While there's plenty of reason to be skeptical that ocean levels are rising, there's no question that it's time to don our hip-waders in response to the multinational climate agreement reached in Paris on Saturday.
"I believe this moment can be a turning point for the world," Mr. Obama said as a choir of angels sang. "It's the best chance to save the one planet we've got."
Which would be a lot more impressive if the agreement had any details about how to accomplish a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, was binding in any way, had any metrics for checking to see if countries are keeping their promises, or was rooted in anything even marginally like science or reality.
Not that the loosey-goosey nature of the agreement will keep Obama from using it as a cudgel against American industries and energy companies, both of which have been known to produce near-toxic levels of employment, wealth, and national security.
Still, the president is no hypocrite and he's doing his best, on a personal level, to get rid of noxious fossil fuels. For instance, just a few days from now he'll destroy thousands of gallons of Earth-killing petroleum products by burning them in the engines of Air Force One as he jets off to Hawaii for another Christmas (oops!) holiday vacation. And to get rid of additional fuel (good riddance!) Michelle Obama will probably again make the huge sacrifice of taking her own jet to Oahu.
But despite these efforts, not everyone is happy. Alleged presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says that the Paris agreement will not reduce global warming enough for humanity to survive, which is why he's now campaigning on a pledge to cut our nation's carbon emissions by 80% through a mixture of sky-high taxes, penalties for industries, the end of all energy exploration and development on public lands, and "a lot of sitting around very quietly in cold, dark houses."
Hoping, no doubt, for an occasional bowl of warm porridge.
BONUS: TASHFEENDISHLY CLEVER
It's a good thing that the possible reduction in global warming will mean (according to Barack Obama and John Kerry) the end of anti-western terrorism, because new details about the (ahem) intensive anti-terror security vetting process given to immigrants and visa recipients are anything but comforting.
It had already been revealed that a big part of the process is simply asking the applicants if they're terrorists, affiliated with terror groups, have experience in making bombs, or intend to wage jihad in the United States. Apparently this screening process is rooted in the notion that while radical Islamic murderers may be a lot of bad things, they're certainly not fibbers.
But we're now finding out that the background checks don't include looking into the richest conceivable source of available data - the social media of applicants. Which is why no red flags were raised following Tashfeen Malik's online comments before coming to our country that she supported jihad and hoped to wage it.
But in fairness, we can't really expect the State Department to have the time and resources to track down the emails of a potentially dangerous female jihadist. Not when they've been so preoccupied trying to track down the emails of a demonstrably dangerous former female Secretary of State.
20 comments:
Many, many of us aren’t buying into this climate change scam. Almost anyone can see that it’s all about extracting money from the population and power to micro-control our lives. I think they hurt their cause by blaming everything on climate change. But, they think if they tell the big lie over and over the Sheeple will believe it. Here’s a recent article
Vetting. About twenty years ago, I was allowed to apply for a State job as “Food and Drug Inspector”. They sent me home with a package of forms to complete and mail back. The package contained 22 pages of background information including the names and address of ALL of my relatives, including my wife’s relative’s and all of my former in-laws from my previous marriage. It had been over 15 years and I didn’t know where most of those folks were and would they have anything nice to say (true or not) about me? The package also said the job would require me to carry a side arm. I haven’t had any need or desire to carry a weapon since my discharge from the Army. For both of those reasons I called them and told them that I was no longer interested, but thank you very much. A couple of months after that two of their people got killed trying to shut down a meat packing plant in Oakland. I guess the owner didn’t like that idea much.
When we retired, we applied for Social Security on line. We still were required to go into their office and present our Photo ID, Social Security card and original Birth Certificate. Looking back, I’m surprised they didn’t ask if we were going to waste any of the money on food or rent.
I suspect that we were vetted more than most of these Muslims who are likely just getting the good old rubber stamp from some bureaucrats because they are overwhelmed with piles and piles of paper to get out. And we all know that there is little accountability in Government. They are probably getting pressure from this administration to get as many in as possible.
Current Flagstaff, AZ temperature: 24.7 degrees. 5 to 8 inches of snow predicted before tonight's low of 4 degrees. Still a week before winter begins.
I am so worried about global warming.
Climate changes. It's what it does. Kind of like Obama lying through his teeth. Aside from the East Anglia "Climategate" emails, aside from the models not being able to predict the current stable to cooling interval; once persecution of "deniers" becomes the norm and jailing is suggested, whatever thesis is under consideration loses all right to be called science. Science is never settled.
They ask the same types of questions about my sexual behavior and HIV when I donate blood.
Grace and peace.
Then, right after we save the planet from this global warming thingy a huge rock in space will hit the earth and obliterate all life. Sweet revenge.
What Joseph ET said about the vast volume of paperwork required for a government position: I once heard that the bureaucrats do it not to properly vet applicants but to grow their own fiefdoms. The more the paperwork, the more people needed to process it and the bigger the fiefdom. And subsequently the more power and paycheck to the bureaucrat. Sort of like a cancer growing in a living entity.
And speaking (again and again and again) of global warming this planet has a way of changing vastly over time and the idiots that believe the talking heads both within and without government will be the ones to suffer the results of the regulations and control that comes from all that blather (rhymes with Rather). Plus, as you have stated many times, global warming is a great diversion from the real issues.
The climate change folks just haven't figured out that cycles can run hotter or colder for millions of years without being called "change".
Using the same "science" employed to supposedly halt climate change, I wish those allegedly intelligent scientists and government leeches would figure a way to halt daylight change. I much prefer performing my chosen occupation and lifestyle in warm daylight of spring and summer instead of the cold dark of winter. But as with climate change the amount of daylight during each season always has, and always will change.
I think that I have it all figured out: It is a known scientific fact that heat expands and cold contracts. So, using that science, that is why days are longer in summer and shorter in winter. Maybe I'll win the Nobel Prize in physics. Yay for money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If ocean levels are rising, it's only because it's part of a trend that has been taking place for the better part of the last 10,000 years since the end of the previous ice age. And anybody who's taken a 100-level geology or geography class should be able to tell you that coastlines are the most temporary geological features on the planet, constantly being changed by the forces of winds, rains and especially tides. If you are building cottages or entire cities on little more than sandbars, you should expect that their longevity will not be measured in millennia without a vast investment in remediation. It constantly amazes me that the class of people who claim to be "better educated" seem to be oblivious of what should be the most obvious and common of knowledge.
But as I've commented here so many times before, "climate change" doesn't have so much to do with science as it does with being a justification for a wholesale takeover of entire economies, based upon common ignorance. This is why we're exposed to the hubris that the same cabal who've failed to improve the economy for the majority of Americans can somehow improve the climate for an entire planet.
And as @Stilton points out, to prove how serious he really is about all of this, after making his bold pronouncement about saving the planet chief advocate for the anti-carbon agenda climbs aboard the world's most expensive private jet to fly across 1/3rd of the globe for a well-deserved vacation in Hawaii.
Ya'll get that in case we were too subtle? You saving for years to take a vacation is bad. You must be taxed to a level sufficient enough to discourage you from doing so. But for the elites like Obama, Kerry, Clinton et-al, it will be lifestyle as usual. Why? Well, because they just saved the planet for you, so if you're questioning any of this then it's just because you're ignorant and ungrateful.
Plus, saving the planet from the middle class means less riff-raff encroaching upon their favorite vacation locales. "It's the best chance to save the vacation spots we've got."
By comparison to Obama, Kerry & Hillary, Bernie Sander's climate change agenda is downright honest and refreshing. Whereas Obama & Hillary see the climate change agenda as a racket to take over the whole economy, Bernie is a true believer who's almost downright honest about what he wants to achieve. True, his agenda relegates the middle class to serfdom just as Obama's, but he's far more transparent about it. Bernie even wants to nuke the supposedly carbon-neutral nukes, which other than hydro is the only other viable low-carbon alternative to level-1 energy generation. So it seems that it's not only ISIS that wants to take us back to the dark ages. ISIS will take care of the heads while Bernie will be happy to turn out the lights.
Of course, this weekend's big COP-21 accord is a scam. This supposed "agreement" has no teeth. The western attendees will now return home and try to guilt their respective countries into buying into it, whereas other countries like China, India & Russia will continue as before, with expectations their their economies will grow as high-carbon industries will flee the sucker countries into theirs. They'll get richer, we'll get poorer, and the carbon released will remain constant.
Meanwhile, for those of you who might be climate change fans like me with lots of patience who want to see Democrat hack Senator Ed Markey get spanked, here's an interesting senate hearing from last week on "Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate". It's stuff like this that makes me a Ted Cruz fan.
"But in fairness, we can't really expect the State Department to have the time and resources to track down the emails of a potentially dangerous female jihadist. Not when they've been so preoccupied trying to track down the emails of a demonstrably dangerous former female Secretary of State."
Zing!
Which should serve as a reminder that the threat of the Islamic state and their devotees is nothing compared to the threat that our own power hungry leaders present to our nation. Simple proof of this argument is that those same leaders consider conservative limited-government constitutionalists a far greater threat to their well-being than Islamic terrorists.
@Joseph ET, your story is a perfect example of how we've transitioned into a bifurcated society of the over-regulated and the non-regulated. The pliant middle-class is closely monitored and made to jump through hoops for the simplest of transactions with the state. Meanwhile, people who genuinely wish to do us harm are allowed among us with minimal consideration.
If you wish employment within the establishment or to create a business, you must comply with all of the most ridiculous of rules. But there are places in this country largely occupied by protected classes where this is not the case; effectively no rules or regulations or threats of enforcement, and ironically located in the country's most over-regulated states.
Why? Again, the establishment considers the middle class as the big threat to the status quo. Yes, the Islamists can kill us dozens to even thousands at a time, but that doesn't present the biggest threat to the elite. However, a true middle class revolt is what they really fear. The illegals can come in and do whatever they want. The status quo doesn't care, because they aren't a threat.
The establishment historinics over Trump is a good example of how scared they are. Sooner or later, a viable anti-establishment candidate will learn the lesson of Trump and pick up where he leaves off. This is why the establishment needs to shut Trump down asap. It's also why they fail.
@TrickyRicky, I had expected the "ClimateGate" emails to be the final nail in the coffin. Surprisingly, it was not. I shouldn't have been surprised, since so much is at stake for the industry behind this all. But just as we still have ethanol mandates for a concept that is totally known as a corrupt failure, we'll still be fighting "global warming" decades into the next ice age.
@Fred Ciampi, of course. By the way, another government union endorsed Hillary over the weekend. So clearly, a vote for Hillary is a vote for the biggest bureaucracy.
@Joseph ET- Interesting story, and you additionally nail the truth in your final sentence. The agencies that are supposed to vet these people say that it's impossible to do a really thorough job because it would slow the flow of people coming in. Make no mistake, the whole goal of Obama's immigration and "open borders" policy is not to let in terrorists, but to flood our nation so thoroughly with outsides and future welfare recipients that our culture is diluted to the point of meaninglessness.
@Geoff King- What are you going to believe, your lying eyes or computer models?
@TrickyRicky- Well put. This whole "crisis" is a charade. The sun can indeed cause fluctuations in temperature and climate, but I think the only manmade heating here comes from cooking the books on the "science."
@Pumice- As well they should. Public health and safety is still important (except when it gets in the way of a political agenda). And good for you for donating blood!
@ONLYINAMERICA- They say you never hear the asteroid with your name on it.
@Fred Ciampi- Weather and climate are tricky beasts, with a LOT of interactive variables. Which is why we have only a so-so ability to explain weather events in the past, and no proven way of predicting what will happen in anything outside of about a 7-day window.
But playing the Climate Change game imbues power on politicians and their cronies.
@Sandy Link- I think we should play the same semantic games as the Dems, and rather than climate change call it climate reform. After all, if there is warming it will mean fewer people freezing to death, less need to burn fossil fuels for warmth, more arable land, etc.
@American Cowboy- Man, I am so on board with the idea of a summit to end daylight saving time. And unlike the weather, it actually IS a manmade phenomenon.
@Fred Ciampi- Brilliant!
@John the Econ- Great remarks. All I can do is heave a sigh of weariness in the face of this preposterous politicking about a problem which doesn't exist, but which will still be used to savage our economy, redistribute wealth, and further force us to knuckle under to government regulations.
As I've mentioned before, if Barry was remotely serious about this he'd be making speeches on TV telling us to join the national initiative to cut our energy use by 20%. Granted, he'd have to set up EarthSave.Gov so people could get help figuring out what 80% of their last utility bill would be so they'd have a target. But nooOOooo. Barry doesn't ask us to turn down the thermostat, avoid unnecessary driving, carpool, turn off lights, or anything else. Instead, he simply attacks the energy and job providers.
Per my comment about Hillary Clinton, you're exactly right that the greatest danger to our nation comes from those who are closest to its beating heart. That's why Obama has been able to do so much damage - and why it will be difficult to stop him from doing more in the next year.
Fox news just relates from an on-site reporter at recent "status" press conference that Obama has expressed dismay that things he thought he had ordered in action against ISIS were not being done. This is real transparency. Armed Forces are not going to take such decisive actions unless the order is made clear and confirmed by others down the chain; especially when it comes from the top in more public & political gatherings. They have way too much at stake all-'round to go off half-cocked. I've seen this error in my career as Project Manager, Production Supervisor, Section Chief: Both in others, and I've made it myself. Obama is clearly doing one of two things:
(1) Deliberately sweeping others under the bus for things he didn't really order... but which now come to light they should be doing.. This fits the M.O. of this jerk very well. OR, MAYBE:
(2) He talks all-around the topic as he's clearly prone to do, then fools himself and never really clarifies his instruction. He's just not that into it. There are things called meeting minutes and communication records that keep all this very clear. But without them, that rolls down to one of two things: (A) Deliberate, trying for potential deniability. If it's goes bad; it's on others. If it goes well; he'll take the credit. Repeatedly typical of this sorry SOB. Or (B) JUST SCREWED UP. He's an inept and sloppy leader, not qualified to be Commander in Chief. Since he's been in the job nearly seven years, also a very slow learner. This also fits & matches history. But to most of his followers, many of whom also have no idea how things work, they will think he's really on the job.
Back to subject of the day: Is it really sea level rising? OR Is it deep-bedded subsidence usually due to extraction of water from aquifers; and changes in surface soil moisture content due to surface development & less water infiltration; and surface disturbances. Almost NEVER discussed. Water rising or land being lowered and/or sinking? That's pretty important
@Rod makes a good point regarding sea levels. One of my favorite examples is Venice, Italy. Various activists and many Venetians themselves lament the effect that "global warming" is having upon their city. But the reality is that Venice has always been sinking, several millennia before the introduction of jumbo jets and SUVs.
Venice began sinking the day the first stone was laid around 400 AD.
It's will not be human-caused "Climate Change" that will seal Venice's fate. It's a combination of factors, not limited to the fact that it's built entirely within a marsh. Also, the weight of the Italian Alps, 100 miles to the north are actually pushing down on the Adriatic plate, causing the whole region to sink.
Man is directly responsible for at least some of Venice's fate, although it has nothing to do with CO2. Industries on the mainland had been extracting fresh water from substrates directly beneath Venice for decades, accelerating the settling.
Historically, Venice dealt with its continual sinking by constantly building upwards. As lower floors of buildings eventually succumbed to the rising tide, new floors were built atop the old ones. Most of Venice's oldest buildings have several stories underwater. Today as you travel through the canals of Venice, you can see the tops of doorways that only a few hundred years ago were formerly the first floor just at the water line.
Continually adding floors to buildings as they sank was very expensive, but Venice was once a very wealthy city. At the time, the advantages of its location more than made of for the expense and inconvenience of dealing with the ever rising tide. This continued for the most part for centuries as long as Venice was an economic powerhouse. But by the end of the 19th century, it was the economic and political tides that changed for Venice, and its wealth and influence waned. It became a economic and cultural backwater and did not return to international consciousness again until its rediscovery by the romantics in the 20th century.
Today, Venice survives economically mostly via tourism. Although tourism does bring in enough money to sustain numerous shopkeepers, hotels, restaurants and the arts, it's nothing compared to the wealth that was created when Venice was a center of international manufacturing, trade and naval power. It's been centuries since most of its long standing buildings have had floors added to avoid the advancing tides.
So Venice's biggest problem is not "global warming". It's that it is no longer an economically viable city that can afford to address its inevitable sinking. Tourism alone will never generate enough wealth to offset the expense of mitigating the consequences of its geologically vulnerable location as it did centuries ago.
This provides a useful metaphor for where America is currently heading. By dismantling our economy in the name of preventing "climate change", (something that even experts within the "consensus" believe we cannot do) we will no longer be able to afford to mitigate climate events that are inevitable regardless of our CO2 footprint.
Just like Obamacare, this "climate change agreement" is not intended to actually work; it's expected to fail and the hope of the elites is that the rabble will cry for "someone" to fix things, never mind the cost to individual freedom. If the "elites" can't get the rabble to cry for a "hero", they'll start crying themselves even though the climate will never affect them anyway, even if it were really changing. The "elites" will assume that they will be the ones called upon to DO SOMETHING, and the "something" they'll "do" will finish the enslavement of the rest of us. Count on it.
Here's an interesting article on varying sea levels throughout history:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/history-falsifies-climate-alarmist-sea-level-claims/
For example: Pisa, Italy used to be a port city, but is now 7 miles from the sea due to FALLING water levels.
I wish someone would cause political climate change in Washington. It is LONG overdue. Instead all we get is a lot of lies and hot air.
Oh goodie, "global warming" alarmist Leonardo DiCaprio has announced that he'll be supporting socialist Bernie Sanders in 2016.
“Look, not to get political, but listening to Bernie Sanders at that first presidential debate was pretty inspiring — to hear what he said about the environment,”
Were we watching the same debate?
“I mean, when they asked each of the candidates what the most important issue facing our planet is, Bernie Sanders simply said climate change,” he added. “To me that’s inspiring. Look, everyone loves money. I love money — we live in the United States,” DiCaprio said. “This is a capitalist country, but ultimately we’ve locked ourselves, through capitalism, into an addiction to oil that’s incredibly hard to reverse. That whole greenwashing movement, buying a hybrid (which of course can’t hurt), recycling, this and that…it’s not going to cut it. This needs to be a massive movement on a global scale.””
Gee Leo. You'd think that someone who'd feel that way would eschew global travel on private jets and hanging out on private yachts at exclusive and exotic locales.
And this in today as well: Billionaires for Hillary
Warren Buffett to campaign for Hillary Clinton
But on the other end of the scale, it sucks to be a "millennial" in the age of Obama.
This reminds me a scene featuring rich socialist Leo as rich non-socialist Howard Hughes the other night in "The Aviator", where he's having dinner with Katharine Hepburn's family of east coast aristocratic elites, who are proudly non-employed. They proudly boast of their superior socialist morality and how they don't care about money:
Mrs. Hepburn: We don't care about money here, Mr. Hughes.
Howard: That's because you have it.
Mrs. Hepburn: Would you repeat that?
Howard: You don't care about money because you have it. And you've always had it. My father was dirt poor when I was born…. I care about money, because I know what it takes out of a man to make it.
Too many people in America feel this way, and I fear that before long they're going to start caring more than they ever have before, when it's too late.
Yes, it's so much easier to be a socialist when you're rich.
@John the Econ,
Instead of "Yes, it's so much easier to be a socialist when you're rich.", I would say "It's so easy to be a socialist when you're born into money and you'll never have to actually work for a living."
Post a Comment