I really believe there should be better things to talk about. We have the crisis in Afghanistan as the Democrats are about to lose another war. There is the decline in American support for health care reform, a truly important subject that will affect thousands, if not millions, of lives. There is the deficit, the education crisis, criminalizing drug users, and the decline of a civilization that believed in obligation before entitlement. Instead, the Warmers are using a Commander in Chief who has to have something else to talk about, to resurrect a dead horse. So they gather the world leaders together for the highest level summit meeting yet on non-existent climate change.
It was the most Obamaesque address to date.
“For those who question the character and cause of my nation,” the president pronounced Wednesday, “I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.”
America is 233 years old. Some think that there are ample accomplishments speaking to our character and cause that predate Obama’s ascension to the presidency. Then, he went on about America and carbon pollution.
And yet, we can reverse it. John F. Kennedy once observed that “Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man.” It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country as well. We recognize that. But this is a new day. It is a new era. And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.
The only problem is, none of it is true.
Over the past decade, world temperature has stayed the same or gone down. One of the Warmers leading scientists has recently admitted the planet is cooling.
The Warmers have dubious and refutable methodologies by which they gather “warming data”.
The polar bears stranded on chunks of ice was a hoax.
Ocean acidification is completely false and continually re-uttered even though its basic analysis contradicts chemistry.
And, you might have all heard a bit about the two German ships in the northeast passage. “A triumph for man, a disaster for mankind”, heralding the completion of what it claims to be “the first commercial navigation of the fabled North-east Passage.” The problem is, its completely a lie. Ships have been plying that route for most of the last century. The Germans did it in 1940. And, unlike the two German ships this time around, they didn’t have a Russian icebreaker leading the way. Neither did ships in 1984, following exactly the same route at the exactly the same time of year. The Murmansk Shipping Company – which is the specialist operator in the northern sea route – is currently running a fleet of 303 vessels with a total deadweight of about 1.2 million tons. In 2006, the company shipped 2 million tons of cargo through the route.
“The [shipping] transits prove nothing concerning increase or decline of sea ice. In fact the transits have become possible because satellite observation of ice cover has become available in recent years. Indeed, the AP article itself reports: Niels Stolberg, the president of Beluga, which is based in the German city of Bremen, called it the first time a Western shipping company successfully transited the Northeast Passage. ‘To transit the Northeast Passage so well and professionally without incident on the premiere is the result of our extremely accurate preparation as well as the outstanding team work between our attentive captains, our reliable meteorologists and our engaged crew,’ Stolberg said.”
“So, these two transits prove that ships can now plan their route through the ice when the ice cover is at summer minimum because the position of the ice is known. Such planning was not possible prior to the satellite era,” Courtney explained. “And a claim that the achievement was due to ‘decline of sea ice’ is an insult to the company, Beluga, that achieved the transits,”
Yet, if you watched MSNBC or any other MSM channel, you would have thought the event was actual news.
So, back to Obama. In 2006, while the economy was EXPANDING, carbon emissions dropped 1.8%. This is in the “bad old days” of George W Bush. Frankly, while I never voted for the man, they are starting to look like “good old days” after just nine months of the current White House occupant. What does one think happens when there is less business, less manufacturing, fewer people going to work? Obama’s numbers are based on NOTHING, because again its also about how much was done “to promote”, rather than actual results.
Tax cuts and pro-growth policies actually increased the economy while reducing carbon emissions, something that Europe has yet to match. Perhaps that success should be the model of future programs for curbing emissions, although the need for it becomes less and less certain every year. At the very least, someone should inform the President of them, because once again, White House research has left him ignorant at the podium.
Could have been the drastic rise in oil prices that caused businees and people to move to cleaner energy also.
I supported a radical Idea when John Anderson
(a Republican) called for a drastic increase in gas taxes to reduce the dependance on oil many years ago. It would have also created more demand for alternative energy and higher milage cars.
We could still do a moderate increase in the tax on selective products made from oil to raise revenue and encourage a reduction in oil use.
I beleive the best hope for the future lies in creating green jobs in the USA, that also reduce our dependance on oil. Side effects being a reduction in greenhouse gases, good paying jobs that produce energy made in the USA and less money for some of these counties that support terrorists.
Again, pointing to temperature trends over the past decade alone is an absolutely meaningless statistic in the global warming debate. If one examines temperature fluctuations over small periods of time, like a few years or a decade, with those over a longer term, then one sees a zig zag pattern of rising and falling temperatures over short periods of time. However, if one examines temperature trends over a longer period, say, the last 100 years, then the overall trend is up. Yes, up. Up. As in warming.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs