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.”
As Henry IV said when forced to renounce Protestantism in order to become king of France:
“Paris is well worth a Mass”! 🙂
David Ball,
“2016 Obama’s America” is now playing in many cinemas; see http://www.2016themovie.com and http://www.dineshdsouza.com
I saw it with my wife a month ago and we enjoyed it a lot; not just a good story, but excellent photography! (Based on Obama’s “Dreams from my father”)
“The reports of the movie appearing on Fox before the election are completely untrue and we strongly suspect that they are the result of dirty tricks by our opponents who spread this rumor in order to confuse the general public and keep them from going to their local theaters,” said the film’s writer/director, Dinesh D’Souza. “We urge all Americans to ignore these efforts and go to their local theater and enjoy the movie on the big screen.”
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/2016-obamas-america-producers-say-dirty-tricks-used-to-stop-moviegoers-82212/#A0UvmjFeWowG0sDV.99
See http://www.christianpost.com/news/2016-obamas-america-producers-say-dirty-tricks-used-to-stop-moviegoers-82212/
As a research scientist, I have spent the last 40 years studying the Earth’s atmosphere. In the last 6 years in retirement, I have dedicated myself to “bridging the gap” between scientific and public opinion on the subject of climate change and more specifically on the central role our increasing levels of greenhouse gases play in this problem. At the same time, I have also been very disappointed to see how little change in our nation and the world has occurred. The concentration of the greenhouse gases continues to rise at record levels every year.
Therefore I was most pleased to read at the head of this post that the President of our country does possibly understand the problem. Hopefully, if he is reelected in November, he will take much stronger actions on this problem in his second term. This possibility might constitute the world’s only remaining hope for preventing catastrophic global changes during the lives of my grandchildren.
I also realize, of course, that this same possibility scares the hell out of the fossil fuel industries that still have a death grip on public opinion. Can you imagine the financial setback the Big Coal and Big Oil industries would suffer if the public finally came to realize that the use of fossil fuels constitutes an addiction that must be broken. The vast reserves of coal throughout the world, for example, would become essentially worthless and would have to be left in the ground – as they should be.
So I certainly do hope that President Obama has the excellent group of scientific advisors Mr. Gorham says he has already assembled in his administration. Concerning all the unscientific banter which dominates posts such as this one, the President should know that someday this too will pass – just as all other scientifically flawed notions have in the past.
Note, for example, that we now know beyond all levels of doubt that the chlorofluorocarbons do, in fact, diminish our protective shield of ozone in the Earth’s stratosphere – even though the DuPont Corporation and other industrial forces assured us for ten years that the stratospheric ozone / Freon theory was a complete fabrication and hoax – until it was noted that the CFC’s were completely destroying ALL stratospheric ozone over the continent of Antarctica every Springtime. It is this same group of atmospheric scientists who are sounding the alarm today concerning the devastion that lies ahead due to our increasing levels of GHG’s.
Do you Americans know the bad impression you gave to the world when Obama was elected?
We are awaiting to be impressed even more this time…
Andres Valencia says:
September 29, 2012 at 11:08 am
Thank you for that.
@ur momisugly theButcher says:
September 29, 2012 at 11:22 am
Do you Americans know the bad impression you gave to the world when Obama was elected?
We are awaiting to be impressed even more this time…
*******************************************************************
Some of us do. We’ll try to do better this time.
To kencoffman, Perhaps I can help.
Your are thinking only in terms of heat transfer via convection and diffusion for which the size and velocity of molecules are important. Heat transfer from the Earth to the outer universe (global cooling, that is) on the other hand occurs only by the transport of Infrared Radiation out into the universe. The transport heat into the universe via the motion of [matter] does not occur, of course, due to the retaining effect of gravity.
Thus only IR-active molecules – those with 3 or more atoms – are involved in the transport of IR radiation within our atmosphere and then out into the universe. That is why CO2 has much to do with it.
Hope your opinion of academics improves with time so that you can take better advantage of the insight it can provide on many subject – including means by which the Earth attempts to cool itself. .
ericgrimsrud says:
September 29, 2012 at 11:16 am
As a research scientist, I have spent the last 40 years studying the Earth’s atmosphere. In the last 6 years in retirement, I have dedicated myself to “bridging the gap” between scientific and public opinion on the subject of climate change and more specifically on the central role our increasing levels of greenhouse gases play in this problem. At the same time, I have also been very disappointed to see how little change in our nation and the world has occurred. The concentration of the greenhouse gases continues to rise at record levels every year.
Therefore I was most pleased to read at the head of this post that the President of our country does possibly understand the problem. Hopefully, if he is reelected in November, he will take much stronger actions on this problem in his second term. This possibility might constitute the world’s only remaining hope for preventing catastrophic global changes during the lives of my grandchildren. …
I also realize, of course, that this same possibility scares the hell out of the fossil fuel industries that still have a death grip on public opinion. Can you imagine the financial setback the Big Coal and Big Oil industries would suffer if the public finally came to realize that the use of fossil fuels constitutes an addiction that must be broken. The vast reserves of coal throughout the world, for example, would become essentially worthless and would have to be left in the ground – as they should be.
So I certainly do hope that President Obama has the excellent group of scientific advisors Mr. Gorham says he has already assembled in his administration. Concerning all the unscientific banter which dominates posts such as this one, the President should know that someday this too will pass – just as all other scientifically flawed notions have in the past.
I see you are playing the canard that the fossil fuelmoney drives the CAGW themes. Who is more proved to be biased by money? Pro-CAGW “scientists” who use their power and influence over their government-funded fellows in the review process, the grant process, the textbook process, the promotion process, the schools funding process? There are 1.3 trillion dollars a year at stake, and – as you say, the lives of our grandchildren.
YOU – the CAGW community – have provided us the recession, the energy prices, and the economic problem YOU want to continue.
Except you desire to kill them and condemn hundreds of millions to an early grave. Why do YOU want to kill the world’s children by demanding THEY suffer a future of no clean water, less food, no transportation, increased pollution and sewage, and less fuel, fodder, feed, and health? ?
Please: Tell me the hazards of more CO2? Of cheaper and more reliable energy? We are (were!) growing more, feeding more, living better. CO2 increases plant growth, higher temperatures increase planting seasons and increase crop areas. What are the downsides of global warming?
What exactly are the evidence of man-caused global warming? Aside from the model predictions of government-paid “scientists” who desire government-provided grants and influence?
Your “scientist” consensus believed volcanoes caused lunar craters, believed that continents couldn’t move, believed that light moved across an aether, believed that atoms were a solid mix of solid objects, believed that coelenterate was extinct, and believed that the earth was created 6000 years ago.
It was skeptics who changed “scientific” consensus then. and it is NOT government-paid bureaucrats who will progress science in the future.
Your “scientists” want their power. Their money. Their influence. Their papers and press releases. Their “show trials” and thousands of press interviews. Their trips to New York, Copenhagen, Bonn, Brazil, Japan, Argentina, and other exotic destinations. They want their Nobel Prizes and their movies and their NASA/NOAA/GISS/NSIRDC campuses and computers.
But they don’t like the results of the real world temperatures measurements that prove they are wrong.
So they change the data. Again. Again. Again. Again. And Again.
To RACookPE,
You asked, Please: “Tell me the hazards of more CO2?”
Can do. Just look up the website, ericgrimsrud.com and hit the “short course” button concerning the underlying science of climate change.
Enjoy!, but more importantly, Learn! Its really not that difficult to understand.
Eric
RACookPE1978 says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:09 pm
ericgrimsrud says:
September 29, 2012 at 11:16 am
=====================================================================
RA, Well said.
No-one should ever concede the greenhouse effect – in my humble opinion it is an impossible construct – something heats up internally while radiating less externally – c’mon – this has never been observed !
The sun heats the Earth without ANY help from BS “greenhouse gases” – if it doesn’t how does the Moon’s surface reach over 107 degrees C during the day ? The Moon’s 29 Earth day long night explains the very low temperatures on the dark side not the lack of some BS greenhouse gas.
The atmosphere removes heat from the Earth’s surfaces and water is undoubtedly the principal driver of climate but not as a BS greenhouse gas.
It is total BS and the sooner it is attacked as such the better.
Just the huge disparity in density ought to be a clue – how is it possible that ~1.3kg/cubic metre of air can “heat” 1000 kg/cubic metre of water when water requires ~4 times the amount of energy that air requires to increase 1 degree C ? Never mind that climate scientists say that less than 2% of the atmosphere provides all the radiation that performs this miracle.
And why doesn’t this truly miraculous property show up in well documented physical properties – even water vapour is less thermally conductive than air.
Ordering pizza if Obama serves a 2nd term.
http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf
This election is about more than just CO2 and hot air.
President Obama said: “… My plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet — because climate change is not a hoax …”.
To this ‘Oldspeaker’ that statement means he has a plan (only he knows that), to reduce carbon particulates in the atmosphere which do tend to increase the temperature (at least locally) and that the climate changes (which is self-evident).
So it makes perfect sense to me — except that’s not what he meant.
I’m always happy to see another summary of the utter vacuity of the CAGW speculation and its political advocates (those behind The Puppet President) on WUWT. But (with the exception of one ‘ericgrimsrud’, who is reciting the Climatist Litany of True Belief) most here know and appreciate Steve Goreham’s arguments, and have heard them many times. His post should be published in blogs and op-ed pages where ordinary folk who are otherwise at the mercy of the Lamestream Media might see it. How about a YouTube video?
/Mr Lynn
Gunga, thanks for the (bitter) laugh. (Re ACLU pizza order process movie)
Gunga Din says:
Perhaps you are unaware but that vision of a “nightmare future” was brought to you by the ACLU, an organization working to defend against such intrusions into our civil liberties and one that Republican candidates for President have previously vilified when trying to make an issue of the fact that a Democratic candidate for President said he was a “card-carrying member of the ACLU”.
What is the carbon footprint of the military? Do the apcs, tanks, and fighter jets have catalytic converters and do they ground them when the ‘check engine light’ comes on?
Obama will win, that is by now close to a foregone conclusion. Romney is simply too inept as a campaigner. Ryan’s Medicare position (alienates seniors) and the 47% video (alienates 47% of the electorate) are the likely final nails in the coffin. Obama’s comments at the convention are likely to be the most overt lip service to climate change you will hear in the next four years. From here it’s jobs, jobs, jobs. BTW, the Romney candidacy could be the death knell for the Republican Party in Presidential politics for a long time to come. The demographics are changing that fast, and there simply aren’t enough “angry white middle-aged guys” (ref: Lindsay Graham) to push the GOP over the top anymore. The Party is not attracting women or minorities, and that is the kiss of death.
And they keep drinking the Koolaid. Reminds me of trying to deprogram a cult member. Take “ericgrimsrud” he seems to have the basic skills to communicate an idea. How is it that at the same time he cannot look at just a few pieces of real data and not see what the rest of us see as absolute that CAGW does not exist? I will list just a few maybe he will see the light.
1. CAGW theory called for “both” poles to have melted by now. Antarctica just doesn’t want to cooperate with record ice levels and the Arctic was only gonna tie 2007 until a freak storm hit. NASA’s words not mine. And lets really qualify the Arctic statement with since the start of the satellite record. Historic shipping logs have the ice extent as small or smaller than this years record.
2. CAGW theory said Sea Level should be rising like crazy. hummm, Nope its not rising. Don’t believe me? Look up the NOAA sea level page. Slight rise over the recorded time but it has slowed down in the last few years. And can anyone name me one place that has been flooded by sea level rise? I have looked and I can find nothing..
3. CAGW theory said that the temp will keep increasing as CO2 increases. Well its a hard cold fact that this increase has not happened for 14 years. I lost the link that has the nice chart showing this. Could someone post it to help our lost cultist?
Any one of the three would be enough in any other branch of real science to invalidate the theory.
My personal hero Einny said it best ” No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong “.
In response to the jousting between ericgrimsrud and RACookPE:
I’d like to say that I am a naturally skeptical person. For some time I believed that climate change really was a truly dangerous thing and that we had to do something to stop it. I have since read more widely on the topic and I don’t feel that there is a looming disaster.
Ericgrimsrud – I respect the fact that you have had a long career as a research scientist and I’m sure that like many other scientists out there, your motives were simply to add to the knowledge of the world. I also believe that there are probably some unscrupulous scientists out there with agendas they are pushing by using the environmental arguments.
This is no different to the skeptic side. I’m sure there are people out there that have their own interests at heart but even some of the large mining industries are now distancing themselves from anything that would make them seem belligerent towards the environment. Rio Tinto recently amended its official position on global warming to say that they felt the bulk of warming was most likely due to human influence.
RACookPE – while I agree with you that science only moves forward by embracing an open debate and skeptical review of hypotheses I really feel that the way you have presented your views above comes pretty close to a personal attack.
Saying that “…you desire to kill them and condemn hundreds of millions to an early grave… YOU want to kill the world’s children by demanding THEY suffer a future of no clean water, less food, no transportation, increased pollution and sewage, and less fuel, fodder, feed, and health” is pretty poor form.
Those of us in the skeptical community are very quick to condemn the pro-AGW crowd for ad hominem attacks and vitriolic comments about our total lack of humanity. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard of discussion if there is to be any hope of being taken seriously.
There are some very good scientists working on both sides of this debate and the problem isn’t that there is a difference of opinion on the science. The problem is that some people are trying to stifle the debate by demonising the other side. Both camps have been guilty of this at some stage.
RACookPE – its easy to get passionate about what you believe. I have been guilty of doing that very thing. We just need to be measured in any discussions we have.
Cheers
Joel Shore says:
September 29, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Gunga Din says:
Ordering pizza if Obama serves a 2nd term.
http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf
This election is about more than just CO2 and hot air.
Perhaps you are unaware but that vision of a “nightmare future” was brought to you by the ACLU, an organization working to defend against such intrusions into our civil liberties and one that Republican candidates for President have previously vilified when trying to make an issue of the fact that a Democratic candidate for President said he was a “card-carrying member of the ACLU”.
=======================================================================
I was not unaware that it came from the ACLU. Perhaps they and those who really do want to preserve
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
should be standing against Obama and working to replace him. (and Bloomberg in NYC. Lust for power at the expense of the freedom of others has no party affiliations.)
PS I remember the ads with Dukakis riding around in a tank pretending he’d be tough on the defense of our country. Is a tank ride on Obama’s campaign agenda?
RACookPE says:
“YOU – the CAGW community – have provided us the recession, the energy prices, and the economic problem YOU want to continue.”
Now that is simply not true. The recession was caused by a financial meltdown served up by an irresponsible banking industry, the energy prices are a function of international supply and demand, and the last one, whatever. Impossible to decipher.
Torgeir Hansson says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Now that is simply not true. The recession was caused by a financial meltdown served up by an irresponsible banking industry, the energy prices are a function of international supply and demand, and the last one, whatever. Impossible to decipher.
————————————
I almost agree with you. The financial meltdown was started when Clinton relaxed banking regs and Bush did nothing to change it. This allowed the greedy to gamble with what should have been safe funds. At the same time large corps were cooking their books to artificially inflate their stock prices.
The supply and demand issue is staged. Think of De Beers fixing diamond prices. Both have a supply and demand but to keep the prices high De Beers will short the supply to keep the prices up. Same thing happens with energy commodities. Allowing speculation makes the price swings even worse.
Just a guess for ” and the economic problem YOU want to continue ” I think may be to the legislation and regs being tossed out by the EPA to drive the cost of cheap energy up so the Green stuff would have a chance to compete. This position is a no guesser. Obama and his energy Zar’s have publicly stated this to be a fact. Make all cheap energy so dam high that the Green can compete.