From AP Video:
President Barack Obama is pledging to respond to what he calls “the threat of climate change.” He says that failing to do so would be a betrayal of the nation’s children, and of future generations. (Jan. 21)
Video and comments from Al Gore follows:
WUWT reader Chris Beal sends this in:
Al Gore Wrote Today:
In his second Inaugural address today, President Obama spoke powerfully and eloquently about the critical importance of solving the climate crisis. His forceful commitment to take action will rekindle the hopes of so many that we are at long last approaching the political tipping point, beyond which we will finally start transforming our economy to sharply reduce global warming pollution and safeguard the future.
President Obama Said in his speech today:
Here is the key section of an inspiring speech:
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries we must claim its promise.”That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks.”
Ref:
http://blog.algore.com/2013/01/inaugural_address.html
UPDATE: Delingpole has a go at this ridiculousness here.
Gareth, you wrote, “Climate change is real, however it is caused, and some effects are pretty drastic. This is not a problem we can solve by providing more guns and cutting taxes.”
Nor is it a problem that we may be able to do ANYTHING about … even if we provide less guns and raise taxes.
and you wrote, “If we cannot influence climate change we need to adapt”
That part is clearly true, although I believe it is mainly true in terms of “micro-climate-change” — i.e., periods of several years to a decade or so of droughts and such things that affect food production and energy needs in discrete geographic areas.
The problem Obama et al have is in their assumption that AGW is indisputably a primary and important cause of the problem in either the short or the longer term. I agree with what I see as the general consensus of the WUWT folks that that particular conclusion is by no means an open-and-shut case.
– MJM
This is a bit off topic but once again I see complaints regarding the “97% of scientists…” statement. Are there any plans to do a proper survey by an independent agency? Why not a professionally conceived and administered poll of climate/weather professionals? I think the “31000 scientists…” petition is weak because it appears to lack control.
Never let a crisis go to waste. If there isn’t a crisis, invent one.
Hurry up ice age…..
@gareth Phillips
You appear to know two things about American politics — jack and squat.
But in America, you’re allowed to express your opinion regardless of whether you have any clue what you’re talking about.
I really don’t think people understand what has happened here with the last election, I am afraid we have reached the AGW favorite term “the tipping point” from which there is no return. A large segment of the American people have decided that they want goodies at the expense of those who can afford giving them goodies. This shell game (or income redistribution if you prefer) has a finite period of time where it will seem to work, UNTIL the have’s decide it is not worth it anymore and either leave the country or just drop out of the system. This will become a vicious cycle where more will demand more, and fewer will be left to give it to them thus the inevitable descent into the abyss we will go. 47% who depend on government largesse will fight to continue the gravy train and the 10% feel good liberals (added to that number) will enable them to have a perpetual control of the election cycle, that is until they decide that elections are no longer useful. Then my friends we become the ill fated and doomed Soviet Union of America of which this President and current Democratic party will no doubt blame on George W. Bush even if it is 25 years in the future
To: The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Look, gun crime may be very rare there outside of drug gangs but jolly old England is still now very crime ridden. I have talked to people there. It is also a whole lot smaller country, so purging it of guns was easier.
All the years of attempted gun control measures here have done nothing but pump gun sales and manufacturing here. Where they are easily stolen or otherwise get into the wrong hands. What is your proposal to round up all these guns without criminals having a field day?
The problem we have here is a mental health problem from nearly a half century of losing jobs, neglected infrastructure and stacking on government debt. Throw in 10 times more violence in video games and on television in the last quarter century and it is a brew for violence to increase.
This president and the one who proceeded him instead should have been tarred and feathered yesterday. Along with the other members of government (present and past) who have spent us into the ground with wasted pork. Buying voters… buying campaign contribution in a revolving slush fund.
Moe says:
January 21, 2013 at 4:43 pm
Since all I’m going to get from you is obfuscation, Moe, I shall point to the BENEFITS of CO2–you can see where I’m going, can’t you?
First, the earth’s climate has indeed varied considerably. We’re now living in an Interglacial period, the Holocene, which is much more conducive to life than what came before and will likely follow–Ice Ages! But you’re right–I can see no harm in having CO2 level “never experienced by humans before” since I have relatives that work in greenhouses with levels of CO2 in the 1,000 to 2,000 ppmv level and they’re just fine. (Studies actually indicate they do better at that level than at ambient.)
Did you know the CO2 content of the average home is twice current atmospheric levels? Bet you didn’t know that. And not to worry–we could burn ALL projected fossil fuels and atmospheric levels of CO2 would rise to ~600 ppmv; that’s no big deal–it would be about what you’re breathing now.
The burning of fossil fuels provides humanity with powerful leverage to live longer and better than at any prior period. Remember that. And no amount of solar or wind will replace it unless you’re willing to invest in the infrastructure to convert that into “base load”, which is extremely expensive and undoubtedly prohibitive. So much for your “green” energy solutions, Moe. And there’s no evidence to suggest that pumping huge amounts of “life gas” into the atmosphere is warming the earth any faster than the natural increase from the Little Ice Age. Besides, we’re not as warm as the three prior warm periods, so we’re not seeing anything unprecedented.
Burning fossil fuels also improves the production of foodstuffs to a considerable degree–in some types of plants more than others. I’ve read where trees are growing 30% faster than they were 50 years ago, so if you have a house built out of wood (or any portion thereof), that’s extremely good news. We all like to eat and we all like to live in comfortable homes that are warm in the winter and cool in the summer. And we all like to travel and enjoy life. Don’t get caught in a negative mindset.
So my question to you, Moe, are you a true environmentalist? Are you interested in a better environment for you and your kids? Are you willing to recognize that our standard of living is based on free and responsible utilization of natural resources (including sources of energy) for the betterment of mankind? Do you recognize that to give government control of our energy sources on the premise that we’re ruining their playground or having too much fun is not a step forward–it’s a step backwards?
Wouldn’t a responsible government be more interested in the individual (whom they can’t control) than in building the collective (whom they can easily control for their own enrichment and quest for power)? Wouldn’t a better approach be to utilize nuclear and LENR for our energy sources and save fossil carbon stores for plastics and nylon?
When you realize this whole CAGW thing is a government ploy (and governments are generally evil), you’ll have awakened to a whole new world where worrying about CO2 turns into cheering for CO2. A flourishing biosphere is what you want and from the looks of it, that’s what we’re getting.
And you can thank CO2.
PS. I’m betting you’re not worried about the national debt, are you? Well, that destructive force is the one you need to concentrate on.
Gareth Phillips says:
January 22, 2013 at 2:47 am
Sorry to break it to ya, Gareth, but you’ve been brainwashed. And in so many ways I don’t have the time to correct all your inconsistencies and false assumptions.
But have a good day. That’s all you can hope for.
***
Tim Walker says:
January 21, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Gotta find a barf bag quick.
***
Seconded. I find the bile the drips from this guy’s mouth intensely nauseating. The comments about “the children” is incredibly hypocritical.
The real problem, tho, is that he’s outright destructive to this country. Compared to him, Nixon was a saint…
Reality Check Here crime comparisons;US and GB
Flying close to the sun again are we? Surprised you’re allowed to post here after your shenanigans about ‘ship trails’ (code language for chem -er- con-trails ) and all … last night’s late-night mod knows all about it …
.
Written on the cover of your “Climate skeptics guide to the universe” is the phrase “Don’t panic.” Go to Yahoo News, a site with a definite liberal bias, and follow the link to any climate story. Read the comments. The overwhelming consensus of commenters (97%) is that global warming is a scam designed to bankrupt Western economies. I imagine that on sites with a conservative bias, e.g. The Blaze, the consensus would be close to unanimous.
PS I’m a lukewarmer and not quite ready to laugh the whole thing off yet.
Makes me wonder how far I could get if I were to significantly compromise my beliefs and morals, changed party affiliation, deepened my voice, spoke in clear, demagogic tones and appeared out in public in (can I say this?) in blackface …
.
The emporer has no clothes.
Source: MSNBC
The fresh-faced young man we know Pat Maddow (PhD) delivered some fine lectures on that subject.
Getting US cable channels overseas are we?
.
michaeljmcfadden says:
January 22, 2013 at 4:37 am
Gareth, you wrote, “Climate change is real, however it is caused, and some effects are pretty drastic. This is not a problem we can solve by providing more guns and cutting taxes.”
Nor is it a problem that we may be able to do ANYTHING about … even if we provide less guns and raise taxes.
and you wrote, “If we cannot influence climate change we need to adapt”
That part is clearly true, although I believe it is mainly true in terms of “micro-climate-change” — i.e., periods of several years to a decade or so of droughts and such things that affect food production and energy needs in discrete geographic areas.
The problem Obama et al have is in their assumption that AGW is indisputably a primary and important cause of the problem in either the short or the longer term. I agree with what I see as the general consensus of the WUWT folks that that particular conclusion is by no means an open-and-shut case.
– MJM
Thanks Michael, a rare and sensible to response to one of a skeptical nature but who swims against the right wing tide prevalent on this fine site. best wishes, Gareth
@ur momisugly The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley
Well, you and I have VERY different world views.
However, having said that, let me point out one major difference between the UK and the US. You tell me “So you see, you DO accept laws and rules that impinge your life, so what’s the difference with guns?” Actually there is one very major difference. Totally aside from the ethical and pragmatic issues of banning (certain or all) guns, here in the US such bans are illegal. Our national government is not authorized to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. In fact, the US government is specifically forbidden from doing so. Yes, they already do so, and yes, most people abide by them, but the current rules on such things are violations of the Second Amendment. Even if I personally approved of gun bans (which I do not), as a citizen, I have a duty to fight them. If your local police posted broadsheets around the UK stating that “from now on, anyone wearing a police uniform may legally rape thirteen year old girls”, I have no doubt that you would never support such a thing. Well, here in the States it is just as illegal to infringe on gun ownership — no matter what the President thinks about it.
There are a lot of pragmatic reasons why private ownership of military style weapons is better for a nation in the long run. I am sure you have heard them all, and honestly, my primary reasons for support of private self defence is not based on pragmatism, but on ethics. I do not mean to insult you, but you come from a culture and a nation where you are a subject. I am not a subject. I am a citizen. You live in a land where your rights flow downward and are granted by your leaders and your government. In fact “rights” is something of a misnomer; they are actually “privileges” given you. I live in a land where all governmental authority is granted by individuals to the government. The power and authority flow exactly backwards here compared to the UK. I have a natural inherent right to defend myself and I am not willing to be treated like an Englishman.
Jason Calley:
At January 22, 2013 at 11:28 am you say to The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley
A person can only have a worthless argument if he thinks his argument is improved by pretending there is any kind of equivalence between those two suggestions. Hence, you have demonstrated the paucity of your argument.
So, can we please stop the debate about US gun laws and return to the issue of climate policy?
Richard
Gareth Phillips says:
January 22, 2013 at 2:47 am
“Climate change is real, however it is caused, and some effects are pretty drastic. This is not a problem we can solve by providing more guns and cutting taxes. If we cannot influence climate change we need to adapt, and it will be great to see President Obama take a lead on that.
”
Gareth, please send mechanized infantry, billions of Dollars or a few gigatons of shredded Olivine, whatever helps, to Germany.
We’re having effin cold winters. Do something man!
Michael Mann is pleased that Obama’s speech used the D-word:
http://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/478397618883112
Mann tries to lump every possible criticism of any climate data, methods, analysis, paleo history, models, catastrophic claims, energy policy, mitigation policy, etc. etc. into some vast amorphous ‘denial of science’ — that way he avoids answering cogent criticisms and lazily smears all critics as ‘science deniers’….
@John Robertson:
Make that inclusive OR and you’ve got something…
(Malice or incompetence including both as a choice).
DirkH says:
January 22, 2013 at 12:46 pm
Gareth Phillips says:
January 22, 2013 at 2:47 am
“Climate change is real, however it is caused, and some effects are pretty drastic. This is not a problem we can solve by providing more guns and cutting taxes. If we cannot influence climate change we need to adapt, and it will be great to see President Obama take a lead on that.
”
Gareth, please send mechanized infantry, billions of Dollars or a few gigatons of shredded Olivine, whatever helps, to Germany.
We’re having effin cold winters. Do something man!
Hi Dirk, pretty chilly in Wales as well. Our best bet is to look at how other countries have adapted to drastic changes in climate or temps. I’ve just added secondary double glazing and solar hot water generation. We have not had a decent summer for 4 years now so I have adapted our crops to cold weather and flood resistant types. It’s worth looking at how people have adapted in Sweden or Finland, and if it gets hot, well we can look over the Alps to our southern neighbours for inspiration. Stay warm, or get your knitting needles out!
Mack the Knife said: “From his socialist control perspectives, if you control the energy resources of the nation, you control the entire nation.”
This is true, but there is more: if you control the total amount of energy a nation can collectively expend, you have a throttle plate on power/productivity. Public works such as paving roads requires great energy, and private endeavors such as heavy industry and farming require great energy.
The educated elite want to get together and give every nation a budget, an allowance. Power would shift from producers of goods and services via decent infrastructure and good govt to the global governors of the allowances, not answerable to public elections.
By cap-n-trade, they then make you increasingly beholden as you strive to please the master for your decreasing allowance. Cigarettes are quite valuable in prison, where there is quite limited freedom and opportunity. It is wise to allow them in prison so the wardens have an economy they can manipulate.
Along with controlling energy, the way to get power over people is their health and reproduction.
Check.
Check.
Poor health, less power. Low census, less power.
We have bought it by thinking we are getting something good: free birth control, govt-mandated abortion coverage, govt-managed healthcare. How did they get us on board with this?
The govt now has the opportunity to direct and manags our health and reproduction, as they are trying with our energy expenditure. Eventually, for all these things, we will be beholden to them and will be happy with the crumbs we are given. In China, some don’t like the one-child policy, but it has been in existence for a long time, sold on the argument that it leads to economic prosperity for the collective.
The problem is that a lot of us educated liberals are hesitant to recognize this social control. We have been distracted by the “war on women” rhetoric and the “patriarchal low-intelligence conservatives” rhetoric.
We are so busy declaring how dumb Republicans are that we don’t realize we are being led by our noses to support the plans of not liberal, progressive Americans, but power-hungry socialists.
People keep thinking that the president has all these liberal ideas that don’t make sense in the light of day. Obamacare isn’t going to reduce costs or provide better care. Guns need to be registered and “assault rifles” banned, although only a very small fraction of the violence is associated with long guns of any type. There is plenty of proof that Global warming is bogus, but let’s move on that as well.
The president isn’t doing these things because he’s a stupid liberal, Each of the actions is carefully selected to achieve the same goal – Tyranny. Control health care (1/6 of the economy), Control Energy (most of the rest of the economy), Disarm citizens of the types of weapons that could be used to stand up to a Government that has gone off the rails.
I hate it when people get all up in arms and accuse people of being Nazis, but the picture is starting to come into focus and it’s disquieting. None of this is about what it seems to be. The president doesn’t think obamacare will accomplish anything it was supposed to, he doesn’t believe gun control will prevent another Sandy Hook, he doesn’t believe climate change is happening. He’s using the fascist playbook right in front of our eyes – and we just tell ourselves he’s a liberal moron. He actually told Bohner we don’t have a spending problem, nobody could be that out of touch. I’ve been worrying about the debt he’s leaving us with – now I’m worried that he’s not planning on leaving period.