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.
One wonders if ppl like Zeke are aware of the staff, the people, the advisers, the authors, the teachers, the preacher the one has surrounded himself with compared to the other?
But then, I have known some PhD and MSc types who were particularly naive when it came to ‘political knowledge’ or understanding or evaluating people too …
.
Vote Obama!
Climate change will disappear in the next few years … if not by Xmas.
But proper healthcare is the right of everyone and it should not disappear.
They are coming out of the woodwork.
Global Warming is merely an excuse to tax us to death and then buy votes/power in order to remain in power in perpetuity. It is not surprising that the lefties immediately glomed on to that concept.
Anything to bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Mike Haeseler,
It is illegal to turn anyone away who needs health care. Therefore, everyone is covered. Everyone.
So the only reason to vote for obama is if you want the U.S. economy to keep going downhill. I want $1.87 a gallon gasoline again, and by throwing that bum out and putting an adult in charge, that will be easy to acheive.
“Under my Plan electricity costs will necessarily skyrocket.”
~ B.H. Obama
It is already happening.
Steven Hill on September 7, 2012 at 11:54 am
Jeremy,
Say what? When your close to death, send me an e-mail. It won’t be a joke I can assure you.
In all due respect I don’t think I’d be quite so certain about that. I have a wee little experience in this regard. In Sep. 2003 my former primary care doc sent me for a lung function test and in early 2004 was adamant in telling me, that as a result of that test, nobody lives beyond 5 years. Let’s see; what year is it now? And I can assure you, it’s not a ghost that’s writing this. After seeing two lung transplant surgeons the second one asked me if I’d choose to undergo the “risks” of the operation. At the time LTs were performed with a life expectancy of 2 years or less. That was in 2006 and, no, I haven’t had a transplant yet, and I’ve chosen to decline it. Then I went into the hospital in July 2011. That ‘genius’ doctor told me I had 6mos. to a year. What year and month is it now? And once again I have to inform you that it’s not a ghost that writing this. Because of the bang up great job that those doctors did I was mysteriously brought back to the hospital in Sept. unconscious in the back of an ambulance; something about narcolepsy. A few days in ICU, and a week in the hospital, two weeks in a nursing home, and I was back home having successfully thrawted my sibling’s plan to sign over my property (such as it is), and to discover that my watch had migrated over to one of their homes. “Oh, we thought you were going to die. We just had it for safe keeping.” I’m sorry Steven, but Jeremy’s right, it really does get to be a joke. And this is why, along with a million other reasons, is why I don’t trust a damn thing ‘experts’ or bureaucrats (er-climate scientists), or religions like to feed to us.
Josh, the part, “Obama care? Not a lot” was great!!!! Your rock !!!
I think there’s a correlation between increasing CO2 levels and Josh’s cartoons. As the CO2 level rises, the cartoons keep getting funnier and funnier; thanks for the laugh.
I might just take a vacation from WUWT until the US election is over. Too many mindless republican sloganeers around here spouting drivel.
I really think it is a bad idea to try to make this a political issue. This really isn’t about politics. It is about the science. All Obama is doing is following scientific advice. I think it is bad scientific advice. But bad science needs to be dealt with at a scientific and not a political level.
Similarly I note that the NZ climate coalition have lost their court case against NIWA. Seriously guys – you don’t fix bad science in a court of law either. Wrong approach. Not only did they lose by they got spanked by the judge with an award of costs as well. Basically the judge told them the judiciary was not qualified to rule on a scientific dispute. Well duh!
The whole climate debate is basically a scientific question. It isn’t a court case or a political campaign. When too much of that other stuff starts getting in here I start to switch off. The best way to deal with disinformation and falsehood is not to call up a politician or a lawyer, but to produce information and truth.
Getting back to the US election, quite apart from the whole philosophical thing, I also think tactically I think hitching your wagon to the republican party right now is a very bad idea. It is never a good idea to back losers. And from where I sit Romney looks like a total turkey.
Friday Funny II:
do u know u r quoted at MSNBC, Anthony, as from a denial blog? Stephanie puts brackets around letters, including at the beginning of your quote, for reasons i can’t understand:
7 Sept: MSNBC LiveScience: Stephanie Pappas: Those with conspiracy beliefs apt to deny global warming, too
And study that showed evidence of this sparks talk about — yep — another conspiracy
A study suggesting climate change deniers also tend to hold general beliefs in conspiracy theories has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs…
“(F)or some reason, Dr. Lewandowsky refuses to divulge which skeptical blogs he contacted,” wrote Anthony Watts, who blogs on the popular climate skepticism website Watts Up With That?
Climate change conspiracy
Though about 97 percent of working scientists agree that the evidence shows a warming trend caused by humans, public understanding of climate change falls along political lines. Democrats are more likely to “believe in” global warming than Republicans, according to a 2011 report by the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey Institute. In fact, deniers and skeptics who felt more confident in their climate-change knowledge were the strongest disbelievers. [ 10 Climate Change Myths Busted ]
Believing that climate change isn’t happening or that it’s not human-caused requires a belief that thousands of climate scientists around the world are lying outright, Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote in their new paper…
Climate psych controversy
Unsurprisingly, the results did not please climate-skeptic bloggers, some of whom responded by accusing Lewandowsky of not attempting to contact them at all. In an email to Lucia Liljegren, who blogs at The Blackboard, Lewandowsky declined to name the bloggers he emailed, citing privacy concerns.
In response, Liljegren wrote, “I think who Lewandowsky contacted will reveal whether he really even tried to conduct a balanced survey,” urging other bloggers to publicly give permission for Lewandowsky to reveal their names. The researcher told DeSmogBlog that he has contacted his university’s ethics committee to find out if he is allowed to do so.
In the meantime, Simon James, who blogs at Australian Climate Madness, has submitted a Freedom of Information request to the University of Western Australia in an effort to force the release of emails related to the study, and prominent climate-change skeptic Steve McIntyre has urged readers to email the university with academic misconduct complaints.
McIntyre later reported that an email search turned up a request from one of Lewandowsky’s collaborators…
“(T)o our knowledge, our results are the first to provide empirical evidence for the correlation between a general construct of conspiracist ideation and the general tendency to reject well-founded science,” Lewandowsky and his colleagues concluded. Psychological research has found that conspiracy beliefs are hard to dislodge, they wrote, but efforts to debunk multiple lines of conspiratorial reasoning at once may help.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48947384/ns/technology_and_science-science/
“And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future. And in this election, you can do something about it.”
If increased government spending on green scams and more public employees was the key to economic nirvana, Greece, Spain, Italy, UK, Australia, the US, and the other paradigm followers would all be entering a golden age. Massive government spending and massive increase in the number of government employees is not the answer. The Soviet Union failed for a reason. Increasing the size of government and jobs subsidized by tax dollars is not job creation. When the ability to borrow ends, the job ends. Communism does not work. The Obama administration is following the EU plan which leads to economic ruin.
The AGW bogyman provides an excuse for massive unsustainable spending on green scams such as the conversion of food to biofuel or wind farms which do not significantly reduce carbon emission and job killing regulation. Spending money on scams does not create jobs.
As the planet’s response to warming is to increase clouds in the tropics (negative feedback) a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C of warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will result in the biosphere expanding. Plants eat CO2. Commercial greenhouses inject carbon dioxide into the greenhouse to reduce growing times and increase yield. CO2 increases and moderate warming will cause the biosphere to expand and become more productive.
The crisis is not increasing atmospheric CO2 but rather the CO2 bogyman and policies created to fight the CO2 bogyman. The CO2 bogyman is one of the reasons Western Countries are failing to create private sector jobs.
The EPA regulation enforcers create and apply the regulation to block projects in accordance with the AGW bogyman. Low cost electrical power, low cost transportation fuel, innovation, low business tax, mobile work force, win-win job benefits and so on is what is required to enable the private sector to create private sector jobs which will cause the GDP to expand. The US and other Western countries can and must have structural changes to enable the private sector to create jobs.
P.S. I had an opportunity to listen to most of the key Republican speeches. I heard examine after example of city and state governments that have been successful in addressing the above problems. Mitt Romney appears to be a knowledgeable realist who can lead and who will sensibly address the structural problems.
I so love ideologues. It is the very reason we have the whole CAGW scam in the first place.
I’ll give you a hint why your statement is either contradictory, or simply borne of ignorance, Mike Haesler: if in order to enforce one right, another must be violated, one of the two is no longer a right.
I realize this may be a riddle you cannot solve, but try… think about it a bit, and wonder which of the two is more important to society. My guess is that you will choose poorly, but I’m open to be surprised.
Mark
tango says:
September 7, 2012 at 4:28 pm
mean while in australia best snow in 20 years season extended to 10/7/12 http://ski.com.au/reports/australia/nsw/perisherblue/index.html
============================================================
Tango, you behave or next March we’ll send Algaore back down there to watch something melt.
Haven’t really been paying attention have you?… oh wait, you follow up with:
When ignorance is self-inflicted, I feel no pity, nor shame for exposing it. The question of whether or not this is/was a “scientific” problem was settled long ago (hint: it is not).
No worse than hitching your wagon to socialists from the Democratic party. The only difference, a nuance apparently you are either unwilling to understand, or incapable of doing so, is how they want to control our lives. The “right” wants to do it through religious dogma, the “left” through collectivist dogma – both are controlled by margins that hardly resemble what the US population actually believes. In either case, it is still control.
A slave does not care from whence the whip comes, that it is a whip is his only concern.
Wake up.
Mark
I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that maybe you don’t actually understand what you are saying, being from NZ and all. Either way, hardly in your best interest, if proving your enlightened insight and brilliant wit was your goal, to follow up with the rest of what you posted. You did not come across as someone that has actually educated himself w.r.t. US politics, or the process, other than what he has read/seen on progressive media. Living in such a box may be comfy, but you won’t impress anyone with your knowledge if you don’t get out more often.
Mark
“Obama says he can stop droughts and floods, but he was unable to stop a 30% probability of rain which convinced him to move his speech indoors. Can someone explain how that works?”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/yes-we-cant/
Put down the knives a minute and focus on what he *didn’t* say.
You’ve won, Anthony. The skeptics have won.
He didn’t mention hurricanes.
He didn’t mention tornadoes.
He didn’t mention crop failures.
He didn’t mention melting icecaps or receding coastlines.
He didn’t mention mutant frogs or 50 shades of gray coral.
He didn’t mention anything anyone cares about.
I <3 Bill.
Nice!
not working, so we’ll change the rules again. Australia still stuck on $23/tonne:
7 Sept: Reuters: Fewer than expected bid for cap-and-trade emission permits
Nine states in the northeastern U.S. cap-and-trade system sold 24.6 million carbon emission allowances at a minimum bid price of $1.93 per ton, selling just 65 percent of permits offered, the program’s administrator said Friday…
All 22 bidders were seeking the permits to comply with regulations – either electric sector utilities or their affiliates…
In previous auctions, some non-compliance entities, such as banks buying for speculative reasons or green groups looking to retire the permits, have played a larger role.
The RGGI is a cap-and-trade system targeting electric sector emissions in nine northeastern and mid-Atlantic states from Maine to Maryland…
RGGI states are currently engaged in reviewing the program and are expected to recommend changes this year, which could include tightening its emissions cap…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/07/usa-emissions-market-idUSL2E8K7BYM20120907
Ian H says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:27 pm
I really think it is a bad idea to try to make this a political issue. This really isn’t about politics. It is about the science. All Obama is doing is following scientific advice. I think it is bad scientific advice. But bad science needs to be dealt with at a scientific and not a political level.
====================================================================
But a big part of the problem is that it is politics fueling the bad science for it’s own ends. Obama isn’t following faulty scientific advice, he’s using it and funding it for his own purposes.
So you hammer Obama for this, but not Ryan whose views are just as extreme the other way? Come on, the truth lies in the middle here and you know it.
Zeke says:
September 7, 2012 at 3:26 pm
“Carbon Tax could raise $1.5 Trillion for the US government.” JoNova
No, I doubt their positions on carbon legislation will influence the election. But there is always an ant at the picnic who brings these things up.
===================================================
$1.5 Trillion from what? (If a Carbon Tax is implimented.) Trying to make “getting blood from a turnip” a reality? Or is it 1.5 after the dollar is devalued to the point where it would take a truckload of dollars to buy a gallon of water? (I was going to “gas” instead of “water” but who, besides Algore et al, would still have a car by then?)
Oh, and, Josh, that’s a Classic!
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
September 7, 2012 at 8:08 pm
“Obama says he can stop droughts and floods, but he was unable to stop a 30% probability of rain which convinced him to move his speech indoors. Can someone explain how that works?”
=======================================================================
He could have stopped the rain but he couldn’t fill the outdoor seats.
Doug,
I certainly won’t be famous but Pascal’s Wager is wooly thinking because, unlike a flip of a coin, there are real costs associated in the decision to believe in something completely unsubstantiated. Many CAGW supporters claim they are not sure about the Catastrophic part of CAGW or convinced even how big the Anthropogenic piece might actually be, but using Pascal’s wooly logic, they argue that we must nevertheless curb our emissions just in case, increasing poverty through higher cost of living and food prices (real costs that are certain). Clearly, unless one is a complete hypocrite, adopting a belief leads to actions that have real costs, as is the case with CAGW!
Yesterday I posted this note, after reading Obama’s comments on climate change:
“The problem with democracy is that 50% of people are of less than average intelligence, and about 30% are just batshit crazy.”
I just watched Jon Stewart’s excerpts of your leaders’ speeches at the Democratic National Convention.
I now think I was far too generous in my comments. 🙂
Come to Norway and watch Norwegian politics for a while. Then decide whether it is a political issue or not. Or try the UK. It isn’t uniquely a US political issue, but it is politics.