Obama told us over five years ago that he had slowed the rise of the oceans.
I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that …. this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tuAJkbUWU]
But yesterday he said that isn’t true.
Obama: ‘Peace with justice means refusing to condemn our children to a harsher, less hospitable planet…For the grim alternative affects all nations. More severe storms, more famine and floods, new waves of refugees, coastlines that vanish, oceans that rise.’
Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years, but Obama is going to stop it now.
Dogs and cats will lie down together.
He applying for the remake of Ghostbusters?
“Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years, but Obama is going to stop it now.”
Cnut.
Did you ever notice that the global warming crisis is never so severe that it can’t be solved with a simple carbon tax.
To the left, everything can be solved with a tax.
want carbon tax = loathe your country completely
Some taxation would be tolerable if it meant better schools, better transportation or even better health care. But the fact of the matter is that our hard earned tax dollars largely go down a rat hole, supporting special interests and non productive members of society. In other words we pay thru the nose and see very little benefit. If we ever see a carbon tax, it would just be a payoff to the green lobby.
Instead of listening to what Obama says you should probably be watching what he does. He has done nothing to arrest the wholesale burning of fossil fuels. Instead, since he was first elected, he’s been one of the “burn, baby, burn” people. He’s opened up our continental shelves for exploration. He;s been dragging his heels on approving Keystone XL but is likely to end up signing it. He’s shown himself to be afraid, for political reasons, to take any stand against expanding our program of fossil fuel consumption. And I don’t believe I’ve ever heard him say a word about any carbon tax.
So what’s the fuss? Is it just because it’s so much fun hating the guy?
Also, for Joe and Phil: You would both certainly place me well to your left. But I’ve never favored a carbon tax. And, reading the news, I don’t see more than a tiny handful of people in Congress who have so much as mentioned it. So what’s the fuss?
My approach would be to replace fossil fuels, insofar as possible, with something less polluting. Like LFTRs for electricity generation.
Micheal, only if you believe the solution to every problem is a tax. Taxes are a necessary evil, but should be kept at a minimum. Proposing taxes at every turn (our current left) is what kills economies. I think we are already seeing that in most of the developed world.
Problem is that carbon tax is the most regressive animal there is. All business will just push theirs down to the consumer, the poorest of whom won’t eat.
This, I fear, is the real agenda of the green movement.
It isn’t about “Obama contempt” – it’s about not having any fore sight on what will happen if you cave into greenie demands
He lacks the capacity to say no to his radical government appointees or NGO temper tantrum stupidity
Brian, have you not noticed that “greenie demands” carry less clout in American politics than any other special interest group?
The major determinants of policy are FIRE interests (finance, insurance, real estate), military procurement interests and corporate interests. That’s pretty much the entire list. The Green movement has maybe one-millionth the clout of the fossil fuel industry.
Yet your handlers have convinced you that we are all writhing in the clutches of radical environmentalists. I am constantly amazed.
You’re a PR agent for Occupy Wall Street, pro bono I am sure.
Pleasant evening
BGV
Obama wants the US to follow?
Obama hasn’t lifted a finger in resistance to unrestricted oil and gas development. He’s barely even offered any rhetoric. I won’t editorialize further. Just read the article. Then tell me what Obama wants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/us/politics/15address.html?pagewanted=all
Well, that sure puts you to the left of me. However, try this one: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oil-production-federal-lands-has-declined-under-obama
beats the NY Crimes for objectivity.
$300 million over 3 years…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/30/gore-to-unveil-300-millio_n_94155.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2653374/posts
Show me where ‘Big Oil’ is spending this kind of money on skeptics.
“According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/
“The Congressional Research Service estimates that since 2008 the federal government has spent nearly $70 billion on “climate change activities.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/19/the-well-funded-climate-business-follow-the-money/
“In 2011, your federal government will spend $10.6 million a day on climate change. Annual expenditures will be about $4 billion on global warming research—now called climate change–despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, says the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a British educational think tank.
At a time when we bear the burden of a $14 trillion debt, and both the Congress and the administration talk of spending restrains, the AAAS reports 13 executive branch departments and agencies will “increase climate research 21 percent to $2.6 billion.”
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/tait-trussell/the-black-hole-of-global-warming-spending/
Oh come on, Gator, that’s spit.
At least a few trillion are needed to flush the country irreversibly down the drain. A couple hundred billion won’t even begin to torch the economy
Yeah, but look at how many sheep you can brainwash with that kind of dough! Forward! 😆
The ones on board have no brains to wash.
Only death will “fix” the ones not with the program.
The Government will come to that conclusion in due time (if they haven’t already)
Good Lord, Phil. This is what’s known as an idee fixe. May I spell it out more clearly?
We don’t need a new tax. I don’t favor a new tax. A new tax won’t help this problem. And in this country at least, any form of carbon tax is NOT ON THE POLITICAL HORIZON.
In other news, what’s currently killing the economy throughout the developed world is not taxation but austerity.
What is killing developed countries is wasting resources to fix non-existent global warming problems. Europe has already taken this short cut to the sewer. Obama wants the US to follow
Michael, i saw that. That is why I could not understand: You would both certainly place me well to your left. But I’ve never favored a carbon tax.
How does my statement about the left’s solution to all problems place you to the left of me, unless you believe that? And then say you do not want a carbon tax?
No idee fixe. Just how you can either jump to a grand conclusion as you did. My post was then in direct response to what is quoted above. So how are you left of me? You may be, but I hardly find my sole sentence and then further explanation a basis for an entire political philosophy.
Forgot the quote marks around your statement. However it is the bolded one.
“Instead of listening to what Obama says you should probably be watching what he does.”
According to Skeeter he has done nothing, except shoot skeet, all the time. He knew nothing about Benghazi, he knew nothing about the IRS profiling and harassment, he knew nothing about the DOJ targeting Rosen, he knew nothing about Fast & Furious, and apparently knows nothing about telling the truth…
http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies
I hate liars, no matter their political affiliation, or color.
The logical answer is geo-thermal.
Why is it that the two deepest bore holes (7.1 & 7.4 miles) have the same problem; 568 degree Fahrenheit meltdown…
You’d think if greens were truly looking for an energy answer they’d be supporting the true answer (LN2 cooled robotic drill heads w/ conveyor systems).
And then this pathetic bullshit:
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/10-signs-global-warming-happening-now-20130618
They missed one…
http://beaconhill.patch.com/articles/bostons-pools-opening-soon-for-summer-fd429427
OK, that’s better. Wasn’t quite feeling myself.
I love how that photo makes it look like a giant wave is about to hit the city. It’s so Iran-propagandaesque. It’s so North Korea.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we’re observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
They keep moving the bar.
They cannot model any 50 year stretch of the past correctly, any “model” must first reproduce what you already know
It may be that the problem (lower than expected values for heating since 1998) has to do with a failure to factor in the intensity of the sun’s rays. You might be aware that the current sunspot maximum we’re supposed to be in the middle of has pretty much fizzled.
And that the minimum we experienced back in 2009 was about the lowest on record. So we really haven’t had high TSI readings (total solar irradiance, expressed in watts per square meter) since 2002. That’s a long time for the planet to be cooling down.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/01mar_twinpeaks/
The sun’s varying output certainly does influence the weather, only it’s over a short cycle of eleven years. So don’t worry. We’re in for another 8 or 9 years of weak sunlight, influencing climate on the cooling side at least until we approach 2024. Then things may normalize in ways we don’t really like.
You could be right. But what you are contending (partially and I agree) is that the models are wrong, and the greatest influence on the climate is beyond man’s control.
We will see. But the amusing part if you are right, is we have to start preparing for another ice age now. No amount of breathing out by homo sapiens will be able to forestall it.
Ban the 99 percenters…
“Three panhandlers were arrested Wednesday for stabbing a woman to death on Hollywood’s star-lined ‘Walk of Fame’ Tuesday night.
Christine Calderon, 23, took pictures of the homeless men before she was stabbed once in the torso, according to KTLA.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2344855/Panhandlers-arrested-stabbing-Christine-Calderon-death-Hollywoods-Walk-Fame-took-photo-cell-phone-wouldnt-pay-1-it.html#ixzz2WmrPyOyg
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What the hell, have you seen this: Senator Brian Schatz’s (D-HI) filed an amendment for the immigration bill Wednesday that would allow stateless people in the U.S. to seek conditional lawful status if their nations have been made uninhabitable by climate change. Stolen from AceofSpases.
Spades
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.