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.
What a scientific train wreck this man is! Carbon…really?
Anyone can become president but few should, especially those without any related experience.
As a Canadian I hope America thinks carefully regarding the consequences of re-electing this man
Josh:
I think this toon should be sold and syndicated as a political cartoon for nationwide (& international) publications!
Truth hurts and this one should really peg the pain receptors.
Bill D – You must be one those arrogant people who think the fleas can cure the dog when it gets sick; are you serious or is your mind going with all the so-called climate change? I’m so tired of all the idiots, like you and my representatives Boxer and Pelosi who think they can ‘save the planet’. It’s so ludicrous, it’s laughable,
I’m an atheist, but I don’t have that arrogant attitude. It seems clear that many of the CAGW crowd are atheists, they have no real belief or faith that God or the planet itself will take care of its inhabitants, so they hector the rest of us into thinking the end is nigh, even though we’re at 13 billion years and counting…
“Can anyone imagine Einstein demanding that the President affirm the validity of his Theory of Relativity in an acceptance speech?”
It’s not about the science, it’s about the money. The discussion should move to identifying the donors and their business interests.
1. Lefties can’t because they lose all sense of judgment about something dressed up as “green.”
2. Righties will scream down the argument if it moves towards embarrassing their cultic like embrace of “business” having everyone’s best interest in mind by pursuing their own self interest. E.g., showing that nukes, gas, and wall Street finance are the major puppeteers, not the leftie greenies. Rush Limbaugh is a master of that, and it shows in a not-insignificant portion of the American population.
Both of those sides talk endlessly like they are smart, but have huge holes in the head. All the lefties are smarter, they know how to turn a discourse away from “positive feedbacks” and frame all dissent as merely being about the CO2 molecule, aka, “carbon.”
FTM. Who are the “donors.”
BillD says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:52 pm
I’ve been waiting for Obama to mention the unmentionable. I really liked his speech including the comments on climate change, renewable energy and energy independence. It earned a campaign contribution from me.
=================================================================
Well, BillD, at least your donation was your choice. I work for the government. In my particular job, I’ve no choice but to give money to AFSCME. My “donation”, via a labor union, was not my choice.
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=American+Fedn+of+St%2FCnty%2FMunic+Employees&cycle=2012
Don’t you think it should be? To work for the government, I have to give money to a particular political philosophy? Is that honest?
As honest as “climate science”, it seems.
Actually, most of the evidence has, in reality, been shredded, no? sarc/off
Are the opinions expressed here concerning climate change as off base as those concerning the US economy? Gotta wonder….
From the Wall Street Journal:
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor
As for Obama,
The EPA is damaging our supply of low cost electricty everyday. With double energy costs in this nation and union wages, let’s see how the USA stacks up with the economies of the world. I am betting that we won’t be able to sell anything, but I think that’s his plan anyway. Total dependence of Government, it’s working all over Europe…..LOL
Steven, that’s a darn good parody of the cockamamie American right wing scream machine-business fetish wing. Would perfectly fit with the half-smart/totally dumb ignorance Rush Limbaugh spews.
However, I advise you to seek help. You are not parodizing, you are projecting. Is there a disease called Munchausen’s Projection by Proxy? You may have it. You created the wacky quote as a ego defense to give yourself less reason to consider the gravamen of the thread. :Like a strawman set up to be torn down; a distraction, hand waving.
Incredible that “the things we do to create energy independence will also allow us toput less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
CAFE standards, economic incentives, and a possible carbon tax, all can give us energy independence, according to Romney.
Either way, I can’t afford Obama lowering the oceans, or Mitt Romney “helping my family.”
Geez. It’s almost as if someone is intentionally giving Sen. Ryan material. Inbound electoral bitchslap in 3….2…
Robert Olsen says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:41 pm
I stand with WUWT on climate science, and disagree with the President’s statements regarding climate change. ….
I digress… This is off point for WUWT. I would hope that climate change isn’t the single deciding factor of who people are voting for.
==================================================================
I’d rather someone besides Romney was running but I know that Obama is running and I can see what he’s done. I don’t want him to have another 4 years to keep doing it.
And remember that all of the House seats are up and many of the Senate seats. Whoever wins, he can’t do what he wants without the Congress.
(For our non-US readers, Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate.)
PS to BillD: Last year about 42% of union dues where I work were spent on politics.
Louis says,”President Obama is not a scientist. That doesn’t mean he is wrong.”
No, Louis, it means he is not *even* wrong, as Richard Feynman always used to say. Obama’s comments and indeed many of the climate change comments, don’t reach even the lowest bar of credibility. I don’t like Romney, never have and while Obama is likable, his energy and environmental ideas are absolutely inane; so this means I have no one to vote for, again. At best I can only vote against. Nice.
Sorry, Mods, I don’t want to take this off topic. I won’t reply to union-type stuff if you don’t want me to.
Great post! Loved it!
Josh (whoever he is) rocks!
Nixon: “I am not a crook”
Clinton: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
Obama: “climate change is not a hoax”
mfo;
Obama v Romney answer 14 science and technology questions, including:
2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
Answers here->
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-romney-science-debate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Excellent link mfo !
Anyone who wants to see the position of the two candidates on this matter, this is well worth a read. Obama is clearly playing to his consituency. I expected the same from Romney. I was pleasantly surprised to read a rather cogent and detailed response. I doubt their positions on climate will influence the election to be honest, but the reality of the situation was rather well articulated by Romney.
I wonder if @Jeremy will be remembered as Blaise Pascal has been or for so long a time. See Pascal’s Wager – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ ““Pascal’s Wager” is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God. The name is somewhat misleading, for in a single paragraph of his Pensées, Pascal apparently presents at least three such arguments, each of which might be called a ‘wager’ — it is only the final of these that is traditionally referred to as “Pascal’s Wager”. We find in it the extraordinary confluence of several important strands of thought: the justification of theism; probability theory and decision theory, used here for almost the first time in history; pragmatism; voluntarism (the thesis that belief is a matter of the will); and the use of the concept of infinity. “
“Carbon Tax could raise $1.5 Trillion for the US government.” JoNova
No, I doubt their positions on carbon legislation will influence the election. But there is always an ant at the picnic who brings these things up.
mfo says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Obama v Romney answer 14 science and technology questions, including:
2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
Answers here->
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-romney-science-debate
Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response.
— Mitt Romney —
How very Ravetzian of him.
tallbloke,
Politics is an arena where Ravetz-type speech is commonly used. It is not science.
tallbloke;
Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response.
– Mitt Romney —
How very Ravetzian of him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You didn’t take enough punishment in the University of Colorado Seminar thread?
Romney has it right. Policy should be informed by science. Ravetz argument is for politics to inform science. Your defense of your friend is admirable, but you increasingly are defending the indefensible and making it clear that you don’t even understand what it is that you are defending.
mean while in australia best snow in 20 years season extended to 10/7/12 http://ski.com.au/reports/australia/nsw/perisherblue/index.html
You’re probably right; we could use another 4 years of worth of substandard ‘buddy-buddy’ supreme court nominations PLUS another 4 years of blocking pipelines and denying drilling permits AND THEN there are going to be continued cash ‘infusions’ to assure profitability of GM and the ‘solar’ and ‘wind’ industries …
We will ALL become ‘winners’ in life’s lottery due to enforced ‘social and economic justice’.
NOT (in case anyone has not caught on yet).
.
Obama is counting on the suckers to keep believing even if he gave up or more likely never did. Hes a pollitician after all. Fools and their money are soon parted and there are many fools.