The climate fools rush in at the inaguration

From AP Video:

President Barack Obama is pledging to respond to what he calls “the threat of climate change.” He says that failing to do so would be a betrayal of the nation’s children, and of future generations. (Jan. 21)

Video and comments from Al Gore follows:

WUWT reader Chris Beal sends this in:

Al Gore Wrote Today:

In his second Inaugural address today, President Obama spoke powerfully and eloquently about the critical importance of solving the climate crisis. His forceful commitment to take action will rekindle the hopes of so many that we are at long last approaching the political tipping point, beyond which we will finally start transforming our economy to sharply reduce global warming pollution and safeguard the future.

President Obama Said in his speech today:

Here is the key section of an inspiring speech:

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries ­ we must claim its promise.”That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure ­ our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks.”

Ref:
http://blog.algore.com/2013/01/inaugural_address.html

UPDATE: Delingpole has a go at this ridiculousness here.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Al Gore, Alarmism, Government idiocy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

151 Responses to The climate fools rush in at the inaguration

  1. Amr Marzouk says:

    The Boris Johnston quote on your site an hour ago sums it up fully:
    As a species, we human beings have become so blind with conceit and self-love that we genuinely believe that the fate of the planet is in our hands — when the reality is that everything, or almost everything, depends on the behaviour and caprice of the gigantic thermonuclear fireball around which we revolve.

  2. PaulH says:

    James Delingpole has a good write-up on Obama’s “war on reality”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100199161/obama-declares-war-on-reality/

    “Still, for all that, I applaud the President’s chutzpah and ingenuity. If you want to expand the size of government as much as he obviously does, there’s really no better way than to declare war on reality.”

  3. Auto says:

    Barmy O’Barrack again.

  4. Tim Walker says:

    Gotta find a barf bag quick.

  5. Steve says:

    The EPA is already out of control. 2nd term- the gloves really come off. Keep your powder dry and keep telling the truth, folks.

  6. Regarding the Australian fires…

    If the analysis of their intensity being caused by overprotection during the last few decades is accurate, I have to ask: Why didn’t they learn from Yellowstone? And, in a related vein, I *hope* that *we* learned from it… did we? I remember in the aftermath there was a lot of awareness of the unfortunate need for “natural fires” as part of the forestation cycle. Are we still showing awareness of that in our actions here or have we forgotten?

    :?
    MJM

  7. Glacierman says:

    “He says that failing to do so would be a betrayal of the nation’s children, and of future generations. (Jan. 21)”

    But leaving them a bankrupt country is a great idea.

  8. David L says:

    He’s concerned about our children’s future? How about not bankrupting their future with his trillions of big government debt?

  9. Keitho says:

    But he knows he told a lie when he said more extreme weather like Hurricane Sandy because Sandy wasn’t out of the ordinary. Did he lie unknowingly as in “I didn’t know the facts” or did he deliberately lie because he knows but just wants to put this invented crisis to good use.

    Either way it’s a big fat lie, and it will be shown to be so.

  10. Mark and two Cats says:

    …a betrayal of the nation’s children…
    ————————————————-
    Again with the children. I guess it wasn’t enough to use children as human shields for his gun control media event.

    Reminds me of that Socialist Realism painting of Stalin: http://tinyurl.com/a4wtayt

  11. EthicallyCivil says:

    “more powerful storms” — AAAAAAAAUUUUUUGH! Why won’t that meme die?

  12. Poptech says:

    I see no overwhelming science in support of alarmism. Maybe he doesn’t know about all the science that does not agree with him?

  13. john robertson says:

    Malice? Or Incompetence?

  14. Neil McEvoy says:

    Welcome to the asylum America.

  15. Otter says:

    So! How many new renewable energy companies has he chosen to go bankrupt, waste a lot of resources, go out of business and enrich their ‘green’ ceos?

  16. Ken Hall says:

    “In his second Inaugural address today, President Obama spoke powerfully and eloquently about the critical importance of solving the climate crisis. ”
    So says the man with a bigger personal carbon Footprint than some countries, Al Gore!

    WHAT CLIMATE CRISIS???? How the hell is being in the situation whereby the world is NOT warming up at all for 2 decades in any way a crisis?

    DO these people not look at the data at all? THEIR MODELS ARE WRONG!

  17. pete says:

    “a betrayal of the nations’ children”
    but spending trillions beyond what we can afford, saddling future generations with crippling debt, isn’t a betrayal?

  18. Mark Bofill says:

    ““We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”
    My apologies because I’m sure this has already occurred to … just about everyone out there who’s been awake for the last four years, but I can’t seem to stop myself from belaboring the obvious. Why is it again that saving our children and future generations from the threat of climate change, which may or may not have an impact a century or more down the road, more of a priority than saving our children in the decades to come from indentured servitude to pay back insane increases in federal deficit spending?

  19. D. B. Stealey says:

    David L says:

    “He’s concerned about our children’s future? How about not bankrupting their future with his trillions of big government debt?”

    Willis Eschenbach had an excellent comment about that on another thread today:

    Inexpensive energy is how the poor get out of poverty. The war on carbon is nothing more than the rich white folks’ war on the poor. Raising energy prices is the most regressive tax conceivable. It hits the poor harder than anyone. I suppose that might be OK if cutting carbon helped people in any way, but we don’t have any evidence that either the proposed danger is real, or that the proposed cure will do anything but cost money to no effect.

    For me, making energy more expensive now, which is guaranteed to hurt the poor and is doing so as we speak, in exchange for the vaguest of possibilities of future help to the poor, is an obscene gesture by wealthy folks who will not be harmed. When fuel gets expensive, you can be sure Cassady Sharp won’t go hungry … and you can be damned sure that poor people will go hungry. But Cassady doesn’t care about the poor, she cares about carbon.

    Pathetic. You guys are impoverishing the world’s poor through expensive energy, literally taking food out of the mouth of poor kids, and you want to claim that you are the compassionate caring ones?

    Spare me. You are doing immeasurable harm and smiling all the way to the bank, it is sickening.

    Willis posted it to the Greenpeace comments section, where it was moderated out of existence. But it is too good a comment to let their censors delete it completely from the internet.

  20. JP says:

    Don’t worry. In 5 years time, when the world is seeing late frosts and early snowfalls accompanied by brutal winters, the next President will promise to end this scourge of Anthropogenic Global Cooling. Additionally, he will demand higher regulations on fossil fuels in order to warm the planet.

  21. Gerry, England says:

    Just remind me again why you re-elected him? Oh, yeah, he bought off 47% of the voters so only had to dupe a further 4% and job done.

    Keitho’s deliberations about him lying or being ignorant are just the same as we have over here with ‘Call me Dave’. Is he really so ignorant and ill-informed, or is he lying? And he must hire some dumb advisors if he isn’t lying as they are doing a poor job of advising him. Given that he is a politician, and as lying and cheating come naturally to them, I plump for that.

  22. kcrucible says:

    .”The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transfer of cash to Americans that supported my campaign.”

  23. Philip Peake says:

    @John Robertson: Malicious incompetence.

  24. Moe says:

    Thank God a leader listens to the professionals and not opinion writers on blogs. Finally we can get down and do something meaningful about the changing climate.

  25. Andrew says:

    Did I just see a man on TV rake in the biggest personal pension top-up in the history of the planet?
    Facts anyone? http://www.clipular.com/c?1272633=uxyQDogrVLwqXRm229v3kq9OCds

  26. Mark, you wrote, “Again with the children. I guess it wasn’t enough to use children as human shields for his gun control media event.”

    Mark, “dragging out the children” is one of the strongest propaganda tools available. When I was working on my Peace Science degree (note: never finished the Ph.D. on that) I spent a lot of time examining different forms of propaganda and how it was used by various governments to get their populations to back war efforts. Hitler yelled about the Jews drinking the blood of Christian children, Saddam Hussein trotted out the little hostages and patted them on their heads, and GBush Sr. pictured the Iraquis as dumping premature Kuwaiti babies on hospital floors so they could steal the incubators and bring them back to Iraq on the “Highway of Death.” In the antismoking realm the use is so pervasive that I devoted an entire chapter to examining it in Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains, and I’ll be looking at it again for some of the secondhand and thirdhand smoke chapters in my next book. Basically it’s a fundamental abuse of our hardwired biological love-response to love and protect our children. It’s abusing our love of our children.

    And the global warming crowd knows this perfectly well: just remember that TV commercial with the train coming down the tracks at the little girl, or the images the clean-air environmentalists grabbed from the antismoking campaigns showing little children with oxygen masks campaigning for politicians who’ll give them “clean air to breathe.”

    It’s a cheap, easy, but very powerful propaganda trick, and people fall for it every time.

    :/
    MJM

  27. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:

    A little OT, but here in England, we have taken a distinct disliking to Obama of late. He is ‘suggesting’ to our PM that we “must” stay in the EU. Whether one is in favour of that or not, we don’t take too kindly to someone who has an obvious disdain for Britain (due to his own family’s history) poking their nose in where it isn’t required. Amusingly, it seems to have had the opposite effect to the one he may of wanted. Some think that if he believes we should be in the EU then maybe it’s time we were out!

  28. Gunga Din says:

    john robertson says:
    January 21, 2013 at 12:44 pm
    Malice? Or Incompetence?
    ========================================================
    Politics. Politics that is out for power over the people rather than power to serve the people.

  29. vukcevic says:

    The US president is suppose to get the best advise there is, so do not blame the president. It is those who provide the advice that have to make sure that they do best for their country and the president. If anyone is knowingly misinterpreting the available facts, for any reason whatsoever, then the consequences should follow.

  30. William Astley says:

    In reply to Obama’s “the threat of climate change.” He says that failing to do so would be a betrayal of the nation’s children, and of future generations.

    The increases in atmospheric CO2 have not and will not cause dangerous warming, as the planet’s response to a change in forcing is resist the change (negative feedback). The IPCC models amplify the forcing change (positive feedback). he planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist (negative feedback) the change by increase or decreasing cloud cover in the tropics thereby reflecting more or less sunlight off into space. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm by the end of this century will result in roughly 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which cause the biosphere to expand.

    CO2 is not a poison. Greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse to increase yield and reduce growing time.

    The real crisis is massive public spending and a massive increase in taxes which will force all primary industry to leave Western Countries. The government does not have a magic wand. If the US follows California the US will be turned into an economic version of Spain, unemployment of more than 20% and massive public debit.

    The schemes which are being proposed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are scams. The actual cost is four to five times greater (if the objective is actual reduce carbon dioxide emissions as opposed to spend money and change nothing except the cost of power) than what is proposed if one includes the costs for massive storage systems such a compressed air or liquid sodium batteries to enable wind power to be used without backup natural gas power plants. There is almost no net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions if backup natural gas power plants are used as compared to combined cycle gas plants which cannot be cycled due to efficient difference between combine cycle power plants (60% efficient) and conventional gas power plants (35 to 40%).

    Those advocating for wind power ingeniously reference Denmark knowing full well Denmark is a small country, in location with high winds due to the proximity of the ocean and the arctic. Denmark is the Saudi Arabia of the Western world as it has a small population and large amounts of oil revenue to pay for wind farms. Denmark (population 5.5 million) uses the hydro electrical power of Norway and Sweden as a battery. Wind power requires a battery. Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Chicago, New York, Houston, and so on do not have a source of wind and even if they did could not possibly afford the cost for both wind generation and a storage system. Reality is reality.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-21/spain-risks-default-now-more-than-ever-buiter-says-tom-keene.html

    Spain’s Default Risk Is Rising, Buiter Says: Tom Keene
    Spain has never been so close to default and Greece, Ireland and Portugal may need further bailouts, Citigroup Inc. chief economist Willem Buiter said.
    “Spain is the key country about which I’m most worried,” Buiter, a former Bank of England policy maker, said in a radio interview today on “Bloomberg Surveillance” with Tom Keene and Ken Prewitt. “It’s really moved to the wrong side of the spectrum and is now at greater risk of sovereign restructuring than ever before.”

    Even if the Western governments had a magic wand to create the trillions of dollars to spend on scams and ignoring the fundamental engineering issues such as it takes roughly 170 years for the energy savings of high speed trains to offset to the energy required to construct a high speed medium distance train (think road bed and rails, electric lines, and so on.), assume the scams could reduce Western emission by 20% by say 2020, CO2 will continue to rise due the emissions of the Asia countries.

  31. Charles.U.Farley says:

    So an idiot really can be president.

  32. philjourdan says:

    When the technology becomes economically feasible, the US will be leading the way. Until then, it will only cost jobs.

  33. Pamela Gray says:

    If AGW proponents think us falling into the trap of God-complex thinking as Al Gore has painted us, they have only to look into the mirror. I once thought ol’ wooden head to be the leader of this snake oil wagon. Unfortunately our president is now the leader of this ill-fated desire to strip every man, woman, child, and their pets of individual rights and freedoms once guaranteed by the constitution he swears today to uphold. He is no better or brighter than the man that led his flock to their deaths waiting for some spaceship behind a comet’s tail. Wake up from this nightmare!

    For those who think me a Neanderthal flat earther, yes we landed on the moon, the Earth is fairly round, a woman has a right to choose, consenting adults should be free to marry whomever they choose, and some religious folks hold too close to unsupportable myths as if they were real events and not symbolic stories, I also have three degrees and have published research in a major journal. And was at one time a liberal democrat. Obama’s misguided leadership made me change some of my political leanings, AND my vote!

    But most important I do not blindly follow a charismatic leader. God forbid humans repeat that little bit of nasty history. In their misguided attempt to bring about their view of human utopia they killed the Anne Franks of this world.

  34. crackpot says:

    I am giving my most sincere condolences to the people of the US. Your new president has just evoked the most horrible nightmare upon you.

    I wish you all strength, and abide the Constitution.

    Greetings

  35. Jim G says:

    Gerry, England says:
    January 21, 2013 at 12:57 pm
    “Just remind me again why you re-elected him? Oh, yeah, he bought off 47% of the voters so only had to dupe a further 4% and job done.”

    And that is the real depressing fact. There will always be scoundrels to take advantage of the people but when the people choose them outright, we have a real problem. It’s the educational system and the media that are doing the hard work for the left. They have put this in place over the past 50 or so years. People who do not get taught real history are doomed to repeat it.

  36. D. B. Stealey says:

    Moe says:
    January 21, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    “Thank God a leader listens to the professionals and not opinion writers on blogs. Finally we can get down and do something meaningful about the changing climate.”

    Moe, say Hi to Curly, Larry and Shemp for me.

  37. michaeljmcfadden says:

    Keitho and Gerry: The distinction I always draw in my own battles on this stuff is whether the researchers/politicians are (A) lying, or (B) inexcusably incompetent. Either A or B leads to the conclusion that they should be removed from their positions. Heh, I actually tried this approach about 8 years ago in a town in Ohio, and about a week after I sent my analysis to folks there the chief miscreant at the local Dept of Health resigned! I think it’s easier for people to accept that there might be a problem out there if they can accept it without committing themselves to actually calling someone a liar.

    - MJM

  38. theduke says:

    Notice the subtle use of the D-word:

    “. . . Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, . . . ”

    He really is trying to pick fights . . .

  39. Pamela Gray says:

    One more thing. Though you may abore guns and the killing of animals, though you may be a vegetarian, though you may be no fan of the late Charelton Heston, please consider joining the NRA. As a political entity it may have the chops to derail this out of control speeding train bound for hell. I joined yesterday.

  40. O Olson says:

    Never thought the time would come when I would be glad to live and farm on the cold, white, north side of the line… goes to show we can all be wrong. My condolences to my American relatives and friends.

  41. Jeff says:

    Sometimes I wonder if Matthew 24:15-16 and Daniel 9:26-27 are actually referring to
    “the desolation of the Obama nation” instead of “the abomination of the desolation”.

    Throwing our children’s (and their children’s) money away on a non-problem with
    no reasonable or verifiable science to back it up, and saying “the failure to do so
    would betray our children and future generations” is indeed an abomination.
    I’m not disputing the small, natural warming since the last ice age, but AGW?
    Might as well blame the excess heat from pixie dust and moonbeams….

    Energy prices have been rapidly climbing here in Germany (and EU in general),
    due to supposed global warming. When the coming cooling hits, a lot of folks
    are going to be unable to afford heating due to the higher energy costs
    (based on false data/pretenses/what have you). In this case I can only
    wonder who’s betraying whom….

  42. Mike (from the high desert of Western Nevada) says:

    1460 and counting to some real political climate change …

  43. Jimbo says:

    President Obama
    “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”

    Whenever people make sweeping statements like this I ask for peer reviewed evidence or cold, hard data from reputable sources. All I get is chirp, chirp.

    Let’s take a look at boreal forest fires.

    Future wildfire in circumboreal forests in relation to global warming
    Abstract.
    Despite increasing temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age (ca. 1850), wildfire frequency has decreased as shown in many field studies from North America and Europe. We believe that global warming since 1850 may have triggered decreases in fire frequency in some regions and future warming may even lead to further decreases in fire frequency.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2307/3237261/abstract

    More similar stuff.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/full
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.01.021
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

  44. Lance Wallace says:

    Yeah, too bad he is captive to his adviser on this one. However, did you notice the distinct sitting on the hands that ensued? Many louder roars of appreciation for other parts of the speech. Maybe he or his staff will notice that.

  45. jorgekafkazar says:

    Supposedly (I can’t find what words he said in the media) Obama just said something like: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
    Here’s a man who has just sworn to defend the Constitution. How many days will it take for him to resume his attack on the Constitution? Or how many hours? Impeachment is our only hope to remain free.

  46. Bruce Cobb says:

    It’s going to be a long four years. Thank god I didn’t vote for him at least. If Romney had been elected, the focus would have been on getting America back on track economically. Instead we have Obozo threatening to throw the economy an anchor by raising energy costs fighting a phantom menace. Hopefully, it’s just rhetoric on his part.

  47. vukcevic says:

    Spending money on combating global change will be totally ineffective, but it will make it easier for China to reach its ambition of becoming the world’s number one economy in the next four years. Catching up with China in the decades to come will not be as much fun as it was leading the world in the decades past. Good luck.

  48. Joe Haberman says:

    “judgment of science”?

  49. @The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says: January 21, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    Agreed. This Brit says – Butt out, Obama.

  50. Mark and two Cats says:

    Pamela Gray said:
    January 21, 2013 at 1:31 pm
    …please consider joining the NRA. As a political entity it may have the chops to derail this out of control speeding train bound for hell. I joined yesterday.
    ———————————————-
    I don’t own any guns, nor do I want to, and I am not a “joiner”, but I joined NRA today. The republikans aren’t doing anything to rein-in hugobama, so I am supporting an organisation that is.

  51. Bob Diaz says:

    RE: President Barack Obama is pledging to respond to what he calls “the threat of climate change.”

    Translation: Get ready for more taxes and regulations.

  52. hro001 says:

    Well, apart from the fact that his previously ubiquitous “I, I, I” ‘s (of which there are only 4 in the official text) seem to have given way to no less than 63 we’s (although some of them may well be an imitation of the Royal “we”), there’s also this bit of blindingly obvious blather:

    “No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores.”

    And I wonder how he thinks that ‘building … roads and networks and research labs’ is going to happen if he can’t see his way clear to jumping off the (unmentioned) Co2–>CAGW bandwagon.

  53. BillD says:

    Let’s hope that the Administration will finally start listening to scientists and make climate change the priority that it merits.

  54. Vukcevic wrote, ” Catching up with China in the decades to come will not be as much fun as it was leading the world in the decades past.”

    I wonder if we’ll be content with playing catch-up, or will we start rattling war sabres over the issue of the Chinese killing the planet that belongs to our children?

    - MJM

  55. BillD says:

    I’ve been impressed by the Germans from right to left and left to right being willing to pay more more for electricity to achieve a rapid transition to renewable energy. The fact that Germany doesn’t have much in the way of fossil fuel companies that are paying to confuse is probably the reason why Germans of all political persuasions seem to favor action on reducing green house gases while the USA is mired in confusion and debate.

  56. Mark Bofill says:

    vukcevic says:
    January 21, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    The US president is suppose to get the best advise there is, so do not blame the president. It is those who provide the advice that have to make sure that they do best for their country and the president. If anyone is knowingly misinterpreting the available facts, for any reason whatsoever, then the consequences should follow.
    ————————————
    Vukcevic I’m not trying to bust your stones, but I’m not sure the ‘babe in the woods’ thing flies for the President. I mean, I think I understand your point, and it certainly doesn’t help matters that there’s the IPCC and so on out there legitimizing the CAGW story, but don’t you think there’s a certain element of responsibility that goes with the President’s job? I didn’t vote in an election for advisors…
    I don’t know, maybe someone needs to email him a link to WUWT?

  57. beesaman says:

    Obama can always claim he was misled by the ‘so called’ experts. Besides, he can always say he tried, but those nasty Republicans stopped him boo hoo, knowing full well he was never going to move away from cheap gas and oil. It alsokeeps the loonies like Hansen, Gore and Mann just enough onside that they won’t cause trouble for him. Politics for the big boys…

  58. Pamela Gray says:

    Good for you Mark. My sister and I applaud you. Neither one of us are violent people. But she and her daughter joined last week. We are trying to make our voice heard and I think this is a reasonable way to do it.

  59. Maxbert says:

    Supposedly, man-made climate change is a threat to our children’s future, but a $17 trillion national debt is not. Never mind that the former is unproven hypothesis, and the latter very, very real.

  60. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I sympathise with you guys – but we are all in the same boat. Politicos and their advisors looking for as many ways to feck us and tax us as possible!

  61. eric1skeptic says:

    Pamela, thanks for joining. To me the Second Amendment is a somewhat tedious and expensive responsibility. I hope to never use my gun for more than practice, but OTOH the presence of mine and millions more is a valid even if imperfect deterrent to enemies foreign and domestic. Our President thought that modern firearms were good for Libyan people but appears to have a different opinion about his fellow Americans. After that war “ended” his views on embassy security lined up with his views on school security, ask the bad guys to give up their weapons and ammo and hope they don’t kill you in the meantime.

    To our British and Australian readers, I apologize for the diversion. I realize you have made a different choice about security in the modern world. Hopefully things will never reach the point where that choice is regretted.

  62. RockyRoad says:

    Moe says:
    January 21, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    Thank God a leader listens to the professionals and not opinion writers on blogs. Finally we can get down and do something meaningful about the changing climate.

    Beyond the smear platitudes Obama spoke, can you provide a more in-depth analysis of what you mean by “do something meaningful about the changing climate”, Moe (since climate has always been changing and always will be)–other than “get down”?

    Inquiring minds are interested in what you propose.

  63. MarkW says:

    On the other hand, passing trillions of dollars in debt to our children is apparently hunky dory.

  64. D. B. Stealey says:

    BillD says:

    “Let’s hope that the Administration will finally start listening to scientists and make climate change the priority that it merits.”

    Agree. Listen to the true scientific Consensus: the 30,000+ scientists and engineers who flatly state that AGW is a complete non-problem: CO2 is harmless, and benficial to the environment. More is better. At current and projected concentrations, there is no downside. ‘Climate change’ “priority” should be set exactly where it belongs: at zero.

    • • •

    Obama amazes me. He has failed upwards, just like a true Soviet Politburo member. Never held a real for-profit job. Got literally everything handed to him on a silver platter, without ever working for it. Yet he presumes to lecture the productive, taxpaying members of society, telling us that we are never paying enough. You can just feel his greedy fingers digging around in our pockets.

    The truth is, we are being sheared like sheep. And the real poor are being deliberately put on the government dole, because that’s where they are the easiest to control. Cell phones for votes. Cheap election buying, using printing press money.

    jorgekafkazar @January 21, 2013 at 1:50 pm has the remedy.

  65. TomRude says:

    As a consequence of the President’s speech, Gore will buy back Current TV… /sarc

  66. Gunga Din says:

    Mark and two Cats says:
    January 21, 2013 at 2:07 pm
    Pamela Gray said:
    January 21, 2013 at 1:31 pm
    …please consider joining the NRA. As a political entity it may have the chops to derail this out of control speeding train bound for hell. I joined yesterday.
    ———————————————-
    I don’t own any guns, nor do I want to, and I am not a “joiner”, but I joined NRA today. The republikans aren’t doing anything to rein-in hugobama, so I am supporting an organisation that is.
    ==========================================================================
    I joined the NRA before I’d ever bought a gun after Clinton and the original “Assault Weapon Ban”. (Someone had given me one a several years before, a 22 Marlin.)
    Whether or not you’re a member, in politics in the USA, look at the NRA ratings of politcians in the same way coliform is looked at in water treatment. Not all coliforms are harmful but if they are present then other harmful organisms may be present. It’s an indicator. If a politician opposes the 2nd Ammendment, the right to keep and bear arms, then he is likely to oppose the other limits to Government embodied in the rest of the Bill of Rights.

  67. michaeljmcfadden says:

    BillD wrote, “I’ve been impressed by the Germans from right to left and left to right being willing to pay more more for electricity to achieve a rapid transition to renewable energy.”

    I don’t actually know the cost/kwh the Germans pay for their electricity compared to the average American. I believe ours is about 10 cents/kwh excluding the add-ons and about 20 cents/kwh including the add-ons. Let’s say 15 cents/kwh is a fair estimate for the moment? If so….

    Bill H, if the German cost would then be 50% higher, 22 cents/kwh (if my estimates are indeed correct) do you seriously believe the average American householder would be willing to check off a box on a ballot saying “I’d like my electric bill to be increased by 50% to help “achieve a rapid transition to renewable energy”? (btw…. the word “rapid” seems a bit misleading — I’d say it implies 5 years or so of ‘suffering’ in the process, but my guess is that what YOU mean by “rapid” is more like 25 years of paying those 50% higher electric bills?)

    - MJM
    P.S. Anyone have better estimates on the US kwh rate vs. the Germans at the moment?

  68. OssQss says:

    Mark and two Cats says:
    January 21, 2013 at 2:07 pm
    —————————————————————————-

    I agree 100% with you Mark, and Pamela !

    I am a member of the NRA and a gun owner. I also encourage everyone to join for many reasons. First and foremost of which is to defend our 2nd amendment rights. I joined to be part of a group with a backbone and will stand and fight for what it right.

    There is not a single executive order or law that could have been in place that would have stopped any of the awful things that we have viewed over the years that are blamed on guns. Guns don’t cause crimes. People do.

    http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg

  69. Frank Johnson says:

    How come this hugely important issue was not given any emphasis at all during the campaign?

  70. Mac the Knife says:

    This is yet another confirmation of why I was in such deep despair, after the Nov 6th election. I’m not prescient…. but I did foresee this change to a hard pro-AGW stance by Our Dear Leader, Barackward Obama. From his socialist control perspectives, if you control the energy resources of the nation, you control the entire nation. A nation with limited energy is a nation with limited power. The continued weakening of the United States of America by the Obama administration policies is a reality and more is coming, as his inauguration speech intimates.

    I have not let my election despair lead me to ‘quit the resistance’. I am re-doubling my efforts from here until the Nov 2014 elections, to qualify and elect a fiscally conservative majority in the US Senate and sustain a conservative majority in the US House. I urge each of you to do likewise! The path to ending this farce is through fiscal discipline. Cut off the unneeded and wasteful expenditures of taxpayers monies and many of these 9-headed hydras like AGW will die of starvation. Until that happens, we may lop off an appendage or two, but the many headed hydra still lives.
    MtK

  71. tz2026 says:

    If they would keep their mouth shut – and didn’t burn tons of fuel jet-setting everywhere – there would be a lot less hot-air.

    Would someone ask what is the carbon-footprint of the military?

  72. Neil says:

    What O’Barmy Should Have Said

    “We will respond to the fraud of human-caused climate change, knowing that those that promote it would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of observation, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging snow, and crippling ice, and more powerful governments.

    The path towards sustainable wealth will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the mental climate change that will eliminate politics and bureaucracy, and power new jobs and new industries; we must claim its promise.

    That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure; our peaceful, productive, honest people.”

    ?sarc

  73. Gunga Din says:

    Frank Johnson says:
    January 21, 2013 at 2:46 pm
    How come this hugely important issue was not given any emphasis at all during the campaign?
    ============================================================================
    The MSM.

  74. RockyRoad says:

    Frank Johnson says:
    January 21, 2013 at 2:46 pm

    How come this hugely important issue was not given any emphasis at all during the campaign?

    Because it wasn’t hugely important–at least not to the planet or survival of our species, unless it turns out we can no longer survive egregious taxation for a bogus cause.

    But when debt/GDP ranges from 90 to 100% (which it will before 2014 at the current rate of spending), the US economy will collapse–it has in every country stupid enough to have spent itself into “properity”.

    It appears there’s more than one way to severely curtail CO2 emissions.

  75. Mark and two Cats says:

    tz2026 said:
    January 21, 2013 at 2:54 pm
    Would someone ask what is the carbon-footprint of the military?
    —————————————-
    The military’s carbon-bootprint is ok cuz they haz the Green Berets

    :)

  76. trafamadore says:

    BillD wrote, “I’ve been impressed by the Germans from right to left and left to right being willing to pay more more for electricity to achieve a rapid transition to renewable energy.”

    But it is partly historic with Germany actually most of Northern Europe; because they import much of their energy, they have always had heavy “sin” taxes on energy, so that about half of the cost of a liter of gasoline is the tax. In the early 90s when I lived there they were building these really cool building designs that had atriums around buildings and active sunshades on the south side of the build. They didnt cover just the windows, the entire wall! And they had this really interesting idea that we dont use in the states, at least not in big buildings: windows that open! Imagine!

  77. Jeff says:

    michaeljmcfadden says:
    January 21, 2013 at 2:38 pm

    if the German cost would then be 50% higher, 22 cents/kwh

    right now it’s 26 euro cents/kwh (say $ 0.35 US) and they’re bound and
    determined to push it up to 30 euro cents ($0.40 US) as soon as possible
    (I’m quoting EnBW rates from south Germany here). We’re sort of a
    captive market here, as we can change energy providers, but we’re still stuck
    with a plethora of taxes and fees (thanks, Brussels) that don’t change
    regardless of provider. Kind of an energy “hotel California” if you will (or won’t :) ).

    Adding to the problem/confusion/etc. is the fact that the industrialized south
    of Germany could well use the wind/solar/whatever power being generated
    in north Germany except for the, erm, tiny problem that the infrastructure
    to move the power north–>south doesn’t currently (no pun intended) exist.

    There are proposals for three or four “energy highways” (shades of Gore)
    in discussion, but they will take years to complete. Meanwhile, Poland is
    less than thrilled that this power is routed through their network (in part)
    and the resulting peaks/valleys are a huge strain on their system. They’ve
    threatened to stop the flow but nothing’s official yet.

    Adding insult to electrical/financial injury, the countries surrounding
    Germany (in particular, the Netherlands) receive Germany’s excess
    power at reduced rates, which further reduces their costs. Unfortunately
    this is borne on the backs of German ratepayers, who are paying
    extra fees for the windpower (whether or not it is used) and solar, etc.

    Someone’s getting filthy rich off of this, but it ain’t us…..

    I think the German edition of Business Week had some great info
    on this (graphs, charts, etc.). I will check for this links, as it
    really showed the massive price increases of the last 10 years.

    Would be nice to have a really tiny (and SAFE) reactor in the back yard
    and go totally off the grid….oh well…I can dream (at least that’s free….for now….).

  78. Aussie Luke Warm says:

    Yeah, listened with interest to his speech – your President seemed to make high priorities of many things that he did not mention let alone run on during the election campaign.

    Given your soaring debt levels, you got to say he has the right priorities…

  79. DavidG says:

    James Delingpole puts in context Obama’s climate agenda as a declaration of war on reality.
    Obama declares war on reality
    By James Delingpole US politics Last updated: January 21st, 2013
    259 Comments Comment on this article

    “Reality: your ass is grass!”
    When George W Bush declared war on an abstract noun – “Terror” – he was widely and inevitably mocked by the left for his foolishness. Not to be outdone, Barack Obama has used his second inaugural address to declare war on an even more nebulous threat to the security of the world: reality, itself.
    Here’s how he put it in his inaugural address: (H/T Theo Spleenventer; Bishop Hill)
    We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.
    The first sentence is a blatant untruth. Concerted global action so far to deal with the threat of climate change has resulted in: higher energy prices; more deaths from fuel poverty; more intrusive regulation; the destruction of rainforests and the squandering of agricultural land on biofuels; higher food prices; famine and food riots – as a result partly of the drive for biofuels; the entrenchment of corporatism and rent-seeking to the detriment of free markets; the ravaging of the countryside with ugly solar farms and even uglier wind turbines; the deaths of millions of birds and bats; the great recession. How any of this has in any way benefited either our children (who are going to find it far harder to find a job) or future generations is a complete mystery.
    The second sentence is a devious combination of the junk factoid and the non sequitur.
    That “overwhelming judgement of science” is a reference to the comprehensively discredited Doran survey: the one where the “97 per cent of climate scientists” turned out to consist of just 75 out of 77 climate scientists who could be bothered to reply to two silly and dubious questions.
    As for the idea that “science” ever has such a thing as an “overwhelming judgement”: this would be news to Galileo, Newton, Einstein and indeed all the great scientists of history, all of whom made their names by advancing theories which completely overturned the “overwhelming judgement” of their contemporaries.
    It’s probably true, up to a point, that “none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms”. But only if you accept that everyone lives in a region susceptible to fires, drought and powerful storms, which not everyone does.
    What Obama is presumably trying to slip into that weasel sentence is the notion that “science” is overwhelmingly of the view that raging fires, crippling drought and more powerful storms are increasing as a result of “climate change” (note incidentally how he’s careful not to say whether or not it is man-made, thus enabling him to cover all eventualities). But if this is the case, I’d dearly love to see the evidence that this is a) anthropogenic b) controllable or c)historically unprecedented. Certainly, according to this graph at Watts Up With That?, there is nothing particular weird or alarming about recent weather activity. On an index of “Extreme Weather” in the US since 1910, last year – 2012 – ranks a very modest 54th.
    Still, for all that, I applaud the President’s chutzpah and ingenuity. If you want to expand the size of government as much as he obviously does, there’s really no better way than to declare war on reality. Reality is a slippery foe; it has many heads – and no sooner have you cut off one than a thousand more grow in its place; it’s everywhere, at all times, and there’s no escaping it, meaning you have to mobilise unimaginably large resources if you are to have a hope of defeating it. Which, of course, you never will. Obama’s glorious war on reality will be a war without end. Bad luck, America. (But you can’t say I didn’t warn you.…)
    Tags: climate change, inaugural address, Obama, war on reality

  80. DavidG says:

    Sorry- didn’t see that this post is already posted. That’s okay though, we should all read it twice.:]

  81. DavidG says:

    Moe- it seems you need a vacation, try visiting reality. The climate is doing what it always does, change. The specious, redundant phrase *climate change* shows you are living in a deluded muddle.

  82. Chris Beal @NJ_Snow_Fan says:

    Thanks Anthony, The media only played bits and pieces of what President Obama said at the Inauguration in his speech on THE THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE. He seems to be running like a Global temperature computer model. Every time he changes the words around when he talks about Climate Change. Last time it was global temperatures are rising faster then expected I heard from him or was that the last President. Mr Al Gore comes out of the grass like a snake when the words Climate Change are said by anyone in government.
    P.S. You spelled inaguration wrong, Inauguration right spelling and I did not write the headline. I would of put it as, First time a President has used The Threat Of Climate Change in an Inauguration Speech. Al Gore Speaks out in his blog on what the president really meant in his Inauguration speech on THE THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

    Thanks

  83. rogerknights says:

    This over-reaching is going to hit him, and warmists in general, hard in 2014 if the temperatures nosedive, as I believe they will over the next two years.

  84. DavidG says:

    Has anyone estimated what it might cost to undo the carbon burial and mitigation when the next LIA comes? Maybe then angry mobs will want climate trials for Greenpeace et al?:] At least let’s go after all the non profits spewing this anti American, nay, anti people agenda and take them off the public teat.

  85. cartoonasaur says:

    inauguration

    not

    inaguration

  86. RockyRoad says:

    Self correction. I meant to say at 3:06 pm:

    But when debt/GDP ranges from 90 to 100% (which it will before 2016 at the current rate of spending), the US economy will collapse–it has in every country stupid enough to have spent itself into “properity”.

  87. Spartacus says:

    Someone above wrote:

    “So an idiot really can be president.”
    The answer has, at least, one life proof: George W. Bush.
    Time will tell if we include Obama too in Charles.U.Farley’s sentence above.

    This Obama speech about climate change is very naive and mixes several things that should not be “mixable”. Obama, of course, did not write this part of the speech. This must be Holdren’s ideas.

    (I am not an USA citizen)

  88. Peter Miller says:

    In most western countries, you get to have the choice between two types of populist clowns:

    1. Those that believe passionately in the scientists of the Global Warming Industry, and

    2. Those that believe passionately in the priests of the Global Warming Cult.

    I guess we are supposed to feel lucky we have two choices of ecoloons, aka Cuba’s political system.

  89. Sparks says:

    Charles.U.Farley says:
    January 21, 2013 at 1:14 pm

    “So an idiot really can be president.”

    You can’t call a man an Idiot for what he believes.

    Besides, President W had a hard time with speaking casually in public, and I wouldn’t call him an idiot, it just wasn’t one of his strong points.

  90. John West says:

    I’m sure the president is as committed to today’s rhetoric as he was on his 1st inaugural address.

    “We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.”

  91. LKMiller says:

    For those promoting membership in the NRA, please remember that this group sold us down the river on Obamacare, so they will have to work very hard to get my support.

    All this would be moot had our republic not died on June 28, 2012, John Roberts betrayed his oath. Although I held out hope, in reality that is also the day that Barack Obama was ensured of re-election.

    Hang on kiddies, the next 4 years aren’t going to be pretty. During the last 4, the Constitution was merely trampled, in the next 4 out comes the heavy duty, cross-cut shredder.

  92. cui bono says:

    BillD says (January 21, 2013 at 2:17 pm)
    I’ve been impressed by the Germans from right to left and left to right being willing to pay more more for electricity to achieve a rapid transition to renewable energy.
    —–
    Yep, that’s working well.
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/01/20/europe-today-stealing-wood-burning-wood/

    Not to mention all the lignite and dirty coal they’re now having to burn.
    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569039-europes-energy-policy-delivers-worst-all-possible-worlds-unwelcome-renaissance

  93. Moe says:

    David g and rocky road, glad to here we are in agreement with climate change. As a matter of interest, which particular climate would you prefer. The earth has had many climates, many not supportive of 7 billion humans. I guess you would prefer one that will support you and your lifestyle and will support agriculture, like we have had in the last 10,000 years.

    I imagine, you can see no harm in having CO2 levels never experienced by humans before (last time they were this night was 800,0000 years ago. Modern humans have only been around for 125k years.

    [snip. Stay on topic. — mod.]

  94. john robertson says:

    Whats with all the pomp and ceremony ?
    What past presidents wasted this much money, celebrating their “win”?

  95. sceptical says:

    For all of those complaining about Obama and debt, it must remembered that there was debt before Obama and therefore Obama can not have anything to do with the debt. The U.S. of A.’s debt has gone up and down in the past so therefore it is just a natural 60 year cycle.

  96. D. B. Stealey says:

    sceptical,

    You have no clue as to how badly Obama has indebted the country [and for what, exactly?]. There is simply no comparison between 0 and previous Administrations. Money is printed and shoveled out to cronies and banks, and we still have the same pot holes in our streets.

    Furthermore, 0bama is increasing the national debt by $Trillions every year. At this rate, in 4 more years the U.S. will be $20 – $25 Trillion in debt. He appears to be deliberately sabotaging the economy.

    The result of 0bama’s first four years is plain to see. It is downhill from here.

  97. Picture of fiddle burning.

  98. GeoLurking says:

    michaeljmcfadden says:
    January 21, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    Mark, you wrote, “Again with the children. I guess it wasn’t enough to use children as human shields for his gun control media event.”

    Mark, “dragging out the children” is one of the strongest propaganda tools available.

    Right you are!

  99. JohnH says:

    @ sceptical
    Right, and as soon as I see a Bill, signed by “CO2″, that mandates a 3C-5C global temperature increase, I’ll be happy to attribute warm weather to greenhouse gases. In the meantime, your analogy is just another silly attempt to conflate correlation with causation.

  100. Aussie Luke Warm says:

    errr, look I don’t know much about US politics – I’m prepared to admit that – so could someone help me with the following question I have: I was watching the inauguration and…who was that angry looking woman standing behind him?

  101. davidmhoffer says:

    BillD says:
    January 21, 2013 at 2:17 pm
    I’ve been impressed by the Germans from right to left and left to right being willing to pay more more for electricity to achieve a rapid transition to renewable energy. The fact that Germany doesn’t have much in the way of fossil fuel companies that are paying to confuse is probably the reason why Germans of all political persuasions seem to favor action on reducing green house gases while the USA is mired in confusion and debate.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    LOL. Is there an extra Germany somewhere on this planet that we’re unaware of? The one I know about has announced the shut down of non CO2 producing nuclear power plants to be replaced by coal fired Co2 belching power plants to be built asap and fueled with domestic coal.

    Or are you from a different planet, which would also explain the discrepancy?

  102. anarchist hate machine says:

    Yep, 23 new coal fired CO2 belching power plants to be built in Germany to help their industry stay competitive. That’s a rapid transition to renewable energy right there.

  103. michaeljmcfadden says:

    BillD, as you can see from Jeff’s response to me:

    “right now it’s 26 euro cents/kwh (say $ 0.35 US) and they’re bound and
    determined to push it up to 30 euro cents ($0.40 US) ”

    , we are basically talking about a rough 100% to 200% increase in US electric bills, a doubling or possibly even a tripling. So, would you be happy putting it up for a democratic vote, with a proper estimate of what you meant by “rapid” to the American people? I.E. a vote on the following (following your model above about the Germans):

    “Would you be willing to pay double or triple your current electricity electricity bills to achieve a transition to renewable energy over the next 25 years?” (Of course, as part of offering such a vote you’d also have to outline exactly what would be required to FULLY transition and how it would be achieved in just 25 years.

    So what say you BillD? Will you stand behind your words? Can you make a start by agreeing or disagreeing as to whether the 25 year period is indeed what you meant by a “rapid transition”? And then, with whatever period you felt was needed, draw a brief outline as to how such a full transition would be implemented within it, and at what additional cost?

    After all, that WOULD be the best way to back up your argument, no?

    - MJM

  104. Rick says:

    With all respect since I’m not American but can someone please explain to me how joining the National Rifle Association will deter your president one iota from his ideologically driven agenda. Unfortunately we all knew this was coming when Mr. Obama was re-elected but I fail to see the connection between the constitutional amendment to own guns and the economy.

  105. John West says:

    Hey, Moe
    Look up Holocene Climate Optimum.

  106. Andrew says:

    We absolutely need to hold innocent the young, the misled, and the billions of the concerned and well-meaning masses who have fallen for this egregious, guilt-driven fraud. I can’t think of anything worse than losing a loved one, and/or a home during Sandy or the like, other than being told by a fundamentalist anti-humanity cult that I contributed to my own loss.

    We have an individual duty to bookmark, favourite, favorite, archive and record such issuances as would add to this fraud. By so doing, the names of the perpetrators and their contributions will be made known and available for consideration when wiser counsel prevails.

    Such wiser counsel will emerge long before the end of the next 30 years of cooling, which are evidently underway. The smarter amongst the alarmist cohort will be looking for an off ramp about now. The really smart ones will be looking for a supergrass prosecution immunity deal.

  107. Jimmy Haigh says:

    As soon as someone says “seize the moment” you know they are talking total bollocks.

  108. Mark Bofill says:

    Rick says:
    January 21, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    With all respect since I’m not American but can someone please explain to me how joining the National Rifle Association will deter your president one iota from his ideologically driven agenda. Unfortunately we all knew this was coming when Mr. Obama was re-elected but I fail to see the connection between the constitutional amendment to own guns and the economy.
    ————————-
    Opinions expressed herein are solely mine scantily researched opinions spoken ex cathedra from my belly button, but I’ll have a stab at it. I’m not a political scientist and I’ve never played one on TV.

    A lot of the power of a U.S. President rides on his popularity. If public opinion is overwhelmingly with him, Congress fears to oppose his agenda, as House seats are up for votes every couple of years and voters may punish Congressmen by voting them out. If public opinion is overwhelmingly against him, Congress can defy the President’s agenda without much fear of reprisal come re-election time, in fact it becomes a boost.
    It ~looks like~ his reaction to the shootings at Sandy Hook has already cost the President in the poles. It’s also hard to know if it’s going to stick, but it looks like his approval rating took a hit recently for his stand on this, for example see (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history).
    So – I think the idea is, rally under the strongest banner that the President opposes, and maybe the rift becomes massive enough to affect the public perception of the President’s popularity, and therefore his political power (there are too many P words in this sentence my god this is like a parody of V for Vendetta). Again, just my thoughts.

  109. Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:

    With all respect since I’m not American, but can someone please explain to me how joining the National Rifle Association will deter your president one iota from his ideologically driven agenda. Unfortunately we all knew this was coming when Mr. Obama was re-elected but I fail to see the connection between the constitutional amendment to own guns and the economy.

    It is simply a case of task over load. The more energy he and his allies have to pour into his anti-gun agenda, the less other stuff he can accomplish. Sort of the best defense is a good offense strategy. Force him to focus on the gun issue and he will have less time and energy to focus on other destructive agendas. In this case he may have bitten off more than he can chew, so it would be useful to make the chewing as difficult as possible.

    With that said, I am of the opinion that the recent rush to judgement on guns and the associated political maneuvering could also be a distraction and misdirection (as they say with magicians, what is the other hand doing?)

    The NRA is one of the few groups which is so singly focused that it can make or break political careers for Representatives and Senators who stray too far from the intent of the constitution.
    It is also one of the few organizations that can mobilize a huge public response on single issues.

    To use the global warming jargon, the behavior of elected officials with regard to one of our most fundamental constitutional protections, is a good proxy for how “loose” they are with the interpretation of other principles of government like the idea that the Federal government is only granted 16 enumerated powers. Any activity that steps outside those enumerated powers is arguably illegal and unconstitutional.

    Yes I realize that some of those ventures outside the enumerated powers were sanctioned by the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court has changed its view on other matters over time as well. What many forget is that the Supreme Court only decides very narrow elements of the law as presented by a specific test case brought to the court.

    A good example is the recent court decisions which finally explicitly stated that the right to keep and bear arms as specified in the second amendment is an individual right not a group right belonging to the militia. Of course many in the anti-gun crowd ignore the fact that under current U.S. Federal law all adult males between the age of 17 and 45 are in the militia by law.

    TITLE 10 – ARMED FORCES
    Subtitle A – General Military Law
    PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
    CHAPTER 13 – THE MILITIA

    -HEAD-
    Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

    -STATUTE-
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are –
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
    and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
    the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
    Naval Militia.

    The similarities between the two propaganda campaigns is striking. A case could be made that the two agendas are actually part and parcel of the same effort to change the entire structure of our country.

    Larry

  110. Chuck Nolan says:

    jorgekafkazar says:
    January 21, 2013 at 1:50 pm
    Supposedly (I can’t find what words he said in the media) Obama just said something like: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
    Here’s a man who has just sworn to defend the Constitution. How many days will it take for him to resume his attack on the Constitution? Or how many hours? Impeachment is our only hope to remain free.
    ————-
    No way.
    You’re kidding, right?
    Try saying this out loud…………..
    President Biden
    cn

  111. Chris G says:

    This is the strategy of distraction. A mere pea and shell game for this president to distract the teaming masses and low information voters from the real problems:
    8% unemployment 4 plus years.
    13% under-employment
    Record permanent disability claims
    Record food stamp recipients
    16 Trillion in debt and counting
    Gasoline in the $3.50 range
    Food at 10% inflation
    The Middle East with more armed conflicts to count on two hands and one world super power awol.

    So he distracts with Gay issues
    Then abortion
    Then with guns
    Now with Climate
    Soon with amnesty

    All pet projects to placate his core constituents who actually write the news, and teach our children.

    I am not taking the bait this time.

    To the good folks that provide content and meaningful responses on this site:
    Keep the science in his face and remember the issue of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ranks dead last on a list of American’s priorities.

    Soon enough the middle class is not going to accept the table scraps that fall from the plates of our well fed politicians. Not to be sarcastic but the current policies of this administration are just not sustainable.

  112. Tom J says:

    I agree whole heartedly with him. And for good measure I say, ‘No more vacations to Hawaii Mr. Obama, until that Air Force One of yours (ok, the taxpayers’) is solar powered.’

  113. DaveG says:

    Another 4 years of dramatic pauses as President Zero try’s to catch up with the teleprompter. In 4 more years the fundamental job of wreaking the American economy will be accomplished. Binders full of bankrupt and broken people all waving free Obama phones. He warned us and we let it happen. What a world!!!

  114. gallopingcamel says:

    God protect us from demagoguery!

  115. clive hoskin says:

    Has anyone worked out how much it costs,to make these wind mills and solar panels?

  116. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    …don’t say I didn’t warn you. He has to pay for Obama-Care somehow….Carbon Tax, here we come.

  117. TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:

    The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
    January 21, 2013 at 1:03 pm
    A little OT, but here in England, we have taken a distinct disliking to Obama of late. He is ‘suggesting’ to our PM that we “must” stay in the EU. Whether one is in favour of that or not, we don’t take too kindly to someone who has an obvious disdain for Britain (due to his own family’s history) poking their nose in where it isn’t required. Amusingly, it seems to have had the opposite effect to the one he may of wanted. Some think that if he believes we should be in the EU then maybe it’s time we were out!
    =====================================================

    Along those same lines, I was listening to the news coverage of the innaugural events today (not being a supporter of President Obama) and I heard someone (Mariah Carey maybe) singing a version of an old American patriotic song called “My country tis of thee”, which can only be described as a one fingered salute to the English.

    Growing up in the US, I was taught this song in primary school (ages 6 through 12). I only learned that the music it was set to was “God Save the Queen” watching a TV series called “Black Sheep Squadron” at about 13 yrs old. An Aussie island watcher in the pacific, on this particular episode would raise the Union Jack and play it on his record player every morning.

    You know that as an official Presidential event there had to be people there representing the UK, how anyone could OK that particular song to be added is just the height of incompetence ….. or something far worse.

    TB

  118. SAMURAI says:

    I really don’t know how long America can survive concurrent and protracted wars against: taxpayers, entrepreneurs, business, savings, sound monetary policy, balanced budgets, US Constitution, free markets, Capitalism, balance of trade surpluses, gold standards higher interest rates, the US$, freedom, logic, reason and the truth….

    Warming temperatures? Not for 16 years and soon to be 17 years.
    More severe weather? Not for past 100 years.
    Wildfires? Not so much, but also caused by stupid EPA laws limiting/prohibiting controlled burns.
    Droughts? At historic 100-yr averages.

    If BHO wants to attain 100% CHEAP/sustainable energy independence AND reduced CO2 emissions (a red herring), all he has to do is have the EPA/NRC establish the rules, regulations, approval process and building codes for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) and he’d have a legacy that would last for generations with NO up-front costs. The private sector would provide all the money necessary to develop and build LFTRs once the green light was given.

    All we are saaaaaaaaaying,
    Is give truth a chance…..

  119. jorgekafkazar says:

    BillD says: “I’ve been impressed by the Germans from right to left and left to right being willing to pay more more for electricity to achieve a rapid transition to renewable energy.”
    Germans are easily fooled.

  120. DirkH says:

    BillD says:
    January 21, 2013 at 2:17 pm
    “I’ve been impressed by the Germans from right to left and left to right being willing to pay more more for electricity to achieve a rapid transition to renewable energy. The fact that Germany doesn’t have much in the way of fossil fuel companies that are paying to confuse is probably the reason why Germans of all political persuasions seem to favor action on reducing green house gases while the USA is mired in confusion and debate.

    I’m German and you’re wrong.

    The FIT scheme was introduced in 1999 by a Red-Green government and started out neat and cute and small and cheap. Well, exponential growth has turned it into a 20 bn EUR a year devouring monster and everyone complains about the electricity bills.

    Still, we have the same problem as the US : two major ultra-statist parties, SPD left and CDU right, heck the CDU was it that brought the Euro upon us, how’s that for fiscal responsibility. I was actually voting for Schroeder (left) in 1999 because I wanted to get rid of Kohl who was an unmitigated fiscal [disaster].

    So what next? Well prepare for economic collapse; Japan will go first, followed by the US; Germany has outsourced the collapse to the PIIGS where it already happens so the fatherland might go last.

    The economic collapses are of course the result of ultra-statism; the FIT tariffs are just ONE smaller catastrophe caused by the statists.

  121. DirkH says:

    Sparks says:
    January 21, 2013 at 3:49 pm
    “Charles.U.Farley says:
    January 21, 2013 at 1:14 pm
    “So an idiot really can be president.”
    You can’t call a man an Idiot for what he believes.”

    If he has idiotic believes, one can.

    That being said, I don’t think Obama is an idiot. I don’t think he has idiotic believes. I think he believes in nothing but his own enrichment and the enrichment of his cronies. He won’t tell you that candidly, though.

    I think he’s simply the biggest and most successful crook around. Just like Hitler who spend his first 4 years in power robbing the country blind and enjoying high times at the Obersalzberg.

    He eventually prepared for war because the economy started to fail. And went to rob neighbouring countries blind.

  122. Jason Calley says:

    @ Pamela Grey “Though you may abore guns and the killing of animals, though you may be a vegetarian, though you may be no fan of the late Charelton Heston, please consider joining the NRA. As a political entity it may have the chops to derail this out of control speeding train bound for hell. I joined yesterday.”

    Please allow me to respectfully disagree. First, I actually am a vegetarian (for the last 44 years) and a non-hunter, non-fisher. I do not believe in aggression (though I do strongly support self defense.) I am philosophically Buddhist. When your car breaks down at 3:00AM in the middle of nowhere, I am exactly the sort of person whom you hope will stop to help.

    I was a member of the NRA about twenty years ago, but dropped out. Why? Because they are too wishy-washy, too weak in their support of our right to self defense. This may surprise you (what with me being a non-aggressive, peaceful vegetarian and all) but having read a LOT of history and considered the nature of our individual rights and of our self evident self-ownership, I am something of an extremist in my support of our right to bear arms. I support the right of any man, woman or responsible child (no, I am not kidding) to defend themselves. I would even include felons who have finished their sentences.

    If you would, please take a few minutes to read L. Neil Smith’s essay on the subject: http://www.lneilsmith.org/

    The problem with the NRA (and forgive me if I am twenty years out of date. Who knows, perhaps they have changed their stance.) is that while they sorta, kinda, somewhat support our right to keep and bear arms, they still think that it is a privilege, an action open to governmental regulation and license. When I was still a member, I read their magazines and kept seeing articles saying that “We don’t need new gun laws, we just need to enforce the (50,000) laws already on the books!” Laws like waiting periods, background checks, permit fees, special taxes, special licenses, etc. Sorry, but that is not good enough. My right to keep and bear arms is inherent in my nature as a human and the government SHALL NOT infringe it. Not a bit. Not their business. Not their decision. Those so-and-so’s in DC have no authority, none!, to tell me what I can eat, who I can marry, what religion I should believe… or whether I am allowed to defend myself and my family. A defenseless population is the final step before slavery.

    So, if not the NRA, then who? Look at some of the more adamant supporters of the Second Amendment. Check out Gun Owners of America. http://gunowners.org/ Check out Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership http://jpfo.org/ No organization is perfect, but those two are better, in my opinion.

    Sorry if I shock you or sound like an extremist. Just think of me as passionate on the subject, but please, consider the nature of the sociopaths who are drawn to Washington, consider what they have already done to our liberties. They are not trustworthy. They cannot be compromised with. Until the NRA REALLY supports the Second Amendment, and not just some watered down version of it, consider sending your money to another organization.

  123. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:

    Jason Calley. But the law (government, the people) already tell you what you can and can’t do – and you accept that! You cannot have multiple wives, you cannot abuse your own child, you cannot be cruel to your dog. I don’t know if you have similar laws to us here in England, but you cannot even indulge in ‘depraved’ but consensual sexual acts with other people. So you see, you DO accept laws and rules that impinge your life, so what’s the difference with guns? There is no difference. I’m a vegetarian too – 29 years. I believe in non-aggression, non-violence, and I too believe in self defence. But guns can and do kill, Jason. In your country, very often! When the law banning guns came into effect here in England, I was against it. I now see I was wrong. Gun crime here is very rare (outside of drug gangs), and that has got to be because you can’t get one! I’m 100% certain that if we could all bear arms here in England then we’d have a very sad, and very large, list of depressing multi-kill incidents. I know so many Americans disagree, but it really is time you looked at your right to bear arms and see what it has achieved. It has brought only misery and heartbreak. It hasn’t made you more ‘free’. The US isn’t any more a democracy than the UK. Your political representatives do as they and their party want, not what you want – just like here.

    A small device, able to propel a piece of metal at a high velocity, and to instantly kill, is too dangerous to let people own. If guns were invented this week, you can be damn sure that no government anywhere would allow their people to own one. Think about it – it really is as simple as that.

  124. Goode 'nuff says:

    Oh here we go again, sounds like a speech written by the uber-rich at the Environmental Defense Fund. Sham democracy is the super rich preferred method of control. They also basically groom the candidates, own the media and pay the talking heads.

    Look, Obama is just a pawn. There is no Illuminati or folks like the Astors, Carnegies and Hapsburgs would still be in power. So who has it now? Gates, Krupps, Rothschilds, Walton’s and some others. I’m $ure you can think of more. Sam Rawlins Walton is on the board of directors of EDF for heavens sake. His grandfather, Samuel Moore “Sam” Walton gave orders to politicians and world bankers instead of taking them. Hillary was on ‘his’ board of directors and I could go on and on blah, blah, blah…

    It would be no different if Mitt had won, as far as fighting climate change (their main concern) goes, just done more secretly. They’ll talk a good line if teabaggers votes leads to success. But when push comes to shove, money does the deal. 501 c 4 contributors rule our world.

    Okay, that’s it. Ttyl

    Oh, Pamela, you certainly are not a Neanderthal flat earther, you have a beautiful thinkolator.

  125. Mindert Eiting says:

    Winning the capital prize in a lottery is certainly an extreme event. In my country this happens every month somewhere. To connect these extreme events with something else than a random number generator, seems to me plain superstition. I thought that the recent turn into weather extremes only marked the bankruptcy of climate science.

  126. Gareth Phillips says:

    Moe says:
    January 21, 2013 at 1:00 pm
    Thank God a leader listens to the professionals and not opinion writers on blogs. Finally we can get down and do something meaningful about the changing climate.

    Gareth replies: well said Moe, it’s hearing a President speak and act like Obama which inspires me as a European to fight anti-American prejudice whenever I hear it. The world will always recall how close the US came to electing a man who while being a useful politician, hailed from a party held ransom by a small percentage of far right Conservatives who would have inflicted substantial damage on the US and ultimately the west. Obama may not be perfect, but the alternative result does not bear thinking about. Climate change is real, however it is caused, and some effects are pretty drastic. This is not a problem we can solve by providing more guns and cutting taxes. If we cannot influence climate change we need to adapt, and it will be great to see President Obama take a lead on that.

  127. Gareth, you wrote, “Climate change is real, however it is caused, and some effects are pretty drastic. This is not a problem we can solve by providing more guns and cutting taxes.”

    Nor is it a problem that we may be able to do ANYTHING about … even if we provide less guns and raise taxes.

    and you wrote, “If we cannot influence climate change we need to adapt”

    That part is clearly true, although I believe it is mainly true in terms of “micro-climate-change” — i.e., periods of several years to a decade or so of droughts and such things that affect food production and energy needs in discrete geographic areas.

    The problem Obama et al have is in their assumption that AGW is indisputably a primary and important cause of the problem in either the short or the longer term. I agree with what I see as the general consensus of the WUWT folks that that particular conclusion is by no means an open-and-shut case.

    - MJM

  128. Paul Schnurr says:

    This is a bit off topic but once again I see complaints regarding the “97% of scientists…” statement. Are there any plans to do a proper survey by an independent agency? Why not a professionally conceived and administered poll of climate/weather professionals? I think the “31000 scientists…” petition is weak because it appears to lack control.

  129. more soylent green! says:

    Never let a crisis go to waste. If there isn’t a crisis, invent one.

  130. William McClenney says:

    Hurry up ice age…..

  131. more soylent green! says:

    @Gareth Phillips

    You appear to know two things about American politics — jack and squat.

    But in America, you’re allowed to express your opinion regardless of whether you have any clue what you’re talking about.

  132. Michael Jennings says:

    I really don’t think people understand what has happened here with the last election, I am afraid we have reached the AGW favorite term “the tipping point” from which there is no return. A large segment of the American people have decided that they want goodies at the expense of those who can afford giving them goodies. This shell game (or income redistribution if you prefer) has a finite period of time where it will seem to work, UNTIL the have’s decide it is not worth it anymore and either leave the country or just drop out of the system. This will become a vicious cycle where more will demand more, and fewer will be left to give it to them thus the inevitable descent into the abyss we will go. 47% who depend on government largesse will fight to continue the gravy train and the 10% feel good liberals (added to that number) will enable them to have a perpetual control of the election cycle, that is until they decide that elections are no longer useful. Then my friends we become the ill fated and doomed Soviet Union of America of which this President and current Democratic party will no doubt blame on George W. Bush even if it is 25 years in the future

  133. Goode 'nuff says:

    To: The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
    Look, gun crime may be very rare there outside of drug gangs but jolly old England is still now very crime ridden. I have talked to people there. It is also a whole lot smaller country, so purging it of guns was easier.

    All the years of attempted gun control measures here have done nothing but pump gun sales and manufacturing here. Where they are easily stolen or otherwise get into the wrong hands. What is your proposal to round up all these guns without criminals having a field day?

    The problem we have here is a mental health problem from nearly a half century of losing jobs, neglected infrastructure and stacking on government debt. Throw in 10 times more violence in video games and on television in the last quarter century and it is a brew for violence to increase.

    This president and the one who proceeded him instead should have been tarred and feathered yesterday. Along with the other members of government (present and past) who have spent us into the ground with wasted pork. Buying voters… buying campaign contribution in a revolving slush fund.

  134. RockyRoad says:

    Moe says:
    January 21, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    David g and rocky road, glad to here we are in agreement with climate change. As a matter of interest, which particular climate would you prefer. The earth has had many climates, many not supportive of 7 billion humans. I guess you would prefer one that will support you and your lifestyle and will support agriculture, like we have had in the last 10,000 years.

    I imagine, you can see no harm in having CO2 levels never experienced by humans before (last time they were this night was 800,0000 years ago. Modern humans have only been around for 125k years.

    Since all I’m going to get from you is obfuscation, Moe, I shall point to the BENEFITS of CO2–you can see where I’m going, can’t you?

    First, the earth’s climate has indeed varied considerably. We’re now living in an Interglacial period, the Holocene, which is much more conducive to life than what came before and will likely follow–Ice Ages! But you’re right–I can see no harm in having CO2 level “never experienced by humans before” since I have relatives that work in greenhouses with levels of CO2 in the 1,000 to 2,000 ppmv level and they’re just fine. (Studies actually indicate they do better at that level than at ambient.)

    Did you know the CO2 content of the average home is twice current atmospheric levels? Bet you didn’t know that. And not to worry–we could burn ALL projected fossil fuels and atmospheric levels of CO2 would rise to ~600 ppmv; that’s no big deal–it would be about what you’re breathing now.

    The burning of fossil fuels provides humanity with powerful leverage to live longer and better than at any prior period. Remember that. And no amount of solar or wind will replace it unless you’re willing to invest in the infrastructure to convert that into “base load”, which is extremely expensive and undoubtedly prohibitive. So much for your “green” energy solutions, Moe. And there’s no evidence to suggest that pumping huge amounts of “life gas” into the atmosphere is warming the earth any faster than the natural increase from the Little Ice Age. Besides, we’re not as warm as the three prior warm periods, so we’re not seeing anything unprecedented.

    Burning fossil fuels also improves the production of foodstuffs to a considerable degree–in some types of plants more than others. I’ve read where trees are growing 30% faster than they were 50 years ago, so if you have a house built out of wood (or any portion thereof), that’s extremely good news. We all like to eat and we all like to live in comfortable homes that are warm in the winter and cool in the summer. And we all like to travel and enjoy life. Don’t get caught in a negative mindset.

    So my question to you, Moe, are you a true environmentalist? Are you interested in a better environment for you and your kids? Are you willing to recognize that our standard of living is based on free and responsible utilization of natural resources (including sources of energy) for the betterment of mankind? Do you recognize that to give government control of our energy sources on the premise that we’re ruining their playground or having too much fun is not a step forward–it’s a step backwards?

    Wouldn’t a responsible government be more interested in the individual (whom they can’t control) than in building the collective (whom they can easily control for their own enrichment and quest for power)? Wouldn’t a better approach be to utilize nuclear and LENR for our energy sources and save fossil carbon stores for plastics and nylon?

    When you realize this whole CAGW thing is a government ploy (and governments are generally evil), you’ll have awakened to a whole new world where worrying about CO2 turns into cheering for CO2. A flourishing biosphere is what you want and from the looks of it, that’s what we’re getting.

    And you can thank CO2.

    PS. I’m betting you’re not worried about the national debt, are you? Well, that destructive force is the one you need to concentrate on.

  135. RockyRoad says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    January 22, 2013 at 2:47 am

    Moe says:
    January 21, 2013 at 1:00 pm
    Thank God a leader listens to the professionals and not opinion writers on blogs. Finally we can get down and do something meaningful about the changing climate.

    Gareth replies: well said Moe, it’s hearing a President speak and act like Obama which inspires me as a European to fight anti-American prejudice whenever I hear it. The world will always recall how close the US came to electing a man who while being a useful politician, hailed from a party held ransom by a small percentage of far right Conservatives who would have inflicted substantial damage on the US and ultimately the west. Obama may not be perfect, but the alternative result does not bear thinking about. Climate change is real, however it is caused, and some effects are pretty drastic. This is not a problem we can solve by providing more guns and cutting taxes. If we cannot influence climate change we need to adapt, and it will be great to see President Obama take a lead on that.

    Sorry to break it to ya, Gareth, but you’ve been brainwashed. And in so many ways I don’t have the time to correct all your inconsistencies and false assumptions.

    But have a good day. That’s all you can hope for.

  136. beng says:

    ***
    Tim Walker says:
    January 21, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    Gotta find a barf bag quick.
    ***

    Seconded. I find the bile the drips from this guy’s mouth intensely nauseating. The comments about “the children” is incredibly hypocritical.
    The real problem, tho, is that he’s outright destructive to this country. Compared to him, Nixon was a saint…

  137. _Jim says:

    michaelwiseguy says:
    January 21, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    Flying close to the sun again are we? Surprised you’re allowed to post here after your shenanigans about ‘ship trails’ (code language for chem -er- con-trails ) and all … last night’s late-night mod knows all about it …

    .

  138. oldfossil says:

    Written on the cover of your “Climate skeptics guide to the universe” is the phrase “Don’t panic.” Go to Yahoo News, a site with a definite liberal bias, and follow the link to any climate story. Read the comments. The overwhelming consensus of commenters (97%) is that global warming is a scam designed to bankrupt Western economies. I imagine that on sites with a conservative bias, e.g. The Blaze, the consensus would be close to unanimous.

    PS I’m a lukewarmer and not quite ready to laugh the whole thing off yet.

  139. _Jim says:

    D. B. Stealey says January 21, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    Obama amazes me. He has failed upwards, just like a true Soviet Politburo member. Never held a real for-profit job. Got literally everything handed to him on a silver platter, without ever working for it. …

    Makes me wonder how far I could get if I were to significantly compromise my beliefs and morals, changed party affiliation, deepened my voice, spoke in clear, demagogic tones and appeared out in public in (can I say this?) in blackface …

    .

  140. Caleb says:

    The emporer has no clothes.

  141. _Jim says:

    Spartacus says January 21, 2013 at 3:45 pm
    Someone above wrote:

    “So an idiot really can be president.”
    The answer has, at least, one life proof: George W. Bush.
    ..

    Source: MSNBC

    The fresh-faced young man we know Pat Maddow (PhD) delivered some fine lectures on that subject.

    Getting US cable channels overseas are we?

    .

  142. Gareth Phillips says:

    michaeljmcfadden says:
    January 22, 2013 at 4:37 am
    Gareth, you wrote, “Climate change is real, however it is caused, and some effects are pretty drastic. This is not a problem we can solve by providing more guns and cutting taxes.”

    Nor is it a problem that we may be able to do ANYTHING about … even if we provide less guns and raise taxes.

    and you wrote, “If we cannot influence climate change we need to adapt”

    That part is clearly true, although I believe it is mainly true in terms of “micro-climate-change” — i.e., periods of several years to a decade or so of droughts and such things that affect food production and energy needs in discrete geographic areas.

    The problem Obama et al have is in their assumption that AGW is indisputably a primary and important cause of the problem in either the short or the longer term. I agree with what I see as the general consensus of the WUWT folks that that particular conclusion is by no means an open-and-shut case.

    - MJM
    Thanks Michael, a rare and sensible to response to one of a skeptical nature but who swims against the right wing tide prevalent on this fine site. best wishes, Gareth

  143. Jason Calley says:

    @ The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley
    Well, you and I have VERY different world views.
    However, having said that, let me point out one major difference between the UK and the US. You tell me “So you see, you DO accept laws and rules that impinge your life, so what’s the difference with guns?” Actually there is one very major difference. Totally aside from the ethical and pragmatic issues of banning (certain or all) guns, here in the US such bans are illegal. Our national government is not authorized to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. In fact, the US government is specifically forbidden from doing so. Yes, they already do so, and yes, most people abide by them, but the current rules on such things are violations of the Second Amendment. Even if I personally approved of gun bans (which I do not), as a citizen, I have a duty to fight them. If your local police posted broadsheets around the UK stating that “from now on, anyone wearing a police uniform may legally rape thirteen year old girls”, I have no doubt that you would never support such a thing. Well, here in the States it is just as illegal to infringe on gun ownership — no matter what the President thinks about it.

    There are a lot of pragmatic reasons why private ownership of military style weapons is better for a nation in the long run. I am sure you have heard them all, and honestly, my primary reasons for support of private self defence is not based on pragmatism, but on ethics. I do not mean to insult you, but you come from a culture and a nation where you are a subject. I am not a subject. I am a citizen. You live in a land where your rights flow downward and are granted by your leaders and your government. In fact “rights” is something of a misnomer; they are actually “privileges” given you. I live in a land where all governmental authority is granted by individuals to the government. The power and authority flow exactly backwards here compared to the UK. I have a natural inherent right to defend myself and I am not willing to be treated like an Englishman.

  144. Jason Calley:

    At January 22, 2013 at 11:28 am you say to The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley

    If your local police posted broadsheets around the UK stating that “from now on, anyone wearing a police uniform may legally rape thirteen year old girls”, I have no doubt that you would never support such a thing. Well, here in the States it is just as illegal to infringe on gun ownership — no matter what the President thinks about it.

    A person can only have a worthless argument if he thinks his argument is improved by pretending there is any kind of equivalence between those two suggestions. Hence, you have demonstrated the paucity of your argument.

    So, can we please stop the debate about US gun laws and return to the issue of climate policy?

    Richard

  145. DirkH says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    January 22, 2013 at 2:47 am
    “Climate change is real, however it is caused, and some effects are pretty drastic. This is not a problem we can solve by providing more guns and cutting taxes. If we cannot influence climate change we need to adapt, and it will be great to see President Obama take a lead on that.

    Gareth, please send mechanized infantry, billions of Dollars or a few gigatons of shredded Olivine, whatever helps, to Germany.

    We’re having effin cold winters. Do something man!

  146. Skiphil says:

    Michael Mann is pleased that Obama’s speech used the D-word:

    http://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/478397618883112

    Mann tries to lump every possible criticism of any climate data, methods, analysis, paleo history, models, catastrophic claims, energy policy, mitigation policy, etc. etc. into some vast amorphous ‘denial of science’ — that way he avoids answering cogent criticisms and lazily smears all critics as ‘science deniers’….

  147. E.M.Smith says:

    @John Robertson:

    Make that inclusive OR and you’ve got something…

    (Malice or incompetence including both as a choice).

  148. Gareth Phillips says:

    DirkH says:
    January 22, 2013 at 12:46 pm
    Gareth Phillips says:
    January 22, 2013 at 2:47 am
    “Climate change is real, however it is caused, and some effects are pretty drastic. This is not a problem we can solve by providing more guns and cutting taxes. If we cannot influence climate change we need to adapt, and it will be great to see President Obama take a lead on that.

    Gareth, please send mechanized infantry, billions of Dollars or a few gigatons of shredded Olivine, whatever helps, to Germany.

    We’re having effin cold winters. Do something man!

    Hi Dirk, pretty chilly in Wales as well. Our best bet is to look at how other countries have adapted to drastic changes in climate or temps. I’ve just added secondary double glazing and solar hot water generation. We have not had a decent summer for 4 years now so I have adapted our crops to cold weather and flood resistant types. It’s worth looking at how people have adapted in Sweden or Finland, and if it gets hot, well we can look over the Alps to our southern neighbours for inspiration. Stay warm, or get your knitting needles out!

  149. thelastdemocrat says:

    Mack the Knife said: “From his socialist control perspectives, if you control the energy resources of the nation, you control the entire nation.”
    This is true, but there is more: if you control the total amount of energy a nation can collectively expend, you have a throttle plate on power/productivity. Public works such as paving roads requires great energy, and private endeavors such as heavy industry and farming require great energy.
    The educated elite want to get together and give every nation a budget, an allowance. Power would shift from producers of goods and services via decent infrastructure and good govt to the global governors of the allowances, not answerable to public elections.
    By cap-n-trade, they then make you increasingly beholden as you strive to please the master for your decreasing allowance. Cigarettes are quite valuable in prison, where there is quite limited freedom and opportunity. It is wise to allow them in prison so the wardens have an economy they can manipulate.

    Along with controlling energy, the way to get power over people is their health and reproduction.

    Check.

    Check.

    Poor health, less power. Low census, less power.

    We have bought it by thinking we are getting something good: free birth control, govt-mandated abortion coverage, govt-managed healthcare. How did they get us on board with this?

    The govt now has the opportunity to direct and manags our health and reproduction, as they are trying with our energy expenditure. Eventually, for all these things, we will be beholden to them and will be happy with the crumbs we are given. In China, some don’t like the one-child policy, but it has been in existence for a long time, sold on the argument that it leads to economic prosperity for the collective.

    The problem is that a lot of us educated liberals are hesitant to recognize this social control. We have been distracted by the “war on women” rhetoric and the “patriarchal low-intelligence conservatives” rhetoric.

    We are so busy declaring how dumb Republicans are that we don’t realize we are being led by our noses to support the plans of not liberal, progressive Americans, but power-hungry socialists.

  150. HoosierHawk says:

    People keep thinking that the president has all these liberal ideas that don’t make sense in the light of day. Obamacare isn’t going to reduce costs or provide better care. Guns need to be registered and “assault rifles” banned, although only a very small fraction of the violence is associated with long guns of any type. There is plenty of proof that Global warming is bogus, but let’s move on that as well.

    The president isn’t doing these things because he’s a stupid liberal, Each of the actions is carefully selected to achieve the same goal – Tyranny. Control health care (1/6 of the economy), Control Energy (most of the rest of the economy), Disarm citizens of the types of weapons that could be used to stand up to a Government that has gone off the rails.

    I hate it when people get all up in arms and accuse people of being Nazis, but the picture is starting to come into focus and it’s disquieting. None of this is about what it seems to be. The president doesn’t think obamacare will accomplish anything it was supposed to, he doesn’t believe gun control will prevent another Sandy Hook, he doesn’t believe climate change is happening. He’s using the fascist playbook right in front of our eyes – and we just tell ourselves he’s a liberal moron. He actually told Bohner we don’t have a spending problem, nobody could be that out of touch. I’ve been worrying about the debt he’s leaving us with – now I’m worried that he’s not planning on leaving period.

Comments are closed.