Views: 4247|Replies: 10


Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-6-28 07:56:48 |Display all floors


Date: 26/06/13
Terence Corcoran, Financial Post

President Obama’s climate plan is a political gamble that will be hard to win. Under the Copenhagen Accord, the United States has committed to reducing carbon emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 — an objective that Mr. Obama did not mention, and with good reason. The United States cannot possibly meet that target, no matter how many members Mr. Obama enrolls in his Hot Earth Society.

AP Photo/Evan VucciPresident Barack Obama wipes sweat from his head during a speech on climate change, Tuesday, June 25, 2013, at Georgetown University in Washington.

Baby, it’s hot out here.With these unspoken words, President Barack Obama announced his climate action plan, a piece of political theatre as much as it was a stab at hard policy. In a sun-drenched space at Georgetown University, in typical 33 Celsius Washington summer temperatures, Mr. Obama played the scene for all it was worth.Mr. Obama in fact opened his speech with these words: “And my first announcement today is that you should all take off your jackets. I’m going to do the same.” A century of presidential press conferences in typical steamy Washington conditions, and this may be the first in which a president took off his jacket and then, with painstakingly deliberate moves with a fat, white handkerchief, mopped his not-that-sweaty brow.We’re down to our sleeves out herePresidents don’t sweat, unless they’re under potential indictment, in a TV studio — or trying hard to beat out a propaganda theme on the perils of global warming and the need for dramatic policy action. Oddly, at 33 degrees and only 55% humidity, it wasn’t even that hot a day in the U.S. capitol, about average for June. It just needed to be seen to be really hot to make the president’s steamy policy rhetoric seem plausible, if not credible.The temperature’s got to fallIt was so hot that he was forced to claim not only that carbon is a pollutant, but that it is a “toxic” pollutant. “We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air or our water, but power plants can still dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air for free,” he said. A White House fact sheet upped the toxicity of carbon even further. The Obama administration, it said, is putting in place “tough new rules to cut carbon pollution — just like we have for other toxins like mercury and arsenic.”Never mind that a few ounces of arsenic can kill while all human life on Earth depends and thrives on the existence of vast tonnages of carbon in the atmosphere. Once you’ve labelled carbon toxic, however, you can pretty well justify any policy, no matter how inappropriate or ineffective. Mr. Obama’s plan contains much of both, a smorgasbord of random programs and heavy-handed interventions — from new rules on coal plant emissions to more subsidies for greener energy sources.Let’s throw everything at the wallFor all his rhetoric, including calling people who deny the reality of global warming “members of the Flat Earth Society,” Mr. Obama backed down on key issues. No carbon tax or pricing schemes were hinted at, let alone proposed. And Mr. Obama could not bring himself to issue a clear statement on the Keystone XL pipeline.“I want to be clear,” he said before delivering a round of unclear policy waffle. Keystone is the single most important issue motivating his green ENGO supporters, but Mr. Obama failed to deliver a straight statement. “Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution,” he said.But what if it’s not that hotThat’s like a motorist saying he promises he will not significantly exceed the speed limit. In other words, the Obama administration will allow oil sands product through a Keystone pipeline even if it produces greater carbon emissions. But then he added more waffle by changing the subject from carbon to climate. “The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.” Net if what?ENGOs such as the Sierra Club claimed victory. By stating that Keytone approval “could ONLY happen IF it didn’t lead too an increase in greenhouse gas emissions,” said the Sierra Club of Canada’s John Bennett, the president had clearly issued “a death sentence for Keystone.” Misrepresenting the statements of others has been an ENGO staple for decades.If anything, chances are Mr. Obama’s comments increase Keystone’s approval odds and may even guarantee the pipeline’s future.All that data on the stormsWhile the pipeline carbon-counting wrangle plays out in the months to come, Mr. Obama appears to have committed himself to being a full rhetorical member of the Hot Earth Society.Along with the president’s speech, the White House issued a wordy 21-page document titled “The President’s Climate Action Plan” plus a colourful fear-mongering, school-friendly graphic that made exaggerated claims about U.S. weather, storms and droughts. Much of it is open to debate, which is what the president presumably wants to generate if he is to seal his carbon policy legacy.May be within the normsIt’s a political gamble that will be hard to win. Under the Copenhagen Accord, the United States has committed to reducing carbon emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 — an objective that Mr. Obama did not mention, and with good reason. The United States cannot possibly meet that target, no matter how many members Mr. Obama enrolls in his Hot Earth Society.So maybe it’s not that hot out here                                                                     

Financial Post, 26 June 2013

FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-6-28 07:59:31 |Display all floors

The Top 5 Lies Of Obama’s Climate Change Speech

The Top 5 Lies Of Obama’s Climate Change Speech  
Posted on June 26, 2013 by Steve Milloy

Investor’s Business Daily editorializes:
President Obama is being lauded for his plans to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. But the scheme looks more like the last refuge of a desperate movement, because the speech he gave in its defense was full of lies.                                                                                                                                                       

Read more at IBD.

FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-6-29 09:03:58 |Display all floors
Blowing Smoke: Obama Climate Speech Riddled With Lies

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          A dangerous, arrogant, fact-free tirade.

by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris

King Canute, attempting to teach his people a lesson regarding his abilities, supposedly went to the sea and commanded the tide to stop. Twelfth-century English historian Henry of Huntington wrote that Canute took his throne to the seashore, but the tide, “continuing to rise as usual dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person.”
President Barack Obama’s naïve and error-riddled speech at Georgetown University on Tuesday clearly demonstrated that he is serious about trying to stop global climate change. However, like the tide, climate change is a natural event of such proportions that it is largely unaffected by human activities. Obama ignores that the “official climate science” on which he bases America’s climate and energy policies has been washed away by 17 years without global warming, despite atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) — the gas Obama blames for rising temperatures — continuing to increase primarily due to the emissions of China and India.
Unlike America’s hopelessly misguided president, the reasons behind Canute’s action were sensible. He wanted to reduce unrealistically elevated expectations of him. Canute’s goal was to show fawning courtiers that there were things over which he had no control. He knew the facts about tides. Sadly for our American friends, and indeed for the whole free world — which depends on a strong America — Obama lacks Canute’s humility and knowledge about nature. The president’s misunderstanding and his apparent disinterest in real climate science is leading the United States into an economic black hole from which it may take generations to recover.
Obama also seems oblivious to real-world economic evidence that the policy path on which he is setting the U.S. has already been tried and has failed in other countries. It is not surprising that when he launched his most recent climate change initiative last week in Berlin, the German public response was less than enthusiastic — they are already suffering the economic and energy consequences of “going green” in a hopeless attempt to stop climate change. Many Germans are also aware of the implications of the Climategate scandal, through which the corrupted science of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was exposed through leaked emails.

In foisting many of the same policies on America that have already failed in Europe, the president appears to be counting on U.S. media to continue to hide the significance of Climategate and the recent halt in planetary warming.
In telling Georgetown students on Tuesday that he doesn’t “have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real,”Obama reveals his ignorance. Nobody is denying that climate change is “real” and that coping with such changes can be challenging. What skeptical scientists do question, however, is the degree to which human activity causes those changes. Saying that “ninety-seven percent of scientists” “acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it,” as Obama did in his speech, is both wrong and meaningless.
As ICSC policy advisor Lord Christopher Monckton just showed, the study that backs this claim is fatally flawed. First, science is never determined by a show of hands. If it were, the Earth would still be considered flat and the center of the universe and space travel impossible. Second, the only statistic that could be interesting would be the fraction of scientists who study the causes of climate change and support the idea that our CO2 emissions are causing serious climate problems. There has never been a reputable survey that asked experts this question.
As we have come to expect from this president on global warming and energy, yesterday’s presentation included many basic science mistakes and inappropriate cherry picking of data. For example, Obama’s assertions about abnormally high temperatures and the extent of Arctic sea ice melt are either meaningless or simply wrong. Last July, new average U.S. temperature records were set by one-fifth of a degree Fahrenheit. This is meaningless since the measurement uncertainty in most of the record is one-half degree Fahrenheit. Similarly, last July’s record temperature was not based on the highs of the day. A record was set merely because the nights were slightly less cool in July 2012 than those experienced in the 1930s. So, when the high and lows of the day were averaged, a record average was established. Nevertheless, the highs of the day in the 1930s still exceeded anything experienced in July 2012.
Obama also neglected to mention that Arctic sea ice coverage records began only three decades ago, when we first started to monitor the Arctic by satellite. Land-based measurements indicate that it was warmer in the Arctic in the 1930s and so ice melt was likely greater then as well, although no one knows for sure.

FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-6-29 16:05:56 |Display all floors
Part: 1 of 2
11 Problems with President Obama’s Climate Change Plan
Nicolas Loris

June 26, 2013 at 4:40 pm


President Obama’s climate plan would have a chilling effect on the economy, not the environment. Here are 11 problems with the plan he outlined this week.

1. Higher energy bills. The Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon dioxide regulations on new and existing power plants would be huge blow to American families. It costs more to heat and cool your home, to cook your meals, to light your home. If the Administration phases out coal, then before 2030, electricity prices would increase 20 percent and cause a family of four to lose more than $1,000 in annual income.

2. Lost jobs. Higher energy prices ripple through the economy. Businesses face higher operating costs and pass those costs on to the consumer. Heritage found that significantly reducing coal, as the President’s climate plan would do, would destroy 500,000 jobs by 2030.

3. Higher natural gas prices would stomp the manufacturing renaissance. Cheap natural gas has led to a manufacturing resurgence in the United States. Both coal and natural gas are important, reliable sources of electricity generation, and artificially shrinking the supply of coal would put upward pressure on natural gas prices. Analysis from The Heritage Foundation (in a forthcoming paper) finds that significantly reducing coal’s share in America’s energy mix would, before 2030, raise natural gas prices by 42 percent. The Obama Administration’s war on coal will drive up natural gas prices, and the American manufacturing base will be a casualty.

4. No impact on climate change. Even if the U.S. stopped emitting all carbon dioxide today (virtually halting all economic activity),the Science and Public Policy Institute found that the global temperature would decrease by 0.17 degrees Celsius—by 2100. These regulations are all pain no gain.

5. Ambiguous on Keystone XL Pipeline. President Obama said the climate effects of Keystone XL will have an impact on the Administration’s ultimate decision. The reality is that the pipeline’s climate effects are minimal. The Department of State’s environmental review“concludes that approval or denial of the proposed Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.” Even those who believe climate change is catastrophic note that Keystone XL is only 0.2 percent of the “carbon budget.”

To be continued .....

FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-6-29 16:10:42 |Display all floors

Part: 2 of 2                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

11 Problems with President Obama’s Climate Change Plan

6. No admission of temperatures leveling off and wrong predictions. There is little controversy over the fact that the recent leveling off of world temperatures (over the past 16 years) is real, and it is inconsistent with and unpredicted by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models.

7. Efficiency mandates drive up prices, drive away choice. Businesses and families understand how energy costs impact their lives and make decisions accordingly to be more efficient. They don’t need the federal government telling them how to be more energy efficient, nor do they need subsidies from the taxpayer to prod them along. The government operates on the assumption that Americans are irrational energy users and that energy mandates make consumers better off, but these mandates make us worse off by taking away our choices. They drive up sticker prices of vehicles, appliances, and more—and they reduce product performance.8. Subsidies for me but not for thee. Politicians love the “all-of-the-above” energy approach because it typically means “subsidize all energy sources and the special interests win.” But American families lose out. When we politicize the economic process by allowing the federal government to highly influence decisions and investments, the incentive to lobby for those handouts is greater, and the incentive to innovate, lower costs, and rely fully on private investment is substantially weakened. Investment is diverted to projects that have higher political rates of return instead of economic returns. President Obama took credit for the oil and gas production that’s occurring despite his policies—not because of them—and then chose to call for the elimination of subsidies that encourage fossil fuel consumption. We SHOULD get rid of oil subsidies and ALL subsidies, but largely what the President is calling for is removing broadly available tax credits and expensing options. Removing them would be a targeted tax hike that would destroy jobs and discourage energy production.

9. Pretending China and the developing world will cut emissions. President Obama made clear that he did not want to cripple the economic growth of the developing world and said these countries should usher in cutting-edge technologies that would dramatically improve their standards of living. What the President failed to acknowledge, however, is that such a productive future relies heavily on coal. According to a recent report from the World Resources Institute, there are plans to build nearly 1,200 coal-fired power plants in 59 different countries totaling more than 1.4 million megawatts. China and India alone account for 76 percent of the proposals.

10. Hides Obama’s anti-nuclear policy behind pro-nuclear rhetoric. The President likes to portray himself as pro-nuclear energy, because his CO2 reduction goals simply cannot be met without nuclear energy. The truth is, however, that his policies do not match his rhetoric. His decision to terminate—perhaps illegally—the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project without any backup plan has introduced significant uncertainty into the nuclear industry. And while existing nuclear regulations and regulatory agencies do a good job of protecting public health and safety at existing plants, they do not efficiently permit new reactors or allow new reactor technologies into the marketplace.

11. Bypasses Congress and the American people. One of the most disturbing elements of the President’s plan is his willingness to use unilateral executive actions to achieve his political objectives. Congress and the American people have rejected attempts to limit carbon emissions on numerous occasions, as they understand that the costs of such schemes far outweigh the benefits. Nonetheless, the President has chosen to ignore the will of the people and subject them to these very costly and unnecessary regulations.

The President is right to say that we can have economic growth and an improved environment. But this isn’t the plan to do it.

Posted in Energy and Environment        [slideshow_deploy]

FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-6-29 19:04:33 |Display all floors
seneca Post time: 2013-6-29 15:24
To gratuitously call Mr Obama's statements "lies" is an invitation to a court trial for defamation ...

Have you not heard of the expression: Facts are facts and lies are lies, irrespective of who utters them?
Translate .......


FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-6-30 13:34:00 |Display all floors
This post was edited by sansukong at 2013-6-30 15:27

Obama Dresses CO2 in a Big Bad Wolf Costume

June 25, 2013 at 10:39 am                                                                                                                                                                                Why would a president who says he’s protecting our children use such odious language?

“Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

So wrote George Orwell in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language. The words we use matter, he said, because words “can corrupt our thought.” They can prevent us from seeing – and thinking – clearly.Today the president of the United States has thrown wide the door and warmly embraced a noxious turn of phrase. A two-page White House-issued fact sheet is titled President Obama’s Plan to Cut Carbon Pollution. The term “carbon pollution” is used a further 13 times.

click to enlarge; see link directly above for full text

The first paragraph says we “have a moral obligation” to “cut carbon pollution.” It insists that “carbon pollution…causes climate change” and that power plants “release as much carbon pollution as they want.”

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 – carbon dioxide. Comprised of one atom molecule of carbon and two atoms moleculesof 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.So why does this fact sheet – which goes on and on about climate change – never once use the term carbon dioxide? Why doesn’t it mention CO2?In a climate change context, talking about carbon is deliberate misdirection. In popular imagination, the word carbon is sometimes associated with smokestacks belching dirty, smelly, soot.CO2, on the other hand, is not only essential to plant life, it is odourless, tasteless, and colourless. Calling carbon dioxide “carbon” takes an invisible, beneficial gas and dresses it up in a big bad wolf costume.This is exactly what Orwell meant when he said that “political language” is designed “to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

What are we to make of a president who talks about “moral obligation” yet adamantly refuses to use accurate terminology?We’re told that the future of our children is at stake. But a president who insists he’s going to set matters right won’t even call things by their proper names..See also:‘Carbon Pollution’ Jargon is Sick and Twisted - If carbon dioxide is pollution, every human being is a perpetual pollution factory. Every toddler in their sandbox generates CO2 every minute of every day. A Question for John Kerry: Where’s Your Evidence?- The American public ranks action on global warming at the bottom of its list of priorities. It cares far more about the economy, jobs, education, health care, and poverty.For the Sake of the Children - Climate crusaders urge us to Think of the children! But that can be used by anyone to advance any argument under the sun.Speaking of the Children - Half of children perish in pre-industrial societies. Take your pick: a bucolic, green fantasy world – or one that’s safe for kids.

FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.