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
eric1skeptic
October 1, 2012 6:41 pm

D Böehm, I could quibble with some of your points, but it is much better to agree that CO2 is beneficial to my dozens of edible plants. The warming that I would attribute to CO2 (hard to pin down) is also beneficial. The alleged consequences of warming are not particularly serious: enhancement of seasonal drought, mostly within natural variation (and droughts always start and end naturally). The increases in rainfall intensity, easily managed. Nothing much else as Nature is now forced to admit.
It’s easy to ask coal owners to give up their coal, then gas owners to give up their property, then anyone to give up any property on some whim of science until the principle of private property is destroyed, then ask everyone to freeze in the dark for their own good. That kind of thing has been done several times in history and millions of people have died as a result. So, unlike the other Eric, I dedicate my spare time to the people living or trying to eek out a living today. Unlike the other Eric, I do not worship a President who said “electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket” (and he was talking about natural gas, not just coal).

October 1, 2012 7:57 pm

to eric1skeptic
When you continue to say silly things, such as
“Yes, of course. Venus is closer to the sun”, a distinctly poor impression is made. Yes, Venus is closer to the sun, 2/3 as far away as Earth. This means that the Solar Flux at Venus is about twice that of Earth. Yes, only 2 times greater. And this accounts for the fact that the temperture on Venus is about 750 degrees F while that of Earth is about 60 degrees F. Simple calculations suggest that that if Earth has T= 60 F, then Venus would be about 30 degrees greater due to the distance factor alone. Yet the T of Venus is about 750 F, hot enough to melt lead.
Could the exceedingly high T of Venus have anything to do with the fact that its atmosphere consists of 96% CO2 along with its 100 times greater total atmospheric pressure? Just a deep thought here for your consideration. Please discuss this point as you wish with D Böehm

D Böehm
October 1, 2012 8:28 pm

Really, ericgrimsrud, get educated. We have been through the Venus discussion several times now. See here to get some understanding:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
Then do a WUWT archive search. The Venus issue has been settled. Despite a 96% CO2 atmosphere, Venus is no warmer than the Earth at the same barometric pressure. Distance from the Sun explains all of Venus’ warmth. If the Venusian atmosphere was 96% Nitrogen, the temperature would be the same. CO2 has no effect.

October 1, 2012 9:08 pm

To D Boehm, Yes, the Venus issue has been settled and it shows the dominating importance of CO2’s warning effect. But that is the point still missed by eric1skeptic. So please do help him out.

October 1, 2012 10:14 pm

Ok, for those of you who don,t believe in Global Warming better. Ok. Because we are doing this whether you agree or not. First off everything has a purpose on Earth, and we are taking that away. What I mean by that is that we are cutting way to many trees down, which has a purpose of being 00% of our Oxygen we breathe, they also protect the Earth from flooding, the plants and animals to. Which if you haven’t noticed animals are coming into areas never seen in and they are taking food out of garbage cans to. Let’s see did I fail to mention that birds are reusing other birds nests, or squirrels are stealing the stuffing out of porch chairs for their nest (my chairs) to be exact. Oh best yet how about the fact we just turned the heat of in June (mid) and now it is the end of Sept and it is so cold we had to turn the heat on. Or did anyone notice how Saturn was out of alignment for 2 weeks and was right there by the North Star the whole 2 weeks in the same position. Well I could go on, but I will leave you with this last little piece of information, if and when the Artic and Antartic Icebergs melt, NYC city will be under water , so think about that while you sit and debate whether to believe in Global Warming or not . Oh let,s see if any of you are as green as you think you are, I posted a topic on my blog that has a link to two places you can check to see how much CO2 you are using in your home and let’s see if any of you can rate under the score of green. Thank you ericgrimsrud, I don,t think we will get them to understand, I have been trying for so long, I am running out of air from trying so hard. Bad thing is that our kids, believe more than most adults do and that to me is very sad.

October 1, 2012 10:21 pm

Oh one more thing, I saw 2 auroras in NY, and I did get the shot of the second one, but not the first because I couldn’t get a good spot to get the shot, but the first was a purple, red, blu color and this one was a yellow, orange color, and we don’t see auroras in Ny

eric1skeptic
October 2, 2012 1:50 am

ericgrimsrud, I don’t know what you are going on about. All I said was Venus is a red herring. You seen to be obsessed with Venus. Strange, I thought men were from Mars.

eric1skeptic
October 2, 2012 1:55 am

shras789, auroras are natural, solar phenomena along with a few of the other things you talked about. As for NYC flooding, that is probably distant since sea level is rising about one inch per decade and pretty much a flat rise (not accelerating).

1 3 4 5