enforced ‘social and economic justice’.
NOT (in case anyone has not caught on yet).
.
Obama is counting on the suckers to keep believing even if he gave up or more likely never did. Hes a pollitician after all. Fools and their money are soon parted and there are many fools.
One wonders if ppl like Zeke are aware of the staff, the people, the advisers, the authors, the teachers, the preacher the one has surrounded himself with compared to the other?
But then, I have known some PhD and MSc types who were particularly naive when it came to ‘political knowledge’ or understanding or evaluating people too …
.
Vote Obama!
Climate change will disappear in the next few years … if not by Xmas.
But proper healthcare is the right of everyone and it should not disappear.
They are coming out of the woodwork.
Global Warming is merely an excuse to tax us to death and then buy votes/power in order to remain in power in perpetuity. It is not surprising that the lefties immediately glomed on to that concept.
Anything to bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Mike Haeseler,
It is illegal to turn anyone away who needs health care. Therefore, everyone is covered. Everyone.
So the only reason to vote for obama is if you want the U.S. economy to keep going downhill. I want $1.87 a gallon gasoline again, and by throwing that bum out and putting an adult in charge, that will be easy to acheive.
“Under my Plan electricity costs will necessarily skyrocket.”
~ B.H. Obama
It is already happening.
Steven Hill on September 7, 2012 at 11:54 am
Jeremy,
Say what? When your close to death, send me an e-mail. It won’t be a joke I can assure you.
In all due respect I don’t think I’d be quite so certain about that. I have a wee little experience in this regard. In Sep. 2003 my former primary care doc sent me for a lung function test and in early 2004 was adamant in telling me, that as a result of that test, nobody lives beyond 5 years. Let’s see; what year is it now? And I can assure you, it’s not a ghost that’s writing this. After seeing two lung transplant surgeons the second one asked me if I’d choose to undergo the “risks” of the operation. At the time LTs were performed with a life expectancy of 2 years or less. That was in 2006 and, no, I haven’t had a transplant yet, and I’ve chosen to decline it. Then I went into the hospital in July 2011. That ‘genius’ doctor told me I had 6mos. to a year. What year and month is it now? And once again I have to inform you that it’s not a ghost that writing this. Because of the bang up great job that those doctors did I was mysteriously brought back to the hospital in Sept. unconscious in the back of an ambulance; something about narcolepsy. A few days in ICU, and a week in the hospital, two weeks in a nursing home, and I was back home having successfully thrawted my sibling’s plan to sign over my property (such as it is), and to discover that my watch had migrated over to one of their homes. “Oh, we thought you were going to die. We just had it for safe keeping.” I’m sorry Steven, but Jeremy’s right, it really does get to be a joke. And this is why, along with a million other reasons, is why I don’t trust a damn thing ‘experts’ or bureaucrats (er-climate scientists), or religions like to feed to us.
Josh, the part, “Obama care? Not a lot” was great!!!! Your rock !!!
I think there’s a correlation between increasing CO2 levels and Josh’s cartoons. As the CO2 level rises, the cartoons keep getting funnier and funnier; thanks for the laugh.
I might just take a vacation from WUWT until the US election is over. Too many mindless republican sloganeers around here spouting drivel.
I really think it is a bad idea to try to make this a political issue. This really isn’t about politics. It is about the science. All Obama is doing is following scientific advice. I think it is bad scientific advice. But bad science needs to be dealt with at a scientific and not a political level.
Similarly I note that the NZ climate coalition have lost their court case against NIWA. Seriously guys – you don’t fix bad science in a court of law either. Wrong approach. Not only did they lose by they got spanked by the judge with an award of costs as well. Basically the judge told them the judiciary was not qualified to rule on a scientific dispute. Well duh!
The whole climate debate is basically a scientific question. It isn’t a court case or a political campaign. When too much of that other stuff starts getting in here I start to switch off. The best way to deal with disinformation and falsehood is not to call up a politician or a lawyer, but to produce information and truth.
Getting back to the US election, quite apart from the whole philosophical thing, I also think tactically I think hitching your wagon to the republican party right now is a very bad idea. It is never a good idea to back losers. And from where I sit Romney looks like a total turkey.
Friday Funny II:
do u know u r quoted at MSNBC, Anthony, as from a denial blog? Stephanie puts brackets around letters, including at the beginning of your quote, for reasons i can’t understand:
7 Sept: MSNBC LiveScience: Stephanie Pappas: Those with conspiracy beliefs apt to deny global warming, too
And study that showed evidence of this sparks talk about — yep — another conspiracy
A study suggesting climate change deniers also tend to hold general beliefs in conspiracy theories has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs…
“(F)or some reason, Dr. Lewandowsky refuses to divulge which skeptical blogs he contacted,” wrote Anthony Watts, who blogs on the popular climate skepticism website Watts Up With That?
Climate change conspiracy
Though about 97 percent of working scientists agree that the evidence shows a warming trend caused by humans, public understanding of climate change falls along political lines. Democrats are more likely to “believe in” global warming than Republicans, according to a 2011 report by the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey Institute. In fact, deniers and skeptics who felt more confident in their climate-change knowledge were the strongest disbelievers. [ 10 Climate Change Myths Busted ]
Believing that climate change isn’t happening or that it’s not human-caused requires a belief that thousands of climate scientists around the world are lying outright, Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote in their new paper…
Climate psych controversy
Unsurprisingly, the results did not please climate-skeptic bloggers, some of whom responded by accusing Lewandowsky of not attempting to contact them at all. In an email to Lucia Liljegren, who blogs at The Blackboard, Lewandowsky declined to name the bloggers he emailed, citing privacy concerns.
In response, Liljegren wrote, “I think who Lewandowsky contacted will reveal whether he really even tried to conduct a balanced survey,” urging other bloggers to publicly give permission for Lewandowsky to reveal their names. The researcher told DeSmogBlog that he has contacted his university’s ethics committee to find out if he is allowed to do so.
In the meantime, Simon James, who blogs at Australian Climate Madness, has submitted a Freedom of Information request to the University of Western Australia in an effort to force the release of emails related to the study, and prominent climate-change skeptic Steve McIntyre has urged readers to email the university with academic misconduct complaints.
McIntyre later reported that an email search turned up a request from one of Lewandowsky’s collaborators…
“(T)o our knowledge, our results are the first to provide empirical evidence for the correlation between a general construct of conspiracist ideation and the general tendency to reject well-founded science,” Lewandowsky and his colleagues concluded. Psychological research has found that conspiracy beliefs are hard to dislodge, they wrote, but efforts to debunk multiple lines of conspiratorial reasoning at once may help.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48947384/ns/technology_and_science-science/
“And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future. And in this election, you can do something about it.”
If increased government spending on green scams and more public employees was the key to economic nirvana, Greece, Spain, Italy, UK, Australia, the US, and the other paradigm followers would all be entering a golden age. Massive government spending and massive increase in the number of government employees is not the answer. The Soviet Union failed for a reason. Increasing the size of government and jobs subsidized by tax dollars is not job creation. When the ability to borrow ends, the job ends. Communism does not work. The Obama administration is following the EU plan which leads to economic ruin.
The AGW bogyman provides an excuse for massive unsustainable spending on green scams such as the conversion of food to biofuel or wind farms which do not significantly reduce carbon emission and job killing regulation. Spending money on scams does not create jobs.
As the planet’s response to warming is to increase clouds in the tropics (negative feedback) a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C of warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will result in the biosphere expanding. Plants eat CO2. Commercial greenhouses inject carbon dioxide into the greenhouse to reduce growing times and increase yield. CO2 increases and moderate warming will cause the biosphere to expand and become more productive.
The crisis is not increasing atmospheric CO2 but rather the CO2 bogyman and policies created to fight the CO2 bogyman. The CO2 bogyman is one of the reasons Western Countries are failing to create private sector jobs.
The EPA regulation enforcers create and apply the regulation to block projects in accordance with the AGW bogyman. Low cost electrical power, low cost transportation fuel, innovation, low business tax, mobile work force, win-win job benefits and so on is what is required to enable the private sector to create private sector jobs which will cause the GDP to expand. The US and other Western countries can and must have structural changes to enable the private sector to create jobs.
P.S. I had an opportunity to listen to most of the key Republican speeches. I heard examine after example of city and state governments that have been successful in addressing the above problems. Mitt Romney appears to be a knowledgeable realist who can lead and who will sensibly address the structural problems.
I so love ideologues. It is the very reason we have the whole CAGW scam in the first place.
I’ll give you a hint why your statement is either contradictory, or simply borne of ignorance, Mike Haesler: if in order to enforce one right, another must be violated, one of the two is no longer a right.
I realize this may be a riddle you cannot solve, but try… think about it a bit, and wonder which of the two is more important to society. My guess is that you will choose poorly, but I’m open to be surprised.
Mark
tango says:
September 7, 2012 at 4:28 pm
mean while in australia best snow in 20 years season extended to 10/7/12 http://ski.com.au/reports/australia/nsw/perisherblue/index.html
============================================================
Tango, you behave or next March we’ll send Algaore back down there to watch something melt.
Haven’t really been paying attention have you?… oh wait, you follow up with:
When ignorance is self-inflicted, I feel no pity, nor shame for exposing it. The question of whether or not this is/was a “scientific” problem was settled long ago (hint: it is not).
No worse than hitching your wagon to socialists from the Democratic party. The only difference, a nuance apparently you are either unwilling to understand, or incapable of doing so, is how they want to control our lives. The “right” wants to do it through religious dogma, the “left” through collectivist dogma – both are controlled by margins that hardly resemble what the US population actually believes. In either case, it is still control.
A slave does not care from whence the whip comes, that it is a whip is his only concern.
Wake up.
Mark
I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that maybe you don’t actually understand what you are saying, being from NZ and all. Either way, hardly in your best interest, if proving your enlightened insight and brilliant wit was your goal, to follow up with the rest of what you posted. You did not come across as someone that has actually educated himself w.r.t. US politics, or the process, other than what he has read/seen on progressive media. Living in such a box may be comfy, but you won’t impress anyone with your knowledge if you don’t get out more often.
Mark
“Obama says he can stop droughts and floods, but he was unable to stop a 30% probability of rain which convinced him to move his speech indoors. Can someone explain how that works?”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/yes-we-cant/
Put down the knives a minute and focus on what he *didn’t* say.
You’ve won, Anthony. The skeptics have won.
He didn’t mention hurricanes.
He didn’t mention tornadoes.
He didn’t mention crop failures.
He didn’t mention melting icecaps or receding coastlines.
He didn’t mention mutant frogs or 50 shades of gray coral.
He didn’t mention anything anyone cares about.
I <3 Bill.
Nice!
not working, so we’ll change the rules again. Australia still stuck on $23/tonne:
7 Sept: Reuters: Fewer than expected bid for cap-and-trade emission permits
Nine states in the northeastern U.S. cap-and-trade system sold 24.6 million carbon emission allowances at a minimum bid price of $1.93 per ton, selling just 65 percent of permits offered, the program’s administrator said Friday…
All 22 bidders were seeking the permits to comply with regulations – either electric sector utilities or their affiliates…
In previous auctions, some non-compliance entities, such as banks buying for speculative reasons or green groups looking to retire the permits, have played a larger role.
The RGGI is a cap-and-trade system targeting electric sector emissions in nine northeastern and mid-Atlantic states from Maine to Maryland…
RGGI states are currently engaged in reviewing the program and are expected to recommend changes this year, which could include tightening its emissions cap…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/07/usa-emissions-market-idUSL2E8K7BYM20120907
Ian H says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:27 pm
I really think it is a bad idea to try to make this a political issue. This really isn’t about politics. It is about the science. All Obama is doing is following scientific advice. I think it is bad scientific advice. But bad science needs to be dealt with at a scientific and not a political level.
====================================================================
But a big part of the problem is that it is politics fueling the bad science for it’s own ends. Obama isn’t following faulty scientific advice, he’s using it and funding it for his own purposes.
So you hammer Obama for this, but not Ryan whose views are just as extreme the other way? Come on, the truth lies in the middle here and you know it.
Zeke says:
September 7, 2012 at 3:26 pm
“Carbon Tax could raise $1.5 Trillion for the US government.” JoNova
No, I doubt their positions on carbon legislation will influence the election. But there is always an ant at the picnic who brings these things up.
===================================================
$1.5 Trillion from what? (If a Carbon Tax is implimented.) Trying to make “getting blood from a turnip” a reality? Or is it 1.5 after the dollar is devalued to the point where it would take a truckload of dollars to buy a gallon of water? (I was going to “gas” instead of “water” but who, besides Algore et al, would still have a car by then?)
Oh, and, Josh, that’s a Classic!
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
September 7, 2012 at 8:08 pm
“Obama says he can stop droughts and floods, but he was unable to stop a 30% probability of rain which convinced him to move his speech indoors. Can someone explain how that works?”
=======================================================================
He could have stopped the rain but he couldn’t fill the outdoor seats.
Doug,
I certainly won’t be famous but Pascal’s Wager is wooly thinking because, unlike a flip of a coin, there are real costs associated in the decision to believe in something completely unsubstantiated. Many CAGW supporters claim they are not sure about the Catastrophic part of CAGW or convinced even how big the Anthropogenic piece might actually be, but using Pascal’s wooly logic, they argue that we must nevertheless curb our emissions just in case, increasing poverty through higher cost of living and food prices (real costs that are certain). Clearly, unless one is a complete hypocrite, adopting a belief leads to actions that have real costs, as is the case with CAGW!
Yesterday I posted this note, after reading Obama’s comments on climate change:
“The problem with democracy is that 50% of people are of less than average intelligence, and about 30% are just batshit crazy.”
I just watched Jon Stewart’s excerpts of your leaders’ speeches at the Democratic National Convention.
I now think I was far too generous in my comments. 🙂
Come to Norway and watch Norwegian politics for a while. Then decide whether it is a political issue or not. Or try the UK. It isn’t uniquely a US political issue, but it is politics.
Marc Morano:
“Climate Depot’s Morano reminds voters: ‘Acts of the UN and the U.S. Congress or EPA, cannot control the weather'”
ROTFLMAO. Oh noes!
Robert Olsen says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:41 pm
It should be the easiest thing to make the US economy better. Just stop the war on coal. Anyone could do that. So it’s the will, not the ability, that determines it.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1787005034001/crisis-in-coal-country
Mark T says “…they want to control our lives. The “right” wants to do it through religious dogma, the “left” through collectivist dogma…”
————————————————————————————-
The evidence of collectivist policy, (not just dogma) is verry pervasive. What is your evidence of anything comparable on the right through religious policy What multi billion and trillion dollar programs are they proposing based on religious thought?
BillD: ” I really liked his speech including the comments on climate change, renewable energy and energy independence. It earned a campaign contribution from me.”
What a coincidence! Me, too – for his (slightly saner) opponent.
Mike Haseler says:
September 7, 2012 at 4:52 pm
“But proper healthcare is the right of everyone and it should not disappear.”
A right is not forcing someone to give you something of theirs. But Obamacare is not about heath care, it is about health insurance. Far too many people have spouted their ignorance of what insurance actually is and is not. You buy insurance based on your own perceived financial risk. Health insurance is purchased for protection against a large financial loss due to serious illness, it is not purchased so you can save a few dollars every time you visit a doctor. The choice is yours and yours alone. Requiring everyone to buy health insurance is actually forcing healthy people to subsidize unhealthy people. Now if you want to do that, you have every right to donate all your money to a worthy cause that will help unhealthy people. But you have no right to require me to do the same.
I think Obama was just posturing, and I doubt very much that he would do much more than that in his second term, because his hands are tied by America’s financial crisis. He said something which is trivially true (“Climate Change is not a hoax”) but he said nothing about how it should be addressed.
Nor Romney.
Climate change isn’t the great fault line between the candidates, which means it won’t be a point of debate because both candidates have too much to lose in discussing it.
Pharaoh, I am God.
Many, or at least some, cultural Anthropologist during the crust-able period (ended about the same time that Poli-sci became mandatory in University) of Theory vs Claim-fact articulated that all cultures require 5 components to sustain that culture. One of these is to believe in some purpose-power greater than thyself, all known religions.
Burning Bush – Washington DC. The purpose within humanity. An association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and AUTHORITY distinct from those of its members (one definition of Corporation). Collectivism for the masses of humanity separated from the Corporation authority. A 747 plus 2 C5A’s , 1 to 2 C41’s burn how many gallons- fossil fuel per hour? Today PRC (China) faith is collectivism, with industry semi separated from that god, the masses not even a part thereof excepting the meager taste of sugar.
Representative governance is dead. Political affiliation is alive.
Ian H says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:27 pm
I might just take a vacation from WUWT until the US election is over. Too many mindless republican sloganeers around here spouting drivel.
I really think it is a bad idea to try to make this a political issue. This really isn’t about politics. It is about the science. All Obama is doing is following scientific advice. I think it is bad scientific advice. But bad science needs to be dealt with at a scientific and not a political level.
Similarly I note that the NZ climate coalition have lost their court case against NIWA. Seriously guys – you don’t fix bad science in a court of law either. Wrong approach. Not only did they lose by they got spanked by the judge with an award of costs as well. Basically the judge told them the judiciary was not qualified to rule on a scientific dispute. Well duh!
The whole climate debate is basically a scientific question. It isn’t a court case or a political campaign. When too much of that other stuff starts getting in here I start to switch off. The best way to deal with disinformation and falsehood is not to call up a politician or a lawyer, but to produce information and truth.
Getting back to the US election, quite apart from the whole philosophical thing, I also think tactically I think hitching your wagon to the republican party right now is a very bad idea. It is never a good idea to back losers. And from where I sit Romney looks like a total turkey.
You could be right Ian, Romney might very well be a turkey but that is unknown at this point. What is not unknown though is that Obama is most DEFINITELY a turkey, to the nth degree, and how any thinking person in this country would want 4 more years of him is totally beyond me .
@chris B: Thanks for sharing the video. I’m currently living in Germany but soon residing in California.
So, this Obama type – is he a real threat?
Just kidding…
Obama: “And in this election, you can do something about it.”
Yes we can… and have a nice trip back to Chicago!
I agree that climate change is not a hoax. Neither is the tidal pull of the moon on the oceans or the presence of lions in Africa
Asking a politician a scientific question is like asking a 20 year old to make change without a calculator.
“Climate change is not a joke.” That’s too bad, I’m already laughing.
Well, we don’t know any of his other grades, but we do know he got a ‘F’ in science. Oh, and ‘F-‘ in economics.
A Danish comedian participated many years ago in an Danish election for parliament. The program was among many things, better summer weather, more tailwind on the bicycle roads, better Christmas presents etc etc..
He was elected with a very good margin.
Ian H says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:27 pm
And yet you turn right around and regale us with a bunch of mindless democratic slogans. Bad form, there, Ian.
Then, I say, let us have Thanksgiving dinner every day!
Every geologist knows the past is the key to the future. We knew practically nothing about Obama–ecept that he went to some impressive schools but we have no idea what his grades were. He was a community organizer and a member of the New Party. We know a whole lot more about Romney:
Mitt Romney is a member of the Republican Party and was the Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 through 2007.
Romney had the distinction of being the valedictorian for his class at Brigham Young University, where he graduated summa cum laude with a B.A. in English.
Although he then attended Stanford University for two semesters, he left to be a Mormon missionary in France for over two years.
Romney then attended both Harvard Law and Business Schools to graduate cum laude from law school and as a Baker Scholar in business with a joint J.D. and M.B.A.
Romney built his career as a businessman in the private sector, founding Bain & Company, a consultant group, which helped prominent companies like Domino’s Pizza rebuild their businesses.
He was appointed the President of the Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee, which was in danger of collapsing from scandals like bid rigging, to reorganize and ensure that the 2002 winter games took place successfully.
This feat led him to becoming Governor of Massachusetts, which was in economic turmoil. Romney eradicated a $3 billion state deficit without raising taxes or borrowing funds.
Major Platforms:
Shrinking the federal government,
Lowering taxes,
Creating jobs by promoting trade and free enterprise,
Repealing Obamacare,
Reforming healthcare through the private sector,
Strengthening the military
Yup–I like turkey.
“President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”
Clint Eastwood, 2012
You have to hand it to Eastwood, even at 82 he can still come up with memorable one liners!
Michael Jennings Said:
“You could be right Ian, Romney might very well be a turkey but that is unknown at this point. What is not unknown though is that Obama is most DEFINITELY a turkey, to the nth degree, and how any thinking person in this country would want 4 more years of him is totally beyond me ”
I happen to be a thinking person. As a thinking person, I’m not clouded by Republicrat propaganda. I do not watch Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC. I get the vast majority of my information from the internet.
Washington DC has been bought by corporate interests. If there is any hope to get integrity back into Washington, it has to come from somewhere other than the Republicrats. We need fresh blood with new ideas. As long as we continue with this nonsensical idea that we have to vote for one person to make sure that someone else doesn’t get elected, our political system will continue to be corrupted with the corporate Republicrat puppets that we have now. As a thinking person, that’s the conclusion that I have reached. Have you come to a different conclusion?
Lucy Skywalker says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Anybody looking over the shoulder of whoever is currently in charge of CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa?
Hi Lucy,
As far as I know, Pieter Tans is still the NOAA head of the CO2 measurements, including Mauna Loa. He is a nice guy (of Dutch origin), only interested in providing the best data available (even if he is a “warmer”). Thus if you think the data are manipulated: certainly not under his supervision.
The most recent ones can be found at:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
and in graph form:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Doesn’t look like that the CO2 rate of change will go down any time soon…
RockyRoad says:
September 8, 2012 at 8:07 am
Ian H says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:27 pm
“I might just take a vacation from WUWT until the US election is over. Too many mindless republican sloganeers around here spouting drivel.”
And yet you turn right around and regale us with a bunch of mindless democrat slogans. Bad form, there, Ian.
More proof that the progressive socialists can’t think for themselves, thus their need to have a government that wipes their every sniffle at everyone’s expense but their own. All the rhetoric is a reflection of who they themselves are. They fall easy to the catch a wild pig syndrome.
Robert Olsen says:
September 8, 2012 at 8:44 am
That’s why I quit the Republicans and have joined the Tea Party and Freedom party. The fact that both the old entrenched GOP and the Dems hate the Tea Party is sufficient evidence this new grassroots effort isn’t backing corporate interests or socialist ideology.
The Tea Party stands for traditional American values, smaller government, and the Constitution. Anybody that doesn’t know that has been listening to devious sources of information.
Obama was a member of the New Party–dedicated to eradicating capitalism. He is also the subject of the movie 2016, which is being panned by the administration but is accurately described here:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082712-623654-2016-documentary-exposes-obama-media-bias-.htm
However, if Romney is elected and he turns out to be just another Progressive, the Tea Party will work to make sure he isn’t re-elected.
I often ask people how long they think it took our Founding Fathers to come up with the ideals contained in the Constitution and I typically get the answer “several years”. Actually, it was preached from pulpits and was the main topic of newspaper editorials for more than 60 years! That’s three generations back then. And if you disagree with what the Constitution claims, then you aren’t for individual rights; somebody has brainwashed you into being subservient to the collective. Good luck with that.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 8, 2012 at 8:51 am
Hi, Ferdinand,
Are you aware of the informal logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem? Regardless of what you may read on wikipedia, the fact that Pieter Tans is Dutch & a nice fellow is not evidence that he is truthful.
Further, the statement “[he is] only interested in providing the best data available” is an excellent example of ipse dixit.
Obama not only can control the weather, he can heal the whole entire World.
Ian H,
Explain this. And this. And this. And this. And this.
Where does the buck stop??
“Under my Plan, electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket.” ~ BHO
Oh dear. Please tell me this entire comments thread is a nightmare and that all climate skeptics are NOT right-wing redneck fundamentalists. Please tell me that at least some climate skeptics trust science over any faith-based value system including politics. Please tell me that climate skepticism is a rational choice.
Stark Dickflüssig says:
September 8, 2012 at 10:30 am
the fact that Pieter Tans is Dutch & a nice fellow is not evidence that he is truthful.
Further, the statement “[he is] only interested in providing the best data available” is an excellent example of ipse dixit.
The fact that he is Dutch indeed doesn’t assure you that he is honest, but I had some correspondence with him and he provided a few days of raw voltage data of the CO2 measurements at MLO, so that I could check the methods to calculate the CO2 data myself.
The methods used and the calibration procedures can be found at:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
I don’t see that somebody at MLO is “adjusting” the 8 million or so raw data in such a way that a quite continuous increase in CO2 is fabricated… The more that different people from different labs in different countries all find the same increase at some 60+ stations in “background” surroundings.
Some years ago, Pieter Tans was on WUWT too:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/04/one-day-later-mauna-loa-co2-graph-changes-data-doesnt/
and very detailed what happened:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/06/post-mortem-on-the-mauna-loa-co2-data-eruption/
and further discussion at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/07/mauna-loa-to-improve-the-co2-data/
that discussion resulted in the above mentioned detailed procedure…
Earth to Mike; the whole world does not think like you do. Good thing, eh?☺
BTW, scientific skepticism is rational, and the only honest scientists are skeptics. As you probably know, lots of scientists are not skeptics. What does that tell you?
[If an incompetent jamoke can’t administer the country or the economy, then we have a problem. Time to change horses.]
Mike Mellor says:
September 8, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Oh dear. Please tell me this entire comments thread is a nightmare and that all climate skeptics are NOT right-wing redneck fundamentalists. Please tell me that at least some climate skeptics trust science over any faith-based value system including politics. Please tell me that climate skepticism is a rational choice.
Mike, that makes at least two of us from the other side. It seems that the connection between right wing and climate (change) skeptics is more pronaoucned in the US than in Europe, but that is said from a distance, with a deep ocean inbetween…
Mike Mellor says:
September 8, 2012 at 1:31 pm
And please tell me you haven’t been brainwashed when formulating these opinions.
Please do some research and don’t believe what the MSM, the UN or the DNC desperately need you to believe in order to survive. Or did you pick up the term “right-wing redneck fundamentlist” from a reliable source?
Pat says:
“Nine states in the northeastern U.S. cap-and-trade system sold 24.6 million carbon emission allowances at a minimum bid price of $1.93 per ton, selling just 65 percent of permits offered, the program’s administrator said Friday…”
What’s this $#it? I thought the congress shot down cap & trade. It must be Central Planning: Obama’s EPA.
Mike says. “Please tell me that climate skepticism is a rational choice.”
Your little diatribe is trying to equate people who do NOT espouse left wing political beliefs as irrational. Your attitude is plain silly and puerile. If you really think that left wing policies are the only solutions that make any sense then look in the mirror; it is actually you who are being emotional and irrational. Both left wingers and right wingers can BOTH be very clever and rational – they just hold different opinions and values.
Mike, this is not a left/right issue. Just ask Rosa Koire who’s blog is democratsagainstagenda21. There are thoughtful people on the left also, some of them are probably scientists.
“Please tell me that at least some climate skeptics trust science over any faith-based value system including politics.”
The climate scientists can get in line with all of the other yahoos who have all of the answers.
Our Constitution does not enshrine the use of a scientistic class to direct the lives of Americans. It separates powers between 3 branches of government. There is also necessary “hostility” between the Federal government and the states. The use of “science” and such organizations as the EPA to make legislation and regulate the use of the Earth’s atmosphere is illigitimate and illegal. The actions of Lisa Jackson making agreements with foreign and world governments about our domestic energy use is also illigitimate. In reality, the cap and trade bill could not be passed and Copenhagen could not be signed.
No not all of us are right wingers. Nor left wingers. Some of us just understand that environmentalism… or rather, the larger anti-humanism movement that it belongs to… is probably *the* greatest threat to prosperity right now.
Stephanie Clague wrote:
mercury filling the ridiculous and expensive light bulbs his regime worked so hard to foist on the American people is a genuine pollutant
I just picked up some of those “40 Watt equivalent” Phillips LED white-when-lit bulbs for my house from Home Depot. They look great, and no mercury! I’m glad there’s an even lower energy option now than CFL, and the price has come down quite a bit.
Ferdinand,
Incompetent administration is the problem:
You can’t fix that kind of stupid and corrupt leadership. Obama’s policies directly harm the poorest by jacking up gasoline and energy prices. This Administration looks at the average American taxpayer with hatred, and also as a free cash machine. Time for a change, no?
Mitt Romney was on the short list for vice-president picks for John McCain. So if McCain had not decided to go with the high risk, “game changer” Sarah Palin maybe the amateur SpaghettiO wouldn’t have been elected? After all, Romney had the business knowledge and experience that McCain was lacking.
They must be pretty numerous! FoxNews outpulls the next 4 or 5 news channels combined, and has for years.
On the other hand, Obama has backed shale oil and he expected to back – wait for it – cold fusion. – if you believe the cold fusion supporters that is.
And over in the UK a new Minister for the Depertment of the Environment (DEFRA) has the greenies up in arms as he is a climate sceptic and no friend of wind farms.
Could the politicians be jumping ship? It looks like it.
But I suspect that the new pet project for the activists is just now starting to simmer nicely – population alarmism. Of course, the obvious money here is in arable land and GM crops.
So It is not to be unexpected that Obama has little to say, the dog that didn’t bark. The reason is he too is jumping ship and pretty soon the core alarmists like Mann and Jones may be left to take the heat. They make very nice scapegoats. Nothing will stick to Gore or his ilk. They will say they were “only following the advise of specialists like Mann”. They will, of course, get to keep any money they already made out of the scam, sad to say.
Mike Mellor says:
September 8, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Oh dear. Please tell me this entire comments thread is a nightmare and that all climate skeptics are NOT right-wing redneck fundamentalists. Please tell me that at least some climate skeptics trust science over any faith-based value system including politics. Please tell me that climate skepticism is a rational choice.
================================================================
Yes. Not “betting the farm” on a tree ring is a rational choice.
PS Are you claiming that your political views are NOT based on what you believe? Do you live in the US? Don’t you remember “Change we can believe in!”?
I f you believe that what you believe is not based on your beliefs, you might be a Green-neck.
1) Canada cut diplomatic relations with Iran on Friday and recommended all Canadians leave Iran within 7 days.
2) Obama is facing re-election problems.
3) The US electorate historically has rallied around the President in times of military action.
4) Military action against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities ahead of the November US Presidential Election?
I doubt it, ferd, war drums haven’t been getting louder. Romney and Netanyahu are close old friends and both realize the timing now would not be good.
http://world.time.com/2012/09/05/worried-about-israel-bombing-iran-before-november-you-can-relax/
Global warming alarmism is a right-versus-left issue for some people, but that is not an objective assessment of the situation.
I am aware of people on all sides of the political spectrum who oppose global warming alarmism, because they reject the “CAGW hypothesis”, that increasing atmospheric CO2 is allegedly causing catastrophic global warming.
The “climate skeptics” position is supported by these FACTS , and many others:
– there has been no net global warming for 10-15 years despite increasing atmospheric CO2;
– the flawed computer climate models used to predict catastrophic global warming are inconsistent with observations; and
– the Climategate emails prove that leading proponents of global warming alarmism are dishonest.
The political left in Europe and North America have made global warming alarmism a matter of political correctness – a touchstone of their religious faith – and have vilified anyone who disagrees with their failed CAGW hypothesis. The global warming alarmists’ position is untenable nonsense.
I dislike political labels such as “left“ and “right”. Categorizing oneself as “right wing” or “left wing” tends to preclude the use of rational thought to determine one’s actions. One simply choses which club to belong to, and no longer has to read or think.
To me, it is not about “right versus left”, it is about “right versus wrong”. Rational decision-making requires a solid grasp of science, engineering and economics, and the global warming alarmists have abjectly failed in ALL these fields. Their scientific hypothesis has failed – there is no global warming crisis. Their “green energy” schemes have also failed, producing no significant useful energy, squandering scarce global resources, driving up energy costs, harming the environment, and not even significantly reducing CO2 emissions! The corn ethanol motor fuel mandates could, in time, be viewed as crimes against humanity.
It is difficult to imagine a more abject intellectual failure in modern times than global warming alarmism, The economic and humanitarian tragedies of the Former Soviet Union and North Korea provide recent comparisons, a suitable legacy for the cult of global warming alarmism.
Smokey says:
No…They are only not turned away when it comes to emergency care, which means we all end up paying for it anyway. And, since “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, it is actually more expensive and has less good outcomes than if these people had regular medical care.
It hasn’t been going downhill…Obama reversed that, on all counts, whether you want to talk private sector jobs http://assets.dstatic.org/imgs/blog/20120803-July_jobs.gif , the stock market http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^GSPC&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&c= , or finally even now housing prices.
Fine, then elect the Republicans to the Presidency. They indeed produced that low cost of gasoline when Obama took office because they crashed the entire economy, and crude oil and hence gas prices came crashing down with them. Here’s gas prices http://www.bts.gov/publications/multimodal_transportation_indicators/february_2012/images/highway_retail_gasoline.gif and here’s crude oil prices: http://c3352932.r32.cf0.rackcdn.com/1328586840_0.png You can see how, earlier in 2008, before the crash in the economy and world crude oil prices, gas prices were high as you can see. And, gas prices are rising again mainly because the economy is recovering and demand is increasing.
Joel Shore says:
The economy “hasn’t been going downhill…Obama reversed that, on all counts…”
I am now fully convinced that Joel Shore is completely insane:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
click11
And I have a LOT more of those. Which I will post between now and the second Tuesday in November.
Wow, Smokey. That’s really impressive how you can throw up a bunch of random graphs that in no way deal with the substantive points I’ve made. That’s the difference between you and I: I use graphs to actually illustrate logical arguments; you use graphs (and ideological posters that have no content whatsoever) in place of logical arguments.
Stand by for more. Lots more. Because they have an effect.
So do you and Rocky get a cut of the partisan cash pro-Republican blogs get?