Friday Funny – climate change is not a joke

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 nightplease 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’
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Not one shred of evidence? Sounds like post-normal politiscience!

A completely non scientific President !!

Jeremy

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

Jim Clarke

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.

Steven Hill

Jeremy,
Say what? When your close to death, send me an e-mail. It won’t be a joke I can assure you.

Steven Hill

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

Chris B

Cynical pandering to donation sources.
And this:

David L

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).

Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7

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 immigrants undocumented 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.

SAMURAI

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

BillD

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…

Hari Seldon

Grow the economy whilst reducing CO2 simps…more fracking!

Stephanie Clague

“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.

Frank K.

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…

mfo

Obama v Romney answer 14 science and technology questions, including:
2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
Answers here->
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-romney-science-debate

Steve C

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.

Louis

“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

Robert Olsen

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.

TRM

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.

Gunga Din

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.

clipe

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/

rolsthro

What a scientific train wreck this man is! Carbon…really?
Anyone can become president but few should, especially those without any related experience.
As a Canadian I hope America thinks carefully regarding the consequences of re-electing this man

Josh:
I think this toon should be sold and syndicated as a political cartoon for nationwide (& international) publications!
Truth hurts and this one should really peg the pain receptors.

DavidG

Bill D – You must be one those arrogant people who think the fleas can cure the dog when it gets sick; are you serious or is your mind going with all the so-called climate change? I’m so tired of all the idiots, like you and my representatives Boxer and Pelosi who think they can ‘save the planet’. It’s so ludicrous, it’s laughable,
I’m an atheist, but I don’t have that arrogant attitude. It seems clear that many of the CAGW crowd are atheists, they have no real belief or faith that God or the planet itself will take care of its inhabitants, so they hector the rest of us into thinking the end is nigh, even though we’re at 13 billion years and counting…

Follow the Money

“Can anyone imagine Einstein demanding that the President affirm the validity of his Theory of Relativity in an acceptance speech?”
It’s not about the science, it’s about the money. The discussion should move to identifying the donors and their business interests.
1. Lefties can’t because they lose all sense of judgment about something dressed up as “green.”
2. Righties will scream down the argument if it moves towards embarrassing their cultic like embrace of “business” having everyone’s best interest in mind by pursuing their own self interest. E.g., showing that nukes, gas, and wall Street finance are the major puppeteers, not the leftie greenies. Rush Limbaugh is a master of that, and it shows in a not-insignificant portion of the American population.
Both of those sides talk endlessly like they are smart, but have huge holes in the head. All the lefties are smarter, they know how to turn a discourse away from “positive feedbacks” and frame all dissent as merely being about the CO2 molecule, aka, “carbon.”
FTM. Who are the “donors.”

Gunga Din

BillD says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:52 pm
I’ve been waiting for Obama to mention the unmentionable. I really liked his speech including the comments on climate change, renewable energy and energy independence. It earned a campaign contribution from me.
=================================================================
Well, BillD, at least your donation was your choice. I work for the government. In my particular job, I’ve no choice but to give money to AFSCME. My “donation”, via a labor union, was not my choice.
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=American+Fedn+of+St%2FCnty%2FMunic+Employees&cycle=2012
Don’t you think it should be? To work for the government, I have to give money to a particular political philosophy? Is that honest?
As honest as “climate science”, it seems.

Pamela Gray

Actually, most of the evidence has, in reality, been shredded, no? sarc/off

Are the opinions expressed here concerning climate change as off base as those concerning the US economy? Gotta wonder….
From the Wall Street Journal:
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Follow the Money

As for Obama,
The EPA is damaging our supply of low cost electricty everyday. With double energy costs in this nation and union wages, let’s see how the USA stacks up with the economies of the world. I am betting that we won’t be able to sell anything, but I think that’s his plan anyway. Total dependence of Government, it’s working all over Europe…..LOL
Steven, that’s a darn good parody of the cockamamie American right wing scream machine-business fetish wing. Would perfectly fit with the half-smart/totally dumb ignorance Rush Limbaugh spews.
However, I advise you to seek help. You are not parodizing, you are projecting. Is there a disease called Munchausen’s Projection by Proxy? You may have it. You created the wacky quote as a ego defense to give yourself less reason to consider the gravamen of the thread. :Like a strawman set up to be torn down; a distraction, hand waving.

Incredible that “the things we do to create energy independence will also allow us toput less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
CAFE standards, economic incentives, and a possible carbon tax, all can give us energy independence, according to Romney.
Either way, I can’t afford Obama lowering the oceans, or Mitt Romney “helping my family.”

DDP

Geez. It’s almost as if someone is intentionally giving Sen. Ryan material. Inbound electoral bitchslap in 3….2…

Gunga Din

Robert Olsen says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:41 pm
I stand with WUWT on climate science, and disagree with the President’s statements regarding climate change. ….
I digress… This is off point for WUWT. I would hope that climate change isn’t the single deciding factor of who people are voting for.
==================================================================
I’d rather someone besides Romney was running but I know that Obama is running and I can see what he’s done. I don’t want him to have another 4 years to keep doing it.
And remember that all of the House seats are up and many of the Senate seats. Whoever wins, he can’t do what he wants without the Congress.
(For our non-US readers, Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate.)

Gunga Din

PS to BillD: Last year about 42% of union dues where I work were spent on politics.

DavidG

Louis says,”President Obama is not a scientist. That doesn’t mean he is wrong.”
No, Louis, it means he is not *even* wrong, as Richard Feynman always used to say. Obama’s comments and indeed many of the climate change comments, don’t reach even the lowest bar of credibility. I don’t like Romney, never have and while Obama is likable, his energy and environmental ideas are absolutely inane; so this means I have no one to vote for, again. At best I can only vote against. Nice.

Gunga Din

Sorry, Mods, I don’t want to take this off topic. I won’t reply to union-type stuff if you don’t want me to.

Great post! Loved it!
Josh (whoever he is) rocks!

Mark and two Cats

Nixon: “I am not a crook”
Clinton: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
Obama: “climate change is not a hoax”

davidmhoffer

mfo;
Obama v Romney answer 14 science and technology questions, including:
2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
Answers here->
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-romney-science-debate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Excellent link mfo !
Anyone who wants to see the position of the two candidates on this matter, this is well worth a read. Obama is clearly playing to his consituency. I expected the same from Romney. I was pleasantly surprised to read a rather cogent and detailed response. I doubt their positions on climate will influence the election to be honest, but the reality of the situation was rather well articulated by Romney.

Doug Huffman

I wonder if @Jeremy will be remembered as Blaise Pascal has been or for so long a time. See Pascal’s Wager – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ ““Pascal’s Wager” is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God. The name is somewhat misleading, for in a single paragraph of his Pensées, Pascal apparently presents at least three such arguments, each of which might be called a ‘wager’ — it is only the final of these that is traditionally referred to as “Pascal’s Wager”. We find in it the extraordinary confluence of several important strands of thought: the justification of theism; probability theory and decision theory, used here for almost the first time in history; pragmatism; voluntarism (the thesis that belief is a matter of the will); and the use of the concept of infinity. “

“Carbon Tax could raise $1.5 Trillion for the US government.” JoNova
No, I doubt their positions on carbon legislation will influence the election. But there is always an ant at the picnic who brings these things up.

mfo says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Obama v Romney answer 14 science and technology questions, including:
2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
Answers here->
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-romney-science-debate

Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response.
— Mitt Romney —
How very Ravetzian of him.

tallbloke,
Politics is an arena where Ravetz-type speech is commonly used. It is not science.

davidmhoffer

tallbloke;
Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response.
– Mitt Romney —
How very Ravetzian of him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You didn’t take enough punishment in the University of Colorado Seminar thread?
Romney has it right. Policy should be informed by science. Ravetz argument is for politics to inform science. Your defense of your friend is admirable, but you increasingly are defending the indefensible and making it clear that you don’t even understand what it is that you are defending.

tango

mean while in australia best snow in 20 years season extended to 10/7/12 http://ski.com.au/reports/australia/nsw/perisherblue/index.html

Robert Olsen says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:41 pm
I stand with WUWT on climate science, and disagree with the President’s statements regarding climate change. However, I’ve seen others here who seem to suggest that Romney would make the economy better.

You’re probably right; we could use another 4 years of worth of substandard ‘buddy-buddy’ supreme court nominations PLUS another 4 years of blocking pipelines and denying drilling permits AND THEN there are going to be continued cash ‘infusions’ to assure profitability of GM and the ‘solar’ and ‘wind’ industries …
We will ALL become ‘winners’ in life’s lottery due to enforced ‘social and economic justice’.
NOT (in case anyone has not caught on yet).
.

lawrie

Obama is counting on the suckers to keep believing even if he gave up or more likely never did. Hes a pollitician after all. Fools and their money are soon parted and there are many fools.