Last night at the DNC, President Obama released a climatic whopper to appease those donors that were threatening to withhold funds if he didn’t say something about climate in his speech. Prior to his speech, Joe Romm had the best line ever about the way Obama has been treating the climate issue:
Why have you and your administration been treating climate change like Voldemort — “The Threat-That-Must-Not-Be-Named.”
So, when Obama said last night ‘please send money’ :
And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future. And in this election, you can do something about it.
…Josh sharpened his funny pencil:
Bonus funny:
At Climate Depot, we have this today:
Obama mocked for claiming his presidency can control extreme weather: ‘Had FDR claimed that he could control the dust bowl drought, he would have been locked up in a loony bin’
- ‘There isn’t one shred of evidence that droughts, floods or wildfires have increased. There also isn’t one shred of evidence that American voters can change the number of droughts and floods and wildfires’
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not one shred of evidence? Sounds like post-normal politiscience!
A completely non scientific President !!
Obama may sound ridiculous when viewed in a certain way but these empty promises are not materially different from those of many other great religions which, for your allegiance, promise eternal salvation from a non-existent threat of eternal damnation.
The joke is not so much “Climate Change”, really it is the gullibility of the human race that is such a big “joke”.
If reelected, he will probably continue to drive down CO2 emissions — by further damaging the economy
Can anyone honestly think of a bigger threat to our children’s future than the massive debt we are forcing them to pay, while saddling them with higher energy costs and ballooning federal expenses, like social security and Obamacare?
The present course in Washington is by far the biggest threat to our children’s future. When they become homeless or can’t afford the energy to keep themselves warm, our children will wish it was a few degrees warmer. Too bad it won’t be.
Jeremy,
Say what? When your close to death, send me an e-mail. It won’t be a joke I can assure you.
As for Obama,
The EPA is damaging our supply of low cost electricty everyday. With double energy costs in this nation and union wages, let’s see how the USA stacks up with the economies of the world. I am betting that we won’t be able to sell anything, but I think that’s his plan anyway. Total dependence of Government, it’s working all over Europe…..LOL
Cynical pandering to donation sources.
And this:
You know what else is a threat to our children? $16 trillion in debt. Keep spending Obama but worry about the plant food (aka see oh two).
Based on some of the buttons on display at the convention, Obama has the slut vote locked up. He previously made a strong appeal to
illegal immigrantsundocumented residents. Now it looks like he has moved to solidify support among the Carbon Cult.With leadership like this, how can we go wrong?
Anybody looking over the shoulder of whoever is currently in charge of CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa?
When global temperatures drop, as seems likely with the solar flux on ration, I expect CO2 levels to level off then drop – together with levelling then falling sea level.
But who dare admit it? And we have been lied to before now. This is what I see, now I am for the first time actually looking at evidence linked to various of awful Lewindowsky’s “conspiracy” items. However, unlike what L. would like to foist on me, I am not, nor never will be, a “believer” in his terms, since the only thing I value is evidence from all sides, and the visible application of Scientific Method.
We need a dedicated advertising / PR campaign to change public opinion. O wouldn’t have gone out on that limb if public opinion was not somewhat on his side. And there are so many races in which the conservatives would gain a benefit if the needle of public opinion was moved against the climate change joke. And the arguments are on our side. So it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
The MSM controls most of the media, so our only outlet beyond blogs (not widely viewed) and Fox (only viewed by conservatives, pretty much) is to run a self-directed campaign. Importantly, conservatives are now energized by the issue, so any effective ad campaign would be self-sustaining by conservative contributions. So a minimal investment could get things running.
In addition to wanting to ban CO2, DNC delegates also seem to want to ban all corporate profits.
Here is a recent Peter Schiff video showing interviews with DNC delegates. No wonder the US is in such terrible shape and US national debt just hit $16 TRILLION this week…
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=07fTsF5BiSM
I’ve been waiting for Obama to mention the unmentionable. I really liked his speech including the comments on climate change, renewable energy and energy independence. It earned a campaign contribution from me.
BillD,
Fools and their money…
Grow the economy whilst reducing CO2 simps…more fracking!
“carbon pollution” presumably he means CO2? Its not a joke but his grasp of science definitely is isnt it? CO2 is a harmless trace gas and plant food essential for life on earth. How did it come to this that a plant food could be deemed to be a pollutant? Plant life takes in CO2 and gives out the O2 without which we would die, does this sound like a pollutant to you? If anything there is not enough CO2, more CO2 = more life.
Try withholding CO2 from a plant and it dies, that is no pollutant that any sane person would recognize, mercury filling the ridiculous and expensive light bulbs his regime worked so hard to foist on the American people is a genuine pollutant and some of the truly toxic ecofascist inspired legislation peddled by the EPA is nothing less than toxic but the CO2 that makes your soft drink enjoyable and that feeds the plant life which feeds the animals we eat is not a pollutant, to claim it is would be the sick joke of the age. See ya around then Mr one term turkey, dont let the swing door hit you on the way out.
Smokey says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:59 pm
BillD,
Fools and their money
—
Smokey,
Folks like BillD realize that the climate industry ™ requires MASSIVE government funding in order stay afloat, so naturally that constituency is going to donate money to keep the climate ca$h spigot flowing.
And this is yet another opportunity to stress to our U.S. friends that their vote in November to unelect our current president is vote to finally cut-off the bloated, unnecessary climate ca$h gravy train from the climate science elites. Remember that in 2011 the Republican congress was finally able to remove IPCC funding from the budget – a small, but important first step. We need to go MUCH further…
Obama v Romney answer 14 science and technology questions, including:
2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
Answers here->
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-romney-science-debate
Lucy – My own thumbnail assessment of the ‘conspiracy’ scene suggests that:
– There are two main classifications of conspiracy theory: (a) those that replace science with science fiction (NASA’s fake moon landings, aliens, etc) and (b) those that suppose venal corruption on the part of politicians and their owners (take your pick …).
– Generally speaking, those in class (a) are plainly false; while those in class (b) generally turn out to be true, when the facts come home to roost. (See “33 Conspiracy Theories that Turned Out to be True” – the list has been around for awhile.)
Hope this helps.
“Last night at the DNC, President Obama released a climatic whopper to appease those donors that were threatening to withhold funds if he didn’t say something about climate in his speech.”
—
Can anyone imagine Einstein demanding that the President affirm the validity of his Theory of Relativity in an acceptance speech? Einstein knew that public opinion was not the deciding factor. It didn’t even matter how many scientists disapproved of his theories because, as he stated, “it only takes one of them to prove me wrong.”
President Obama is not a scientist. That doesn’t mean he is wrong. It just means his opinion is political and should have no bearing on science. The idea that AGW proponents think his opinion is the deciding factor in climate science is what constitutes a “joke.”
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
— Albert Einstein
A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.
— Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
I stand with WUWT on climate science, and disagree with the President’s statements regarding climate change. However, I’ve seen others here who seem to suggest that Romney would make the economy better. I haven’t seen anything from Romney which suggests that he will. Romney is little more than a corporate puppet at this point. As a corporate puppet, he will continue an agenda which gives corporations more money and power, and average citizens less.
For me, Ron Paul was the only legitimate option for a presidential candidate that wasn’t a corporate puppet. Gary Johnson is an option, but he’s a Libertarian, and I haven’t seen anything which suggests that the Libertarians will be taken seriously this election.
I view US politics and climate science in much the same boat. The people up top are doing their best to prevent dissenting views from being heard. As long as we allow that to happen, things won’t get much better.
I digress… This is off point for WUWT. I would hope that climate change isn’t the single deciding factor of who people are voting for.
Heck with natural gas doing all the heavy lifting we will easily surpass any target any administration could have thought of. They will still want to tax you 3 ways from Tuesday for your “carbon footprint” of course but what else is new?
They will implement stupid measures and give buckets of money to their friends and claim victory and ignore that it was all natural gas not their policies.
Stephanie Clague says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:10 pm
“carbon pollution” presumably he means CO2?
===========================================================
Not necessarily. After all, he is, as they say in science fiction circles, a carbon-based life form.
OT
Jo Nova down again?
Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access /wp/index.php on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
http://joannenova.com.au/