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’
Stark Dickflüssig says:
September 8, 2012 at 10:30 am
the fact that Pieter Tans is Dutch & a nice fellow is not evidence that he is truthful.
Further, the statement “[he is] only interested in providing the best data available” is an excellent example of ipse dixit.
The fact that he is Dutch indeed doesn’t assure you that he is honest, but I had some correspondence with him and he provided a few days of raw voltage data of the CO2 measurements at MLO, so that I could check the methods to calculate the CO2 data myself.
The methods used and the calibration procedures can be found at:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
I don’t see that somebody at MLO is “adjusting” the 8 million or so raw data in such a way that a quite continuous increase in CO2 is fabricated… The more that different people from different labs in different countries all find the same increase at some 60+ stations in “background” surroundings.
Some years ago, Pieter Tans was on WUWT too:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/04/one-day-later-mauna-loa-co2-graph-changes-data-doesnt/
and very detailed what happened:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/06/post-mortem-on-the-mauna-loa-co2-data-eruption/
and further discussion at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/07/mauna-loa-to-improve-the-co2-data/
that discussion resulted in the above mentioned detailed procedure…
Earth to Mike; the whole world does not think like you do. Good thing, eh?☺
BTW, scientific skepticism is rational, and the only honest scientists are skeptics. As you probably know, lots of scientists are not skeptics. What does that tell you?
[If an incompetent jamoke can’t administer the country or the economy, then we have a problem. Time to change horses.]
Mike Mellor says:
September 8, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Oh dear. Please tell me this entire comments thread is a nightmare and that all climate skeptics are NOT right-wing redneck fundamentalists. Please tell me that at least some climate skeptics trust science over any faith-based value system including politics. Please tell me that climate skepticism is a rational choice.
Mike, that makes at least two of us from the other side. It seems that the connection between right wing and climate (change) skeptics is more pronaoucned in the US than in Europe, but that is said from a distance, with a deep ocean inbetween…
Mike Mellor says:
September 8, 2012 at 1:31 pm
And please tell me you haven’t been brainwashed when formulating these opinions.
Please do some research and don’t believe what the MSM, the UN or the DNC desperately need you to believe in order to survive. Or did you pick up the term “right-wing redneck fundamentlist” from a reliable source?
Pat says:
“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…”
What’s this $#it? I thought the congress shot down cap & trade. It must be Central Planning: Obama’s EPA.
Mike says. “Please tell me that climate skepticism is a rational choice.”
Your little diatribe is trying to equate people who do NOT espouse left wing political beliefs as irrational. Your attitude is plain silly and puerile. If you really think that left wing policies are the only solutions that make any sense then look in the mirror; it is actually you who are being emotional and irrational. Both left wingers and right wingers can BOTH be very clever and rational – they just hold different opinions and values.
Mike, this is not a left/right issue. Just ask Rosa Koire who’s blog is democratsagainstagenda21. There are thoughtful people on the left also, some of them are probably scientists.
“Please tell me that at least some climate skeptics trust science over any faith-based value system including politics.”
The climate scientists can get in line with all of the other yahoos who have all of the answers.
Our Constitution does not enshrine the use of a scientistic class to direct the lives of Americans. It separates powers between 3 branches of government. There is also necessary “hostility” between the Federal government and the states. The use of “science” and such organizations as the EPA to make legislation and regulate the use of the Earth’s atmosphere is illigitimate and illegal. The actions of Lisa Jackson making agreements with foreign and world governments about our domestic energy use is also illigitimate. In reality, the cap and trade bill could not be passed and Copenhagen could not be signed.
No not all of us are right wingers. Nor left wingers. Some of us just understand that environmentalism… or rather, the larger anti-humanism movement that it belongs to… is probably *the* greatest threat to prosperity right now.
Stephanie Clague wrote:
mercury filling the ridiculous and expensive light bulbs his regime worked so hard to foist on the American people is a genuine pollutant
I just picked up some of those “40 Watt equivalent” Phillips LED white-when-lit bulbs for my house from Home Depot. They look great, and no mercury! I’m glad there’s an even lower energy option now than CFL, and the price has come down quite a bit.
Ferdinand,
Incompetent administration is the problem:
You can’t fix that kind of stupid and corrupt leadership. Obama’s policies directly harm the poorest by jacking up gasoline and energy prices. This Administration looks at the average American taxpayer with hatred, and also as a free cash machine. Time for a change, no?
Mitt Romney was on the short list for vice-president picks for John McCain. So if McCain had not decided to go with the high risk, “game changer” Sarah Palin maybe the amateur SpaghettiO wouldn’t have been elected? After all, Romney had the business knowledge and experience that McCain was lacking.
They must be pretty numerous! FoxNews outpulls the next 4 or 5 news channels combined, and has for years.
On the other hand, Obama has backed shale oil and he expected to back – wait for it – cold fusion. – if you believe the cold fusion supporters that is.
And over in the UK a new Minister for the Depertment of the Environment (DEFRA) has the greenies up in arms as he is a climate sceptic and no friend of wind farms.
Could the politicians be jumping ship? It looks like it.
But I suspect that the new pet project for the activists is just now starting to simmer nicely – population alarmism. Of course, the obvious money here is in arable land and GM crops.
So It is not to be unexpected that Obama has little to say, the dog that didn’t bark. The reason is he too is jumping ship and pretty soon the core alarmists like Mann and Jones may be left to take the heat. They make very nice scapegoats. Nothing will stick to Gore or his ilk. They will say they were “only following the advise of specialists like Mann”. They will, of course, get to keep any money they already made out of the scam, sad to say.
Mike Mellor says:
September 8, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Oh dear. Please tell me this entire comments thread is a nightmare and that all climate skeptics are NOT right-wing redneck fundamentalists. Please tell me that at least some climate skeptics trust science over any faith-based value system including politics. Please tell me that climate skepticism is a rational choice.
================================================================
Yes. Not “betting the farm” on a tree ring is a rational choice.
PS Are you claiming that your political views are NOT based on what you believe? Do you live in the US? Don’t you remember “Change we can believe in!”?
I f you believe that what you believe is not based on your beliefs, you might be a Green-neck.
1) Canada cut diplomatic relations with Iran on Friday and recommended all Canadians leave Iran within 7 days.
2) Obama is facing re-election problems.
3) The US electorate historically has rallied around the President in times of military action.
4) Military action against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities ahead of the November US Presidential Election?
I doubt it, ferd, war drums haven’t been getting louder. Romney and Netanyahu are close old friends and both realize the timing now would not be good.
http://world.time.com/2012/09/05/worried-about-israel-bombing-iran-before-november-you-can-relax/
Global warming alarmism is a right-versus-left issue for some people, but that is not an objective assessment of the situation.
I am aware of people on all sides of the political spectrum who oppose global warming alarmism, because they reject the “CAGW hypothesis”, that increasing atmospheric CO2 is allegedly causing catastrophic global warming.
The “climate skeptics” position is supported by these FACTS , and many others:
– there has been no net global warming for 10-15 years despite increasing atmospheric CO2;
– the flawed computer climate models used to predict catastrophic global warming are inconsistent with observations; and
– the Climategate emails prove that leading proponents of global warming alarmism are dishonest.
The political left in Europe and North America have made global warming alarmism a matter of political correctness – a touchstone of their religious faith – and have vilified anyone who disagrees with their failed CAGW hypothesis. The global warming alarmists’ position is untenable nonsense.
I dislike political labels such as “left“ and “right”. Categorizing oneself as “right wing” or “left wing” tends to preclude the use of rational thought to determine one’s actions. One simply choses which club to belong to, and no longer has to read or think.
To me, it is not about “right versus left”, it is about “right versus wrong”. Rational decision-making requires a solid grasp of science, engineering and economics, and the global warming alarmists have abjectly failed in ALL these fields. Their scientific hypothesis has failed – there is no global warming crisis. Their “green energy” schemes have also failed, producing no significant useful energy, squandering scarce global resources, driving up energy costs, harming the environment, and not even significantly reducing CO2 emissions! The corn ethanol motor fuel mandates could, in time, be viewed as crimes against humanity.
It is difficult to imagine a more abject intellectual failure in modern times than global warming alarmism, The economic and humanitarian tragedies of the Former Soviet Union and North Korea provide recent comparisons, a suitable legacy for the cult of global warming alarmism.
Smokey says:
No…They are only not turned away when it comes to emergency care, which means we all end up paying for it anyway. And, since “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, it is actually more expensive and has less good outcomes than if these people had regular medical care.
It hasn’t been going downhill…Obama reversed that, on all counts, whether you want to talk private sector jobs http://assets.dstatic.org/imgs/blog/20120803-July_jobs.gif , the stock market http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^GSPC&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&c= , or finally even now housing prices.
Fine, then elect the Republicans to the Presidency. They indeed produced that low cost of gasoline when Obama took office because they crashed the entire economy, and crude oil and hence gas prices came crashing down with them. Here’s gas prices http://www.bts.gov/publications/multimodal_transportation_indicators/february_2012/images/highway_retail_gasoline.gif and here’s crude oil prices: http://c3352932.r32.cf0.rackcdn.com/1328586840_0.png You can see how, earlier in 2008, before the crash in the economy and world crude oil prices, gas prices were high as you can see. And, gas prices are rising again mainly because the economy is recovering and demand is increasing.
Joel Shore says:
The economy “hasn’t been going downhill…Obama reversed that, on all counts…”
I am now fully convinced that Joel Shore is completely insane:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
click11
And I have a LOT more of those. Which I will post between now and the second Tuesday in November.
Wow, Smokey. That’s really impressive how you can throw up a bunch of random graphs that in no way deal with the substantive points I’ve made. That’s the difference between you and I: I use graphs to actually illustrate logical arguments; you use graphs (and ideological posters that have no content whatsoever) in place of logical arguments.
Stand by for more. Lots more. Because they have an effect.
So do you and Rocky get a cut of the partisan cash pro-Republican blogs get?