Wednesday, 26 June 2013

Obama's drama lacks karma

Two faces of POTUS
To Australians it's deja vu all over again.

Australian Prime Minister (at time of writing) Julia Gillard promised, prior to the last election, that there would be no carbon (dioxide) tax under the government that she led. After the election, it was an entirely matter. Much was heard of carbon pollution.

During the last US election campaign, President Obama kept mum about "carbon pollution" and "carbon taxes." However, during his second inauguration address, he called for new action to “respond to the threat of climate change.” His case for man-made global warming was exceptionally flimsy.

Then we had the alarmists calling on Obama to act on the falsified hypothesis of man's CO2 emissions causing alarming warming.

Al Gore is urging President Obama to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, a step the White House has not publicly embraced to date. (Link)
POTUS Obama has responded with "President Obama's Plan to Cut Carbon Pollution"

As reported by the Australian Today:
US President Barack Obama has laid out a broad new plan to fight climate change, using executive powers to get around "flat earth" science deniers who have blocked action in Congress. 
Mr Obama called for new restrictions on existing and new power plants to curb carbon emissions, pledged to push new generation clean energy sources and to lead a fresh global effort to stem global warming. 
Officials say the plan will allow the US to meet a goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, a pledge Mr Obama made at the inconclusive Copenhagen summit in 2009.

The President even resorted to describe the realists with the highly offensive term of "deniers."
Mr Obama said he had no patience for climate change deniers, including many in Congress, who dispute the science holding that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to a dangerously warming planet. 
"We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society," he said. 
"Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it is not going to protect you from the coming storm."
But who are the true "deniers?' Who are the ones sticking their head in the sands?

Depending on which set of their data for global temperatures is used, there has now been no significant warming for 17 to 23 years. Meanwhile atmospheric CO2 keeps rising.

Obama says that the "deniers" "dispute the science holding that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to a dangerously warming planet."  There is no science showing that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to a dangerous warming planet. There is no dangerous warming planet.

Why is it that the alarmists are getting more feral as more and more scientists are showing up the hoax?

Graphic from Warning Signs.

The president's address has caused a flood of opinions:

From Alan Caruba's Warning Signs:
Beware! Media Will Support Obama's Climate Lies 
Call it the audacity of deceit. At the heart of the President’s speech is his reference to “carbon pollution.” 
It has no scientific basis. You will not read that in Wednesday’s newspapers, nor hear it on radio and television unless you are tuned to conservative media.
 - - - - - -

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant is absurd insofar as it is, next to oxygen, the second most vital gas for life on planet Earth. It is responsible for the growth of all vegetation, including crops vital to feeding humanity and the livestock on which they depend as a food source.

From Myron Ebell of the CEI:

Obama’s all-pain, no-gain agenda will cost jobs, drive up prices and have little effect on global emissions,” said Myron Ebell, director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment. “It is undemocratic, bordering on authoritarian. 
“It confirms the Obama administration’s all-out war on coal, calls for more negotiations on a treaty the Senate will never ratify and displays an alarming lack of knowledge about the state of climate science.

From Anthony Watts (WUWT)
The President’s Climate Action Plan – the good, the bad, and the ugly (with full documents)
Multiple citations of the crazy idea that carbon dioxide is “carbon pollution”, when it is essential to almost all life on Earth.
The phrase “carbon pollution” is mentioned 21 times.
Equating carbon dioxide to mercury and arsenic, which is just nuts.
From Donna Laframboise's No Frakking Consensus.

Obama Dresses CO2 in a Big Bad Wolf Costume

The term “carbon pollution” is one of the most odious slogans ever dreamed up by environmentalists. If the president has now officially adopted it, our opinion of him cannot remain the same. 
As any high school student knows, carbon is represented by a C on the periodic table. We are carbon-based life forms; carbon is within us and all around us. 
Anti-global-warming activists are, in fact, concerned about something else – carbondioxide. Comprised of one molecule of carbon and two molecules of oxygen (a separate and distinct element on the periodic table), CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 
Computer models with dubious track records suggest that human-generated CO2 could spark dangerous climate change. Activists, therefore, think we should slash our CO2 emissions. 
From The Heartland Institute:

James Taylor:
“The president’s restrictions are unnecessary, futile, and economically punishing. The restrictions are unnecessary because global temperatures have remained flat for the past 15 years, proving alarmist climate models predict far too much warming and have no basis in reality. Moreover, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are already falling dramatically without the punitive measures the president is proposing. 
“The restrictions are futile because new growth in Chinese emissions will render all U.S. carbon dioxide cuts moot within a few short months. And even if Chinese emissions growth did not wipe out U.S. cuts, those U.S. cuts would have no measurable impact on global temperatures. The restrictions are economically punishing because they will drive up energy prices throughout the U.S. economy, which will stifle job creation and additionally drive existing businesses and jobs overseas. 
“In short, the president’s restrictions are economically ruinous while providing no appreciable benefit.”
Senior Fellow for Environment Policy
The Heartland Institute
- - - - - - - - -
“With clear evidence that the planet has not warmed in the past 15 years while carbon dioxide has increased, we know reducing emissions of CO2 will have only one impact: to increase the cost of American energy. Obviously this is Mr. Obama’s intent, and while it will thrill his anti-capitalist environmental supporters, it will hopefully wake up the general public to the fact that he does not have their best interests at heart in creating more radical environmental regulations.”
Science Director
The Heartland Institute

                                             - - - - - - - - -
“In discussing the rationale for his climate change and energy plan, President Obama claims that carbon dioxide, or CO2, ‘causes climate change and threatens public health’ and that ‘cutting carbon pollution will help keep our air and water clean and protect our kids.’ Unfortunately, President Obama’s statements could not be further from the truth. Far from being a ‘pollutant,’ carbon dioxide is the elixir of life.”
Senior Fellow, Environment
The Heartland Institute
Co-editor, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

1 comment:

  1. If we have indeed reached a critical threshold (see pic at, then how much good can a few executive orders do? It is no wonder that Obama, like George W Bush earlier, has shifted rhetoric from “global warming” to “climate change” in order to gain more supporters (see In short, have we been rearranging chairs on the deck as the ship slowly but inevitably sinks?


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!