Though the evidence of climate change has, if anything, solidified, Mr. Obama now talks about “green jobs” mostly as a strategy for improving the economy, not the planet. He did not mention climate in his last State of the Union address. Meanwhile, the administration is fighting to exempt United States airlines from Europe’s new plan to charge them for CO2 emissions when they land on the continent. It also seems poised to approve a nearly 2,000-mile-long pipeline, from Canada down through the United States, that will carry a kind of oil. Extracting it will put relatively high levels of emissions into the atmosphere.And here's the last paragraph, #24:
“In Washington, ‘climate change’ has become a lightning rod, it’s a four-letter word,” said Andrew J. Hoffman, director of the University of Michigan’s Erb Institute for Sustainable Development.
In private, scientific advisers to Mr. Obama say he and his administration remain committed to confronting climate change and global warming. But Robert E. O’Connor, program director for decision, risk and management sciences at the National Science Foundation in Washington, said a bolder leader would emphasize real risks that, apparently, now feel distant to many Americans. “If it’s such an important issue, why isn’t he talking about it?”What's in all those other paragraphs?
1. Poll numbers show a decline in Americans' belief in the catastrophic predictions about global warming.
2. There's nothing about poll numbers in other countries, but governments in other countries are adopting measures aimed at pushing back the climate.
3. In the U.S., the right wing has made "skepticism about man-made global warming into a requirement for electability, forming an unlikely triad with antiabortion and gun-rights beliefs," and polls show a partisan tilt to the skepticism.
4. People in other countries are getting annoyed at us for going about our selfish ways and not getting with the climate-fighting agenda. And Bill Clinton said "I mean, it makes us — we look like a joke, right?"
So, you can see, the point here is: Hey, Obama, get with the program. Look to the world and its opinion of us. Isn't that supposed to be your thing? Instead, you're acting like a right winger. That's so disgusting! Bill Clinton thinks you look like a joke.
Posts
79 comments:
He's not talking about it because he is not a strong leader.
The word Climategate ring a bell?
PS If GodZero's doing the opposite of what Willie advises, he rises a bit in my eyes.
(not much, mind you, but...)
WV "arbards" As opposed to yerbards.
The New York Times, the daily Missal of the Liberal religion, is peeved the chief congregant isn't genuflecting before the alter of Global Warming/Climate Change/Bogus Climate Data to impoverish the nation?
Oh well.
If man made global warming is an issue, dealing with it absent a significant contribution from India and China is a waste of time. Good luck with that. You have a better chance of stopping Iran from getting a nuke.
Green jobs? Cheaper domestic oil production will have a far greater positive impact on the economy
O is pulling out all the stops for 2012. Silence on AGW is just a small part. The sudden uptick in military action is another symptom. Question: If Obama thinks the American people like this stuff, why does he wait until his reelection is in doubt to implement it?
Because he's nowhere near as smart as everybody says he is?
Though the evidence of climate has, if anything, solidified ...
Are they talking about Anthropogenic Global Warming? If so then, quite to the contrary, the evidence has fallen apart.
Poll numbers show a decline in the belief in the catastrophic predictions about global warming.
Well, considering that these predictions come from Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph, which was totally discredited over a decade ago, perhaps it's the people being polled who are right and the Washington Post reporters who are wrong?
People in other countries are getting annoyed at us for going about our selfish ways and not getting with the climate-fighting agenda.
And yet, it's the US where CO2 emissions have actually fallen, as the Post itself grudgingly notes, while CO2 emissions continue to rise substantially (I have seen estimates of 29%) everywhere else in the world.
The only thing I can conjecture that fits this article is that, to liberals, unless something happens as a consequence of some congressional legislation signed by a Democrat president, then it hasn't happened at all.
phx,
If you think that's over the top, why don't you "test your hypothesis" and RTFA.
Solyndra, and the other green scams, have pretty much cut the legs off that agenda for Obama.
He's been caught with his pants down, kicking back to his campaign contributors.
I suspect we've heard the last of green jobs and global warming from Obama. The oceans must be left alone to rise.
Obama would only shoot himself in the foot now, if he reverted to the green crap. We know it's political patronage and kickback scam.
"Why doesn't Obama talk about "climate change" anymore?"
At this point there's no money in it.
The United States is the “one significant outlier” on responding to climate change...
Yes, we're much less likely to be sheeple, and trust that something like a "carbon tax" is going to
accomplish anything useful.
He's not talking about it because he's finally learned that every time he opines on some beloved faculty-lounge topic, the economy dies a little more.
Also, has the proof really solidified more? How?
Global climate change has never been anything except an excuse to centralize greater control over the economy in the hands of a bureaucratic elite. President Obama has maneged - so far- to achieve that by other means. He hasn't needed climate change. That said, watch for EPA regulations on CO2 emissions in Term II.
Obama is running scared, and is well aware that only a fat and happy country can afford to suck its economy dry with 'climate change' regulations.
Ours is already sucked dry for two generations, and those workers who remain hired are not going to vote for gummint actions that will end their paycheck sequence as well.
Even Obama's airheadedness stops when he sees that jobs trump enviro feelgood measures.
"I didn't read the article apart from what was posted here but that seems like an over the top abstract. A projection."
It's my paraphrase. I'm revealing what I think is really going on there. If you think I'm wrong, you'll need to read the article yourself and offer an alternative paraphrasing. Otherwise, you're an unscientific skeptic. Ironically!
The "nut" of it? Clearly a sexist, crudely sexual term ("bust a nut"). Sexism! Patriarchy!
"Though the evidence of climate change has, if anything, solidified"
Really? When did that happen?
Because he read the book, Science for Dummies; the Kindergarten edition and he knows man made catastrophic apocalyptic climate change is a hoax.
Science trumps Al Gore.
"Poll numbers show a decline in the belief in the catastrophic predictions about global warming."
The following is a quote by Paul Ehrlich climate professor and Global warmist extrodinaire...
"[i]n ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish..." "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
This website nicely lists why the literate don't "believe" anymore...
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
"Though the evidence of climate change has, if anything, solidified ..."
So if life throws you lemons, make a frozen lemon popsicle?
Would that be a mixed metaphor for "climate change"?
"Though the evidence of climate change has, if anything, solidified..."
/entire article nullified. Credibility = zero.
phx said...
If I'm wrong some really smart person will explain and justify AA's characterization.
phx, try "Books on Tape".
Hopefully, the voice won't sound too much like yours.
AGW is the dumbest thing the Left has ever conceived. I'm old enough to remember when they were harping "the summer without a summer" i.e. "global cooling". Then its "Oh, we read the thermometers upside down, its actually getting warmer." And now that's been dis-proven. So we come to "global climate change". That's the ticket! The climate MAY get warmer. But it MAY get colder too. See we're never wrong, now give us more money, and control so we can fix this.
Got news for you jackasses, thousands of years ago, the city I live in was absolutely COVERED in snow and ice. They call it an "Ice Age". And Millions of years ago, the city I live in was covered by an ocean. You can still find fossilized seashells and seaweeds and sea sea. Because the world was a lot WARMER then. And I am sure there were times when it was so warm that the city I live in was a lot like the Serengeti if not the Sahara.
The amount of pollution we spew into the world is a drop in the bucket compared to what occurs naturally. Volcanoes erupting, poisonous gasses from fermenting lake waste, KILLER METEORS!! OMG! Lets outlaw meteors! Think of the polar bears children!
Here's a clue for the clueless. I don't like pollution either, but the US is by far not even close to what is going on in China and India. So, you tree huggers go over there, and protest those governments. Tell the starving villagers in India dying of malaria that "No. You can't have air conditioning for your hospitals. That injures Gaia, and She loves us all so very much". Or tell the Chinese tyrants that "No!No! No! Bad tyrant! Polluting your peons! No rice for you tonight. Oh! the peons didn't get any rice either?!"
If all you tree huggers were so very concerned about the pollution and global warming you'd off yourselves, cause after all CO2 is a "greenhouse gas".
My understanding is that polls in other countries show a decline in the belief of AGW as well.
To include that undermines her thesis that this is the "right wing" and corporations manipulating public opinion on the topic. For if we see a similar scepticism elsewhere she can't attribute it to Fox News et al.
FWIW, I think the weight of the evidence indicates that human activity is causing some of the increase in temperatures that have occurred.
Go ahead, hit me upside my head.
phx,
"As I say, some smart person might point out how I'm wrong even without me having to read the article. I'll bet we'll all know that if we see it too."
Althouse's point was the article's slant; the article is the data set.
"The United States is the “one significant outlier” on responding to climate change..."
Well, we're also the only one to actually cut CO2 emissions much, so that really makes an outlier
WV: "autchex" cereal that is no longer in the closet.
The New York Times, the daily Missal of the Liberal religion, is peeved the chief congregant isn't genuflecting before the alter of Global Warming/Climate Change/Bogus Climate Data to impoverish the nation?
The New York Times consumes enormous amounts of electricity, trees, and fossil fuel creating, printing, and transporting a newspaper that decries how much environmental damage others do in their daily living. Morons.
Don’t be fooled. The climate change debate is not about whether the climate is changing as the NYT et.al. would have you believe it is specifically: 1. climate change is unprecedented, 2. it will be catastrophic and 3. It is being forced primarily by human consumption of fossil fuels. If you are skeptical of ANY of these established criteria you are an anti science right wing denier. If you accept all the above with out question or skepticism you are a pro science, good person.
Four letter word: aagw (anti-agw)
I had a brunch with K-street people at Zaytinya. Neat experience. The word is that GOP is screwed up badly. No scientist will vote them. No future scientist will vote for them. No senior citizen who needs good cure from scientists will vote for them.
POTUS Obama is already elected.
NB: If you do not believe me, go here:
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/15/the_republican_war_on_science_is_un_american/singleton/
And that goes for right-wingers, too.
"In the U.S., the right wing has made "skepticism about man-made global warming into a requirement for electability,..." No, the right wing has made skepticism about shutting off the heat and lights to attack a issue that might not be a issue, and if it is a issue its unclear the impact, and if there is a impact its unclear how much, if any we can control it.
Arguing about non-existent stuff has no end.
The science is settled that there is no such thing as CO2 warming the climate.
The real reports of the instruments not faked by Gore's cabal of liars show sea level dropping and climate cooling the .46C it rose in the late 1990s.
The arctic has more ice than ever.
It is ALL a hoax.
The Chinese pegged it as a myth purported by the West to sell Green Technology for profit scams from tripling electricity and gasolene prices.
It is also why Romney has no chance of being nominated. He cannot win the trust of any Conservative after joining in that Big Lie for wealth transfers.
Well the economy is still terrible and Obama's numbers are still sinking...so best to jettison Obama.
It can't be the ideas. No sir. They are written in the sky as sure as any natural law. We just need these cattle to move in one direction...for their own good! This is transcendent secular truth...why won't they listen!
Tomorrow, John Kerry will be reading from the Book Of Equality Of Outcome, the holy verses of Massaholic welfare laws. He will discuss in detail what Ted Kennedy smelled like and how to get your community to reflexively vote democratic.
Tune in!
Bill Clinton of phallic cigar fame thinks someone else looks like a joke, that's rich.
Clinton won a plurality and was elected president by beating an incumbent in 1992 because his campaign's organizing principle was, "It's the economy, stupid."
In other words, the GOP was going to beat us with social issues and the electorate is stupid. We have to change the subject.
That was bogus then, but it worked. It is not bogus now. Even 0 finally understands that. The reason why US emissions of CO2 have been reduced is that the US economy has been reduced.
if Mr Obama is not talking about global warming it means he has at least one operative grey cell--of course it doesnt mean he cant funnel 500 mil to a failed "green company."
Besides, as last I knew the global warming terminolgy was abandonded for "climate change." Notwithstanding the climate has been changing for some 4 billion years. We are just along for the ride.
The money and vested interests on the climate-scare side is vastly larger, more influential, and more powerful than that on the skeptical side. Yet the skeptics appear to be winning.
On the climate-scare side:
The world's banks and investment banks trade carbon credits of about $200 billion annually. In a $60 trillion global economy, that's not hugely significant, but it's a source of growth for the banks so they are going to lobby and fight for it.
Then you've got the nuclear and renewable energy industries, all with huge taxpayer subsidies, whose interests line up with promoting climate-scare propaganda.
Then there's the large and well financed green activists; entire government departments like the EPA; major political parties (the Green Parties abroad); universities dependent on government climate funding; the BBC in Britain and NPR domestically promoting climate-scare; the EU; and the entire UN are ALL promoting climate-scare.
On the skeptic side, the money lines up:
Some, but not all, oil and coal producers lobbying against government policies drastically regulating climate; a handful of conservative oriented think tanks pushing out policy papers; a few bloggers; and a few hundred at best (but growing) group of professional scientific dissenters.
Considering the money is stacked so heavily against the skeptics, the only rational way they can be winning the argument is because they have the facts on their side. The climate-scare mongers just can't make the sale because the public isn't buying the evidence.
Clinton is begijnning to look as ancient as his current speeches, ideas and proposed fixes. In Clinton's world, God forbid if other countries view us with disdain.
Can anyone tell me the last time Bill Clinton had an original thought or idea? And while you are at it, include Prez Obama's greatest ideas too.
Clinton has turned into the nicer version of Jimmy Carter--what is about democrat ex presidents that they cant keep their big mouths shut.
O2BNAZ said...
Don’t be fooled. The climate change debate is not about whether the climate is changing as the NYT et.al. would have you believe it is specifically: 1. climate change is unprecedented, 2. it will be catastrophic and 3. It is being forced primarily by human consumption of fossil fuels. If you are skeptical of ANY of these established criteria you are an anti science right wing denier
A good summary!
In point of fact, I think the CO2, not being in equilibrium but rising with human overpopulation, and being a greenhouse gas..is a factor in warming. But I think it is a slight factor, and the costs of just a few nations going with draconian carbon taxes and highly expensive "green energy" are nuts.
That said, you also have just as irritating an attitude in the far right loons as you do in the far left loons.
1. That is, if you say in anyway that the piling up of CO2 may be having some undesirable effects..you are a RINO Traitor. Because a true conservative believes it has Zero Impact, as dogma.
2. If you say overpopulation is causing too much CO2 generation and threatening ecosystem collapse in some regions - you are a RINO Traitor. As every REAL conservative knows that each child born anywhere in our global population of 7 billion, going to 8 in another 12 years - is a blessing that translates into higher prosperity and GNP. And every REAL conservative knows that resources are unlimited and technology will always allow us to access more and more of what we need.
******Other strange "requirements" for being a REAL conservative:
A. The rich are the "Jobs Creators". Trickledown works.
B. Free trade has to benefit everyone under Ricardo's Law. Questioning that, or saying China must be put under limits before we gut all our jobs sectors is HERESY!
C. You must accept that laws requiring health insurance to be provided when someone is willing to buy it but not mandating everyone has to buy it until they get sick - is not unworkable. But is a core conservative value.
D. True conservatives are religious. The more Jesus, the better a conservative one is. Atheists have no place. Atheists are RINOS!
E. To be a REAL conservative and not a RINO traitor, you must have love and loyalty for one foreign country - Israel. Love for other countries, even Canada..is not acceptable. And love for and loyalty to just the US makes a person a damn RINO.
If is isn't a re-election issue, it isn't on President Vacation's radar screen.
The polls in other countries are also trending down on "climate change".
In Australia their just-passed carbon tax (by a Labor-Green coalition) is immensely unpopular and if an election were to be held today the Labor party would be reduced to a fragment. Their Greens possibly would no longer hold a single seat.
buwaya - "In Australia their just-passed carbon tax (by a Labor-Green coalition) is immensely unpopular and if an election were to be held today the Labor party would be reduced to a fragment."
The funniest part about it is their idiot bitch PM just assured coal miners that their industry would not suffer because China (with no carbon tax) would buy up any excess capacity caused by the carbon tax diminishing coal use in Australia proper.
Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal.
edutcher: The word Climategate ring a bell?
This.
Is doesn't matter that the MSM censored and then whitewashed the CRU data hack. It doesn't matter that a good friend of mine (who's a Green Lobbyist) gave me a confused look when I mentioned it.
The rest of us were paying attention. And what happened at CRU was worse than we could have imagined:
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421
Just consider: the computer programming was so fraudulently tweaked that the sum of two squares results in a negative number.
Libtards, please solve:
x2 + y2 < 0
Ann, what you left out is that the proxy the author uses for "doing something" is "have they implemented cap and trade".
And yet, few people think that China is really doing anything meaningful about global warming, and James Hansen of all people opposes cap and trade.
It was a pretty lousy article.
I know Obama has stopped talking about it, I wanted to know more about WHY.
Another point from the article is that Americans are more concerned with overpopulation than with global warming -- I'd love to hear a debate on which problem is either worse, or more easily remedied, and what the relationship of the two problems are to each other.
I definitely think that overpopulation is not just the worse problem, but the more immediate problem, and also the more fixable problem. And I suspect that addressing that problem along with the introduction of cleaner technologies would go along way towards remedying human associated global warming.
Though the evidence of climate change has, if anything, solidified, ...
That's what shit does in the open air.
This is not dissimilar to the capital punishment issue and reflects a democracy deficit in many countries. In most European countries, capital punishment has been banned but the popular support for it tends to still be greater than 50% and in many places close to that in the US. The legislative elite have passed their own agenda against the desires of the majority. Whether you support or reject capital punishment, here in the US the laws tend to much more closely reflect the desires of the public.
Same with AGW. Media/legislative elites and crony capitalists want it but the populous is skeptical. In Europe you see pro AGW being implemented despite the public view, here in the US there is a greater responsiveness to the vox populi
AP, it is not really proper for bus boys to repeat what they over hear in restaurants.
Cutting about 1/8th of the country's electric-generation is "ignoring AGW"?
I want the candle franchise if he starts paying attention, folks.
Electricity prices are slated to grow by a low of 5% to as high as 10%-15% before this coming winter hits.
You want to see anger? Wait until unemployed, elderly and people on fixed incomes have to deal with increasingly cold winters and ever increasing energy prices all due to Obama.
OMG. Follow the link to the comments section of the NYTs.
The Cultists are arguing that "deniers" are all ignorant evangelicals who don't understand science.
The irony couldn't be more delicious.
Another smart blonde bears reading this week. Donna LaFramboise has published her excellent expose of the IPCC...
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
Lift rock. Shine light. Run, roaches, run!!
"Though the evidence of climate change has, if anything, solidified"
HA! If the earth were getting warmer, the evidence would have melted, not solidified.
"Though the evidence of climate change has, if anything, solidified..."
I wonder if the reporter understands that the climate always changes.
As for climate change caused by mankind, the evidence is almost certainly weakening as sea level rise abates, temperatures increasingly diverge from IPCC forecasts and we discover how corrupt and self-serving the AGW movement has become.
Europe likes to flap its gums about climate change, but since the signing of the Kyoto treaty, U.S. emissions are down considerably while European (and 3rd World) emissions are up considerably.
"Also, has the proof really solidified more? How?"
Obviously, because last winter was warmer ... er, colder than normal. Plus we had a hurricane on the east coast or something. It's ALL proof, haven't you heard? Denier.
Fen said:
"Libtards, please solve:
x2 + y2 < 0"
i
How can they say that Obama is not fighting climate change? The guy has put plenty of people out of work so that don't have to drive their cars to work. Without any money they can't afford to do any other type of activity that emits carbons. Hey, the man is doing a great cutting carbon emissions. I hope that after 2012 we can get back to our normal carbon emitting lives.
Best theory IMO: his AGW work is "under the radar," just like his gun control work was supposed to be (and he would've gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling bloggers!).
Here is the science in a nutshell. A doubling of CO2, everything else being equal, would result in temperature rise of about 1 degree C. (the rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 is referred to in the literature as ‘climate sensitivity’). There is no argument about this. As the theory goes, the slight warming from CO2 causes an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere which in turns increases the warming (water vapor is the major green house gas). This is the positive feedback that causes all the models to predict more warming then would be expected from CO2 by itself.
Well, the problem with this theory is water vapor is the stuff clouds are made of. Low clouds reduce warming by reflecting incoming solar radiation back out into space. High clouds increase warming by absorbing more IR. The fact is there is a great deal of uncertainty with respect to clouds. In fact, so much uncertainty that nobody has been able to show with empirical evidence if clouds cause a positive or negative feedback. Not to put too fine a point on it but the theory is based on a huge assumption that is fundamental. That the feedback is positive.
We need to take names of everyone who denigrates AGW skeptics as "anti-science."
In about three years - maybe less, if the new stuff on WUWT pans out - it's going to be painfully obvious that liberal "science" must always be written just like that - "science", with the quotation marks. And we need to make certain that all of these glee club members who think science involves marketing and bribery and blackmail do not do their normal slip-slide into "me, I NEVER bought into that climate change stuff!" like they usually do.
Every time this same basic group comes up with some new crisis with which they think they can steal money and power, it eventually fizzles out, and three weeks later you're hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't claim to have been against it all along.
Make them pay this time. It is going to fizzle out, and very soon, and they came damned close to causing famine and hardship for millions of people in their quest for money and control. We cannot simply let them slide this time thinking they've learned a lesson. They don't learn - they just watch for the next profitable scam and lie to everyone again.
(Obama no longer pushes AGW because, after all, he does have some competent scientists in his control, and I imagine he's now been well educated about AGW being a fraud.)
" . . . huge assumption that is fundamental . . . the feedback is positive."
I'm trying to think of any naturally occurring instances of positive feedback. Nothing is occurring to me that does not consist of learned behavior by living things.
This probably explains why the world hasn't ended many times over.
The "analysis" is likely a preemptive hit at this: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert [Kindle Edition]
Donna Laframboise.
Just started it but it gives a gripping account of the several weaknesses in the World's supposedly leading climate analysis body - the IPCC.
Ann, I read the article yesterday and found it very light on citations. Your paraphrase seems right on.
The "analysis" is likely a preemptive hit at this: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert by
Donna Laframboise.
Just started it but it gives a gripping account of the several weaknesses in the World's supposedly leading climate analysis body - the IPCC.
Ann, I read the article yesterday and found it very light on citations. Your paraphrase seems right on.
"Here is the science in a nutshell."
Good summary of it.
You know what I'd like to see? The models. The data. I've looked, at plenty of sites, and they have lots of papers and such, but you can't just download something that lays it out, warts and all.
I've dug around for it, and what really irritates me is that I *know* no one from the NY Times has ever actually read this stuff and understood it. They're all sure their really smart colleague has read it, and he's sure that his smart buddy has read it, and so forth.
There has been talk of the scientific consensus since 1991. The Intel 486DX was popular back then, with a floating point unit, clocking in at about 50 MHz. We can now get six-core 3 GHz processors, with vector processors, for about the same amount of money. For doing number crunching like you need to model climate, CPUs are about 300 times as powerful as they were 20 years ago, and we can even through video cards at the problem, which are powerful processors in their own right.
Yet, even though the world is supposedly ending, and even though governments are dumping vast quantities of money into this, no one has bothered to package the software together so we can play with it and see for ourselves. They can do bizarre ad campaigns with teachers blowing up skeptical children (really!) and pump tons of money into BS green jobs, but I can't simply download GlobalWarming.zip and see their data and run the models myself.
Fen: "Just consider: the computer programming was so fraudulently tweaked that the sum of two squares results in a negative number."
Meh, physicists are lousy programmers, and there are a ton of ways to screw up your math, especially with floating-point arithmetic. I don't expect that all of their stuff is going to be perfect and I know what they're working on is hard. What bothers me is that with the tremendous amount of money, we're twenty years later and they're still banging rocks together.
Incidentally, if x² + y² < 0, then your solutions are, where �� = √-1 and n and m are reals:
All x=n �� and y=m �� such that n ≠ 0 or m ≠ 0
All x=n and y=m �� such that |n| < |m|
All x=n �� and y=m such that |n| > |m|
There are more solutions, you have to choose real and imaginary components of x and y so they cancel out. Just remember that (a+b ��)² = a² + 2 ab �� - b²; the rest is left as an exercise to the reader. ;-)
Post a Comment