The president decides to stick with 'climatism'

By STEVE GOREHAM

In President Obama’s remarks to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, he stated, “… 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.”

The president’s remarks support the ideology of climatism — the belief that manmade greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate.

Today, the world is in the grip of the madness of climatism. Our president and 191 other world leaders of the United Nations continue to pursue futile policies to stop global warming. Universities preach “sustainable development.” Companies tout their “green” programs. Schools teach our children that if we change light bulbs, we can save polar bears. But an increasing body of science shows that the theory of catastrophic manmade warming is nonsense. Climate change is natural, and car emissions are insignificant.

The president did not mention the Keystone Pipeline in his speech. In January 2012, he halted the $7 billion Keystone project on recommendation by the State Department in order to assess potential environmental harm. During the last months of 2011, thousands of protesters gathered in front of the White House to protest the Keystone project. They claimed that the oil the pipeline would transport from Canadian tar sands would cause irreversible global warming. Dr. James Hansen of NASA was one of those arrested at the demonstrations. Media pundits speculated that the president halted the pipeline to strengthen his political support with environmental groups. But could it be that Mr. Obama believes that halting the pipeline was the right policy to save the planet?

Who can blame the president for sticking with the theory of man-made global warming? Most of his leading advisors, including Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, science guru John Holdren and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, warn that mankind is destroying the climate. The EPA campaign to halt CO2 emissions from power plants, new vehicle mileage standards, subsidies for wind turbines and electric cars, the Solyndra solar cell debacle, the banning of incandescent light bulbs, the looming California high-speed rail boondoggle and ethanol vehicle fuel mandates are all policies driven by climatism.

The president’s use of the term “carbon pollution” is disappointing. Environmentalists inaccurately use this phrase to conjure up images of billowing smoke stacks, and the president has picked this up. The theory of manmade global warming claims that carbon dioxide, not carbon, causes climate change. Carbon dioxide is an invisible gas, while carbon is a black solid. Referring to carbon dioxide as “carbon” is as foolish as calling water “hydrogen” or salt “chlorine.” Compounds have totally different properties than their composing elements. Neither is carbon dioxide pollution. It’s an odorless, harmless gas that green plants need for photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is a foundation for life on Earth along with oxygen and water.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas. Only four of every 10,000 air molecules are CO2. It’s estimated that the amount of carbon dioxide that mankind added in all of human history is only a fraction of one of these four molecules. The idea that mankind’s tiny contribution to a trace atmospheric gas can cause hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods and wildfires is not a joke, it’s incredible.

Contrary to much of the recent press, a look at history shows that this summer’s drought was not unprecedented in these United States. The droughts of the 1930s and 1950s lasted longer and experienced higher temperatures. According to the State Climate Extremes Database of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), 37 of the 50 state high-temperature records dated prior to 1960, with 22 of these from the decade of the 1930s. Only one state high-temperature record was recorded during the last 16 years. Additional data on droughts and floods from the NCDC show no increasing trend over the last 100 years. Nature drives droughts and floods, not manmade emissions of carbon dioxide.

The president’s statement is remarkable in another way. He implies that we should vote for him because he can control droughts, floods and wildfires to safeguard “our children’s future.”

During a speech in June 2008, he implied that he could slow the rise of the seas. What’s next, regulation of snowfall? If Mr. Obama is re-elected and with bipartisan support in Congress and approval of the United Nations, look for the Snowfall Abatement Act of 2014.

=============================================================

Steve Goreham is executive director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book “The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

108 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alvin
September 28, 2012 8:05 pm

Thank you Steve.

Martin457
September 28, 2012 8:05 pm

Let’s go ahead and continue this war on the poor of the world.
The rich will just pay their bills and continue on.
The poor will have to decide how many meals they will have to miss in a month so that they can keep what little food they have from spoiling.
Stupid Mules.

OssQss
September 28, 2012 8:12 pm

In his own words…….
Remember to vote!
If you don’t, you did!

R. Shearer
September 28, 2012 8:14 pm

I prefer the solid transparent form of carbon myself.

Dung
September 28, 2012 8:15 pm

It is sad to see such a prominent world leader demonstrate such a total inability to judge issues rationally and objectively.

September 28, 2012 8:19 pm

Those almost four CO2 molecules per 10,000 air molecules are in dry air, assuming perfect global mixing (although of course certain regions produce most of it).
By contrast, the concentration of water vapor, the main greenhouse gas, varies by about a factor of 1000 (from .4 to 400 parts per 10,000), but on average it’s around 100 molecules per 10,000 (typically ranging 50 to 200 over most of our wet planet). This approximately 25 times more common greenhouse gas essentially swamps the IR reradiative effect of CO2.

Chuck Nolan
September 28, 2012 8:25 pm

Boggles the mind
cn

OssQss
September 28, 2012 8:35 pm

I will ask again,,,,,, how much of the 1.4 degree temperature delta over the last 160 years carry’s attribution towards CO2?
Just sayin ,,,,
I think we have a better chance to determine the impact velocity relating to a strap failure associated with this type of thing, no?
Think about it!

u.k.(us)
September 28, 2012 8:44 pm

Gonna have to do better than that diatribe, to win this one.

Louis
September 28, 2012 8:57 pm

Whatever reason President Obama has for declaring war on “carbon”, it’s not because he’s concerned about “our children’s future.” No one concerned about our children’s future would forge their signatures on over $5 trillion of new debt. Our children will be on the hook for huge debts that benefited Obama cronies but were of little or no benefit to them.

September 28, 2012 9:23 pm

An expansion on this theme picked up on Bishop Hill, heightening my fear of fools in high places:

But also, it emerged because the possibility of being responsible for saving the planet is far more attractive a proposition to the vacuous politician than is responding to a disconnected constituency’s wants and needs.

Climate Resistance

Jeff D
September 28, 2012 9:27 pm

Martin457 says:
September 28, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Let’s go ahead and continue this war on the poor of the world.
The rich will just pay their bills and continue on.
The poor will have to decide how many meals they will have to miss in a month so that they can keep what little food they have from spoiling.
Stupid Mules.
——————————–
Not really worth a reply but hey i got some free time right now. The US has a meager 5% of the world population and supplies 25% of all the world foreign aid. I and my wife have worked 6 days a week for the last 8 years running a small business and are just barely surviving in an economy that is total crap. You seem to have a real passion for helping the poor of the world. Instead of you wasting your time here might I suggest you donate your life to one of the volunteer groups.
Hell I am tempted to close the business down. I can qualify easily for disability so I can get free food and an Obamaphone and not have to work at all. I don’t get the security of a steady paycheck like the government employees if sales are crap next week I don’t get paid. Just a guess but betting you have never worked and you sure as hell were not self employed.
So yeah, maybe I am a stupid mule but when I get up in the morning and go to work I will have my self respect. Will you?

September 28, 2012 9:57 pm

We all know the reason President Obama added the comments about “climatism” to his acceptance speech – money.
“…A group of Democratic donors have announced they’ll withhold some of their financial support from President Obama’s re-election campaign for not speaking out more about climate change. The group of roughly 100 political donors say Obama should directly address this comment by Republican rival Mitt Romney made last week during his acceptance speech in Tampa – “…President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family…”
http://www.alternet.org/environment/democratic-donors-withhold-contributions-over-absence-climate-change-obama-campaign?paging=off
So let’s see – a major candidate sees a possibility of losing campaign money, sees the light, and adds comments to his speech.
Maybe he’s right about one thing: “…in this election you can do something about it…”

September 28, 2012 10:02 pm

Re-thinking the words in my comment, above (heightening my fear of fools in high places), I realize they were simplistic.
     These are not fools; they are highly sophisticated entrepreneurs in their chosen field, politics.
     My fear should be their selfishness, their total lack of morals and human compassion, and their success in pursuing their twisted dreams of personal power.

September 28, 2012 10:16 pm

Dung says:
September 28, 2012 at 8:15 pm
It is sad to see such a prominent world leader demonstrate such a total inability to judge issues rationally and objectively.
====================================================================
He’s a politician with an agenda. That agenda is his center reference. CO2 is just a convenient lever.

Martin457
September 28, 2012 10:19 pm

@Jeffd
Although I spent most of my life in maintenance and water treatment, when I went into a couple volunteer groups, they were already filled with those that seeked to benifit themselves from belonging to those groups so, I discontinued that effort.
My current household does qualify for ‘gubmint’ benefits but, I don’t accept handouts.
If the current “Chicken Littles” and their prophets of doom that has plagued humanity ever since civilization has existed would have acceptance for others ways, the world would be a better place. But no. Humanity is to blame for all that ails us and all have to pay and it’s the poor that have to pay the most.
I would much rather somebody win the H-Prize that Bush came up with. Pay for results rather than just give out money to somebody and hope they come up with something that works like Oh-Blah-Blah.
People like you are really annoying in your selfness.
I don’t waste time here, I learn about actual science. Not political crap spewed by “PROPHETS OF DOOM”.

Justthinkin
September 28, 2012 10:22 pm

You know,it’s getting to the point where Obambam and the US should be declared a threat to humanity,

September 28, 2012 10:25 pm

Jeff D. regarding Martin 457’s comment:
“What all the [ideological crusades of the twentieth-century] have in common is their moral exaltation of the anointed above others, who are to have their very different views nullified and superseded by the views of the anointed, imposed via the power of government….[S]everal key elements have been common to most of them:
1. Assertions of a great danger to the whole of society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.
2. An urgent need for action to avert impending catastrophe.
3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.
4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes.”
The above is from Thomas Sowell’s book The Vision of the Anointed, page 5.

Brian Johnson uk
September 28, 2012 10:30 pm

Don’t mean to be rude but your President is really dumb. He must be surrounded by sycophants.
Mind you we have Cameron who has turned out to be apathetic wimp…..

September 28, 2012 10:50 pm

Jeff D says:
September 28, 2012 at 9:27 pm
==========================================================
I hate to put it like this, but, “I feel you pain”.
(I know WUWT has a worldwide audience and “liberal” means different things in different countries. I’m using it in the US sense.)
Someone once said, “A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man and is determined to pay that debt using your money.”
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to help someone in need (depending on the motive). There is something very wrong with forcing someone else to do it because you think they should and you think they can afford it because they have one dime more than you do.
I’m a government employee. Every month the Union takes some of the money I earned and uses it to support politicians I wouldn’t vote for if they ran unopposed. Direct your ire at the the unions and the politicians, not all of the government employees. We get shafted too.

September 28, 2012 10:58 pm

Roger Carr:
“Re-thinking the words in my comment, above (heightening my fear of fools in high places), I realize they were simplistic.
These are not fools; they are highly sophisticated entrepreneurs in their chosen field, politics.
My fear should be their selfishness, their total lack of morals and human compassion, and their success in pursuing their twisted dreams of personal power”
You see Roger, all politicos are altruistic dispensers of the “public good” and self-interest is in no way involved. Try this:
“[Peter] Stillman … points out that those who see “a strong central government or a strong ruler” as a solution implicitly assume that “the ruler will be a wise and ecologically aware altruist,” even though these same theorists presume that the users of CPRs [common-pool resources] will be myopic, self-interested, and ecologically unaware hedonists.” – Governing the Commons, Elinor Ostrom, page 218

Askwhyisitso?
September 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Now look what he’s, Obama i.e., done. Now our PM Gillard will tells us the Americans are leading the way and we have to follow them, again.
JeffD – Do you have electricity, running water, food and shelter; of course you do. There are people in this world that live in mud huts with none of these things. Do you think your life is really that hard?
It’s not the US or other developed countries that will suffer it is the poor countries that Martin457 was talking about. They need cheap energy to improve their lives and controlling the type of energy that is used controls the country. Are you so blind you cannot see.

Billy
September 28, 2012 11:05 pm

If mr. Obama has the ability to control the weather why did he allow the mid-west drought this summer? Just asking.

Ted
September 28, 2012 11:21 pm

He said his plan will “continue to reduce the carbon” ?
What does he mean by “continue”?
Has it been reduced at all?
I thought that C02 levels were still going up?

alan
September 28, 2012 11:35 pm

The ways of the “Messiah” are inscrutable. Just saying.

1 2 3 5