Monday
Jan212013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Obama goes green
Jan 21, 2013 Climate: Parliament Having failed to mention climate change at all in his reelection campaign, it seems that President Obama is going to make it the heart of his second term plans (full text of inauguration speech here).
We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.
I think he is making that last bit up.
Update on Jan 21, 2013 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Channel Four's Tom Clarke has just tweeted this:
Obama just made a link between 2012 weather and climate change in #inaug2013. @metoffice can you bail him out if he gets too much flak?
Reader Comments (75)
Notice the subtle use of the word "deny" in the speech. It was always clear by the actions of his EPA that he'd drunk the kool-aid a long time ago, but here you have it in black and white.
Also note the term, "...the overwhelming judgment of science..." Science judges, now?
"...more powerful storms..." I assume he is referring to Hurricane Sandy (category 1).
And, of course, he mentions "the children"!
Oh, Lord... We are all doomed, doomed, DOOOOOMED, I tell ye!
Huh? Surely most can avoid it. I don't understand ...
Oh, f**k. Just had a look at that site, to find this at the top: "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law"
We are not just doomed, but are going to be right royally f****ed in the process.
I guess my idea of a journalist's job is different to Tom Clarke's. I'd have thought that concern that a politician be "bailed out" was more the province of a spin doctor.
Tom Clarke doesn't appear to have any scientific knowledge at all when he appears on Channel 4 News. He has to do what arch-warmist John Snow tells him.
Whether climate change is loading the dice or not, the USA has just had a bad year for fires, drought and storms; and the hottest year on record tag was the final cherry on the hot fudge.
From the scientific viewpoint it is hard to make high probability statistical links, but an increasing proportion of Americans will follow their gut feeling and agree with him that climate change is looking more likely.
The sceptics here will scream denial of course, but from Obama's viewpoint this looks like a good political move.
But also note this phrase:
"The path towards sustainable energy sources".
A subtle change in wording, there. Sustainable, not renewable.
Sad that his speech-writers should use the word "deny", but also refreshing to hear him linking extreme weather to climate change. It's there for all to see, and to cite in future when that particular meme has been squashed.
All in all, this is mild and open language that allows a huge degree of latitude when determining what "sustainable" energy is. Deliberately vague.
Just my tuppence worth.
"Obama goes green"
Some would say that he always was green with an African tinge - now it's full steam ahead for the sneaky backdoor route to the green agenda and whisper it - agenda 21 - something which is very close to Barack Husein's heart.
This is exactly the way that Joolya Gillard played her hand a few years ago down under.
Good friend and trusted confidante of Obama and green to the gills, old Australian wanna-be PM, Joolya Gillard, never mentioned a carbon emissions "green tax" on Australian industry - she knew damn well how that would play to the electorate.
Strewth - post election victory - in alliance with 3 green party MPs - she went ahead and did the dirty on Australia - Obama's modus operandi - to a T.
Plus, Obama is now struggling for policy initiatives - this re-launch of his old failed Environmental Agenda is a rehash of what little was achieved since 2008. Can you - remember the Chicago Carbon Exchange adventure - where Obamy was in cahoots with his mates in GS [Goldman Sachs] - to set up the American carbon trading floor in Chicago [of all places - fancy that huh?].
Remember Solyndra? Billions down the swanny, Obama will be more canny this time - he'll shove it [green agenda] through via the UN and the EPA.
Obama, always was a menace to the USA, now that he's got the green bug again - he's a world menace.
Rats! My sentence "Deliberately vague." should have read, "Deliberately vague, even for a politician."
Well he better start legislating fast to reduce the number of storms, droughts and fires - all it needs is his signature (assuming Mother Nature has opted out.)
Tom Clarke is implying that his tweet was in jest. Hmm.
This means Obama is definitely going to block the Keystone XL pipeline then.
Maybe both Obama and Tom Clarke are not aware that the IPCC says there is 'low confidence' in the attribution of any human contribution to droughts and storms.
Ah, the rattle of a man who needs to raise taxes!
They can't, not without looking like partisan, single-issue funding zombie ... hey, hang on a minute!
I think Obama is, and has been, a "true believer" as far as AGW is concerned. People seem to have totally forgotten the cap-and-trade bill he supported. I remember that it was one reason, besides Obamacare, why so many US voters kicked out their representatives in 2010. After that election - and after being actually laughed at in Congress when he mentioned climate change - he kept silent on the issue until last election. So he knows it's politically damaging - otherwise he'd have mentioned it during the last campaign - and if he includes it in his inaugural address, of all occasions, it must mean that he actually believes it and thinks he now he can mention it - also, I imagine he wants to go into history as the president who mentioned climate change in his address.
I, too, hope he that will go into history as the president who mentioned that in his inauguration speech. Oh yes.
I was going to post a question this morning (but work got the better of me), asking "How many think that we'll see Obama suddenly laying it on thick re CAGW in his SOTU speech today?"
My money was on him skirting around the subject. I didn't think – even a shameless opportunist like him – he would have to gall to bury it to get elected (to the fury of the zealots) and then suddenly out-Gore Gore.
Shows my political nous.
President Obama going to ban the sale of Assault Rifles,
Think he will ban Shale and also Coal,Oil and Gas exports.
After all of the smoke clears and all of the mirrors are broken, the perpetrators of AGW alarmists will be prosecuted under RICO and False Claims laws for criminal conspiracy, fraud and operation of a criminal enterprise to raid the federal treasury etc. The enormity of their crimes is stunning.
This will not happen until the is a change of government or one or more of the major culprits is impeached. I hope it is soon and before Obama completes the conversion of the US into a fascist oligarchy.
Dammit! I was only trying to inject a little black humour (ooh, look! a pun!). Now it looks like it is no laughing matter.
There are times when you DO NOT want to be right!
Obama goes green, and another well known politician changes into a sceptic. Boris Johnson's take on the cold weather.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9814618/Its-snowing-and-it-really-feels-like-the-start-of-a-mini-ice-age.html#disqus_thread
It is intriguing that NEST have now published at last and one of the things they publish is a clarification of Hansen's latest paper:
Rather flogging a dead horse, especially when polls suggest climate is at or near the least of public concern. More like a sop for the suckered.
Pielke, Jr. anticipated this speech back in March, 2012, when he called on the use of his handy bulls*it button whenever anyone claimed climate change was causing extreme weather and disasters:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html
Well I see many were already asking what Obama hoped would be his lasting legacy before his speech. One or two perceptive people have already been suggesting that AGW was only on a back burner ready to be moved up front when the election was out the way. Now we know.
If he goes full bore on this, as his words would suggest he will, then interesting and expensive times lie ahead for the average US citizen. A lot of effort has been put in by the US government agencies and others to convince the US citizen that Hurricanes are extreme and more frequent when there not and that Arctic sea ice is "melting" to new lows when it isn't, and that 2012 US temps were a new record, when perhaps their not? -
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/does-noaas-national-climatic-data-center-ncdc-keep-two-separate-sets-of-climate-books-for-the-usa/
and not one State broke a max record
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/24/climate-and-state-high-temperature-records-wheres-the-beef/
This is not a coincidence - it is a strategy.
4 Years - BUT if the Sun stays quiet Obama might wish he had. Could it be that Mr President and his advisers are behind the drag curve??
Here is the translation:
"We paid off our party contributors at Solyndra with tax payer dollars and no one in the electorate took any notice. So, in our second term, if any of our donors are in need of cash, just let the DOE know, and we'll transfer some funds for you."
We must not make light of his comments. Have we not noted that everything he says becomes the "Truth" regardless of its original providence? Him merely repeating the lie over and over again will lead to Carbon Taxes, (and worse) very, very quickly.
blockquote failure...
"Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science..."
Some others may stay completely shtum about the topic when running for president - incase it loses them the election.
Worry about your children and their children etc living in a non warming world. Don't worry about the crippling debt they will have to repay and the trashed economy they will inherit.
OB is right, at the end of the day WORRY ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN etc.
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
Independent 20 March 2000
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Jan 21, 2013 at 5:37 PM | Entropic Man
Surely you can't be that stupid.
Mr. Obama, It is deeply dishonest now to declare that one of the top few agenda issues of our time is one that you avoided mentioning in the many many months you were campaigning for a new term in office.
Obama and Biden were not elected to do anything about 'climate change' because they did not dare to make this a prominent campaign item for their second term agenda. Anyone who pretends otherwise is simply dishonest.
@Athelstan
Gillard was far more dishonest than Obama
In the last stage of the election campaign, she stated:
"There will be no carbon tax under a Government that I lead"
Many U-Tube clips around for that
For her first real policy push (successful) following the election, she pushed a tax on CO2 emissions through the Parliament
refreshing to hear him linking extreme weather to climate change. It's there for all to see, and to cite in future when that particular meme has been squashed.
All in all, this is mild and open language that allows a huge degree of latitude when determining what "sustainable" energy is. Deliberately vague.
Just my tuppence worth.
Jan 21, 2013 at 5:39 PM | Elftone
===========================================================================
"There for all to see".
No it is not. FFS, even the IPCC won't link climate change and "extreme" weather. From a USA point of view, I believe Typhoons and Hurricanes are nowhere near "record" levels.
Tom Clarke is implying that his tweet was in jest. Hmm.
Jan 21, 2013 at 5:43 PM | Bishop Hill
==============================================================================
I thought he was joking, for what it's worth - made me grin.
@Jan 21, 2013 at 8:30 PM | Billy Liar
Desperate, innit?
Actually it's too late for Obama to save the world, as the deadline was on Sunday; looks like we're doomed.
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20090120_nn
Dellers has a great scathing critique. To which I had added my comment (which will no doubt get lost in the flood thereof):
There's also this little tidbit of blindingly obvious blather:
And I wonder how he thinks that 'building ... roads and networks and research labs' is going to happen if he can't see his way clear to jumping off the (unmentioned) Co2-->CAGW bandwagon.
Well he obviously didn't have a chat with Boris...
Jan 21, 2013 at 5:37 PM | Unregistered Commenter Entropic Man
"but an increasing proportion of Americans will follow their gut feeling and agree with him that climate change is looking more likely."
The USA is being latinised and these incomers vote Democrat, because they are not natural supporters of the Republic. Nearer home, I learned from Michael Portillo in this evening's Great British Railway Journeys, that the ethnicity of Birmingham with 1,073,000 residents, is now only 53.1% White British.
According to the 2011 census, 41.9% are not White British and this demographic factor does not favour social, economic, educational nor racial integration. Thus, they will not be CAGW sceptics, but will vote blindly for the party that panders to their prejudices. Yep, we're screwed!
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/01/20/obama-inauguration-sets-record-for-private-jets/
So how many private Jets flew in for Obama,s inauguration this time.
ianI8888 @ Jan 21, 2013 at 9:12 PM
Noted - yes I do recall that 'promise'.
Billy Liar
""... climate change is looking more likely ..."
Surely you can't be that stupid."
Read what I said.
"an increasing proportion of Americans will follow their gut feeling and agree with him that climate change is looking more likely."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/global-warming-poll-climate-change_n_2105600.html
http://www.wtop.com/41/3197417/Dulles-closes-runway-to-accommodate-private-planes
= 300 private jets for the inauguration. I'm not sure what that equates to on a polarbearometer, but Will.I.Am or a climatologically concerned modeler might tell us.
Actually a basic tenet of the climatological belief system is that any CO2 emitted by those convinced of CO2 causing appreciable temperature increases does not affect climate - and is in fact good for everyone - this has been proven by modeling. (They had a conference in Bali on this, so it must be true).
"There for all to see".
No it is not. FFS, even the IPCC won't link climate change and "extreme" weather. From a USA point of view, I believe Typhoons and Hurricanes are nowhere near "record" levels.
Jan 21, 2013 at 9:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton
==============================
Just to be clear, I could agree with you more... but I see his languageas being so vague, that it could mean anything. And it is most certainly a sop to his "green" partners. We'll see.
I hope he shuts everything down to stop this dreaded global warming. He'll have to go to Hawaii for vacation at some point and have to get in a boat to make the trip. This should take most of his term (the panama canal won't be operable either) and then maybe we can get someone with common sense in that house on Penn Ave.
entropic man,
You are entitled to point to the Huffington Post poll. You are not entitled to assert known falsehoods. As you know, 2012 was not unusual in the US for storms, droughts, or whatever. Also it was not the hottest year on record. The details are on WUWT.
Jan 21, 2013 at 5:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic Man
@entropic man:
What you are talking about are impressions that give political benefit. It has nothing to do with science. Of course Obama, the non-scientist with mostly sycophantic scientists in his camp, is going to rely on that. He's an artful politician. He relies on impressions, given that very few people can analyze the science themselves.
Obama is a distillation of all progressive pathologies.
Politicians believe consensus as expressed by an impressionable electorate equates to truth, because that's how they get elected. "I was elected because I spoke the truth to the people." Perceptions of truth change with time--sometimes radically, sometimes quickly.
Unfortunately for Obama and the Democrats, the actual science is trending in the other direction.