Due to other obligations, I won’t be able to watch, (see the live feed link below) but I hope that WUWT readers will watch (if you can stomach it) and make notes in comments below to see where it deviates from the posted plan available here.
From the White House PR:
Today at 1:55 pm EST, the President will speak on his plan to reduce carbon pollution and prepare our country for the impacts of climate change.
You can watch the speech live at whitehouse.gov/live.
Following the remarks, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy & Climate Change Heather Zichal will host a session of Office Hours on Twitter to answer your questions about the plan President Obama announced. Ask a question using the hashtag #WHChat, and follow the Q&A live, starting at 3:00 pm EST.
BTW the Twitter hashtag for this is #Obamaclimate
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Live feed for Obama’s ‘Climate Speech’ today?
No thanks. Tell me when they are covering his funeral. That I will be glad to watch.
Listening to the BBC enthusing about it. Yeuch. Was there anything in there that hasn’t long been debunked?
The truth is there is no truth.
The reality is there is no reality.
Seriously, this is getting serious.
All I can say is {snip} {snip} {snip} {snip}
…oops, need to change from semi to full…
{snipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnipsnip}
I guess funny isn’t so funny either.
I am assigned to do a “fact check” report on the President’s Climate Change Actions. I am in search of video reponses from experts. Anyone seen any? Thanks for any help.
Anthony, Was your other obligation preserving your sanity?
One ton of CO2 will produce enough food to feed how many starving African children?
And your president wants to restrict the production of it.
All the “Prez” has left is fraud. Oh, sorry, nearly everything to have left his lips has been dishonest. Surely the most scandal embalmed Prez ever??
The incomes and prestige of so many Nobodies depends on this type of speech. Disgusting.
regards
John Coleman says:
June 25, 2013 at 4:49 pm
I am assigned to do a “fact check” report on the President’s Climate Change Actions. I am in search of video reponses from experts. Anyone seen any? Thanks for any help.
=================================
Put up a link to whatever you want to “fact check”, I’m sure you’ll get lots of help.
In fact, make it a post. (thanks for the Chicago forecasts back in the day).
You want video ?, same advice.
You know, Obama’s war on CO2 is also a war on food. Several recent articles refer to the deserts greening up a bit ostensibly due to higher atmospheric CO2. Cheers –
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/2219/20130601/increase-carbon-dioxide-levels-greening-deserts-study.htm
Obama stated that his administration would be open and truthful to America people. That is ironical or perhaps bull manure as the Obama administration has been quiet about three fundamental issues/truths concerning climate change and the climate ‘change’ negotiations that have been going on behind closed doors. (i.e. The US public have not idea what is going on.)
1) The developing world has demanded $100 billion dollars per year (growing if by a miracle the GDP of Western countries grows) as the impact on Western countries to reduce CO2 emissions by say 50% will be to be wartime like rationing and Spanish like unemployment levels. As the countries that have emitted the most CO2 should pay based on their historical CO2 emissions the US and Britain will have large commitments than other countries. A UN committee controlled by the 134 countries will distribute the $100 billion/year.
2) There has been no warming for 16 years. There has been no warming in the tropical troposphere. Planetary clouds in the tropics increases or decreases to resist warming. Based on these facts the warming due to a doubling of CO2 will be less than 1C. (Estimated warming to be around 0.3C to 0.5C based on so called ‘skeptics’ analysis that has been completed ignored.) The IPCC analysis is directed and funded by the 134 country UNFCCC. The UNFCCC and IPCC is perhaps biased as they are also requesting $100 billion per year. There is an obvious conflict of interest. As up to 2C warming is considered to not only to be safe but to be beneficial, as most of the warming has occurred at higher latitudes there is no global warming problem.
3) More than half of the warming in the last 70 years was due to the most solar magnetic active sun in the 8000 years. The solar magnetic cycle has abruptly slowed down. Based on what has happened before and item 2, the planet will cool roughly 0.45C over the next 3 to 5 years. There will not only be no global warming problem there will be global cooling problem.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/23/climate-change-russia-is-steamed-about-u-ns-kyoto-carbon-credit-cop-out/
“Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton then came to the rescue, offering to up the ante with a $100 billion annual contribution from the United States and our more prosperous friends to the “poorest and most vulnerable [nations] among us” by 2020. She said that the money would come from “a variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance”. Where it would actually come from no one knew, including Hillary and her boss. (Any guesses?)”… …“Carbon credit cap-and-trade marketing is but one U.N. climate alarm-based profiteering scheme aimed at global wealth redistribution. Another important agenda item for the UNFCCC’s 2015 Paris treaty to address is a planned “loss and damage” mechanism to seek compensation from “Tier 1” developed nations by a lawyered-up group of small island governments, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS),… ….., Kirabati, St. Lucia, and the Maldives, claim that man-made global warming is causing super-hurricanes and rising sea levels.”… ….“And who is most to blame? Coincidentally, of course, those legions of lawyers have identified culprits with the deepest pockets…the U.S., Western Europe and Japan. Although China is now the world’s largest CO2 emitter, they got a pass. Still to be determined, is the problem of how such penalties should be assessed. For example, if a Category 4 hurricane hits an island, how can anyone know which portion of that hurricane was caused by each nation? Also, how much of it was caused by those coal plants and SUVs, versus at Mother Nature’s sole discretion?”
UNFCCC members. EU and EU countries are counted twice. Likely they get two votes to lead the US of an economic cliff. 1. Afghanistan 2. Albania 3. Algeria 4. Andorra 5. Angola 6. Antigua and Barbuda 7. Argentina 8. Armenia 9. Australia 10. Austria 11. Azerbaijan 12. Bahamas 13. Bahrain 14. Bangladesh 15. Barbados 16. Belarus 17. Belgium 18. Belize 19. Benin 20. Bhutan 21. Bolivia 22. Bosnia and Herzegovina 23. Botswana 24. Brazil 25. Brunei 26. Bulgaria 27. Burkina Faso 28. Myanmar 29. Burundi 30. Cambodia 31. Cameroon 32. Canada 33. Cape Verde 34. Central African Republic 35. Chad 36. Chile 37. China 38. Colombia 39. Comoros 40. Democratic Republic of the Congo 41. Republic of the Congo 42. Cook Islands 43. Costa Rica 44. Côte d’Ivoire 45. Croatia 46. Cuba 47. Cyprus 48. Czech Republic 49. Denmark 50. Djibouti 51. Dominica 52. Dominican Republic 53. Ecuador 54. Egypt 55. El Salvador 56. Equatorial Guinea 57. Eritrea 58. Estonia 59. Ethiopia 60. European Union 61. Fiji 62. Finland 63. France 64. Gabon 65. Gambia 66. Georgia 67. Germany 68. Ghana 69. Greece 70. Grenada 71. Guatemala 72. Guinea 73. Guinea-Bissau 74. Guyana 75. Haiti 76. Honduras 77. Hungary 78. Iceland 79. India 80. Indonesia 81. Iran 82. Iraq 83. Ireland 84. Israel 85. Italy 86. Jamaica 87. Japan 88. Jordan 89. Kazakhstan 90. Kenya 91. Kiribati 92. North Korea 93. South Korea 94. Kuwait 95. Kyrgyzstan 96. Laos 97. Latvia 98. Lebanon 99. Lesotho 100. Liberia 101. Libya 102. Liechtenstein 103. Lithuania 104. Luxembourg 105. Republic of Macedonia 106. Madagascar 107. Malawi 108. Malaysia 109. Maldives 110. Mali 111. Malta 112. Marshall Islands 113. Mauritania 114. Mauritius 115. Mexico 116. Federated States of Micronesia 117. Moldova 118. Monaco 119. Mongolia 120. Montenegro 121. Morocco 122. Mozambique 123. Namibia 124. Nauru 125. Nepal 126. Netherlands 127. New Zealand 128. Nicaragua 129. Niger 130. Nigeria 131. Niue 132. Norway 133. Oman 134. Pakistan 135. Palau 136. Panama 137. Papua New Guinea 138. Paraguay 139. Peru 140. Philippines 141. Poland 142. Portugal 143. Qatar 144. Romania 145. Russia 146. Rwanda 147. Saint Kitts and Nevis 148. Saint Lucia 149. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 150. Samoa 151. San Marino 152. Sao Tome and Principe 153. Saudi Arabia 154. Senegal 155. Serbia 156. Seychelles 157. Sierra Leone 158. Singapore 159. Slovakia 160. Slovenia 161. Solomon Islands 162. Somalia 163. South Africa 164. South Sudan 165. Spain 166. Sri Lanka 167. Sudan 168. Suriname 169. Swaziland 170. Sweden 171. Switzerland 172. Syria 173. Tajikistan 174. Tanzania 175. Thailand 176. Timor-Leste 177. Togo 178. Tonga 179. Trinidad and Tobago 180. Tunisia 181. Turkey 182. Turkmenistan 183. Tuvalu 184. Uganda 185. Ukraine 186. United Arab Emirates 187. United Kingdom 188. United States 189. Uruguay 190. Uzbekistan 191. Vanuatu 192. Venezuela 193. Vietnam 194. Yemen 195. Zambia 196. Zimbabwe
Hearing things like that make me think that any leader that agrees to climate alarmism and implements green strategies is actually working against their own countries interests.
What possible benefit could the US gain by borrowing money from China and giving it away to the third world? How does that help the US or even the other country for that matter when you demand they not use coal and not industrialize? And does it actually decrease CO2 emissions? Its well-known that countries that do not industrialize do not care about their environment and likewise pollute even more. Maybe not as much CO2, but other pollutants and so from an environmental stand-point this policy decision actually increases overall pollution.
But perhaps they only care about CO2 now? If that is the case, than why did the all ignore the simple fact that its now proven that wind power INCREASES CO2 emissions?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/8/18/wind-produces-more-co2-than-gas-the-numbers.html
And how greens just ignore that and continue to support wind power. So obviously unless they are just simply brain-dead, they are actually promoting an increase in CO2 emissions from humans and an increase in overall pollution by forcing industrialization outside of any country stupid enough to put carbon taxes into place and that will have the higher cost pollution scrubbers. That makes their industry un-competitive with the rest of the world AND forces its costs up through bizarre tax schemes. Why do they bother with policies that do not work unless they really DO NOT care about the environment and could care less that the world is a worse place for their efforts?
This leads to Obama’s speech and how he does appear to be wanting to make the world and the US a worse place. Either that or he is delusional and living in some fantasy world as a few people mentioned or he is terminally brain-dead.
Whatever the case, I think it could be argued that he is actually attempting to make the US a worse place with his policies and he could care less. Not to mention the obvious name-calling and calling people who disagree with him “flat-earthers.” I have news for Obama, if you want to be technically correct, YOU Obama are the believer in the fictional flat-earth along with your “green” friends.
Since I am used to being called a denier and have been told we should all be tied to the stake, I am surprised by the snip. But then, since the US government is monitoring sites for deniers and other terrorists, it is probably best. I will never again watch Obama speak as I am still not over the nausea of watching him. I am sorry for the 100,000 and more who die each year from cold in the US and in the UK because of people like Obama. I don’t know Canada’s total or Europe’s. I am sorry for the millions who are hungry because of people like Obama. But I am happy that I am not a US citizen and that I have a warm place to live each fall, winter and spring where I use very little electricity and no heating fuel. I am not sure who Obama was pandering to as the majority of US citizens do not believe in global warming/climate change. I presume Obama knows.
[Moderators should note why comments are snipped. — Sr. Mod.]
Erny72 says: “…Enjoy great depression Mk2 boys and girls, and don’t forget to thank the watermelons who brought it on.”
Yobama will blame it on Bush and the capitalist suppressors of the masses and the enemies of dialectic materialism and the 1% and the Kochs and the Republicans and the Deniers. His supporters are stupid or insane enough believe all that.
CO2 regulation (control) has long been the tool the UN wants for implantation of Agenda 21.
Control energy, control the populous. Simple really.
Obama on the other hand, just wants more money to spend.
Reminds me of a movie clip 😉
Headline news here in Australia. 32c heat, in summer? Lots of images of steam rising from cooling towers.
To Jason Godwin,
Your analysis is interesting, I hadn’t seen that idea before, that is that the US is “green” because it has higher GDP per ton of CO2 that any country except Canada. Hate to say it, though, that sort of argument is occurring on the Lefty/Greeny turf because it is based on the idea that CO2 emissions are bad and that the less CO2 emitted the better. The Lefties will simply ignore your argument and, if they cannot ignore it, they will change the ground rules. That is how they operate on any and all subjects. It’s not about CO2 with them, it’s about power.
It may be fun to post snide remarks about Bush’s intelligence but he did know enough to call more more studies on the underlying cause of the observed global warming from 1980 to 1996. This is a great blog with many highly intelligent posters but too much effort is being expended on the highly technical issues and essentially zero on the real issue, namely carbon dioxide is not the root cause of global warming. It is fairly clear to me that natural cycles are driving the variations in the earth’s temperature. Some of the brain power needs to directed to education, including the fact that the earth is not yet back up the standard temperature used in all engineering schools – 60F or 15C.
Obama needs to be taught this fundamental principle ASAP. The public needs to be taught as well. Until this fact becomes universal, folks like Obama will continue saying 10 out of the hottest recorded temperature occurred in the last 15 years. That may be partially true but it matters not, there no corrective actions that can be taken about natural cycles.
The Deniers need a manager in charge of global warming. Technical work is more fun but management gets things done.
Dear U.S.A.,
It is hard to watch you self-immolate. We have been neighbours for quite some time now and yet I am incapable of helping you in any way. I tried my best to set a good example, yet you are determined to emulate others (Spain, for example). Best of luck………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………Your friend, Canada…………………………..
The good side to him finally declaring his full support to global warming is that this will be his inescapable legacy. Nature should write the final chapter of that legacy in a way that everyone will be able to understand.
The steady sucking sound in the background was quite unmistakable. That’s our hard earned dollars being siphoned off and into the pockets of BO’s greenie friends. The scale of this scam is truly frightening but the willingness of the masses to go along with it is a terrible nightmare.
He will learn patience, Yoda.
Obama increasingly begins to look like a monkey that has learned some tricks.
I could not bring myself to watch as I don’t have any stomach for this sort of thing.
I can’t remember who said it but it seems apposite “You can tell when a politician is lying you can see their lips move”
James Bull
Carbon pollution?
An appropriate comment from Warner Bros: