Thursday, November 20, 2008

Barack: True believer about AGW?

This much I know:

Barack is shockingly ignorant of history.
Barack is shockingly ignorant of economics.
Barack believes the global warming horse manure.
Barack and Axelrod ran an organized, nimble, and ruthlessly unethical Campaign.

Geraghty says all Barack statements come with expiration dates ("Baraxpiration" dates?).* Let us hope true belief in AGW also comes with a Baraxpiration date. We need him to be enough of a cynical bastard to ditch his campaign pretensions in the cause of saving the economy (via not damaging it to accommodate bad science, bad math skills, and Al Gore/Hollywood/liberal fantasy).

If Barack shockingly ditches his cynicism in favor of true belief about AGW? Result: disaster. Man-made. Barack-made.

Speaking by video [on Tuesday, Nov 18] to a climate conference in Los Angeles, Mr. Obama repeated his campaign vow to reduce climate-altering carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies.
Some industry leaders and members of Congress have suggested that Mr. Obama’s climate proposal would impose too great a cost on an already-stressed economy — having the same effects as a tax on coal, oil and natural gas — and should await the end of the current downturn. A bill similar to Mr. Obama’s plan failed to clear the Senate earlier this year, largely because of concerns about its impact on the economy.

Mr. Obama rejected that view, saying that his plan would reduce oil imports, create jobs in energy conservation and renewable sources of energy, and reverse the warming of the atmosphere.
A.J. Strata:
[T]he data over the last decade have proven ALL of the IPCC climate models [about AGW] and predictions wrong. Science demands accuracy in its theories. When they are wrong there is no salvaging them or twisting them, they get thrown out. Science is showing there is no CO2 based, man-made CO2 and that is hard data.
It's more likely we are heading into three decades of global cooling. There's nothing we can do about it, either way. Humanity's best possible efforts represent less than three ten-thousandths the effect of the sun upon global warming and cooling. Arctic studies of ice cores show the sun affects Earth temperatures in 1500 year cycles which have perfectly repeated themselves over the past 7500 years of Earth's existence. To believe man -- whose impact is, at best, less than three ten-thousandths of the warming/cooling impact of the Sun -- can affect 1500 year cycles of solar warming and cooling effect upon the Earth ... is foolishness. At the very least: it is not a hypothesis which ought drive our national policy; it is not a hypothesis which ought cause us to retard our GDP, reduce our national wealth, and thus increase human misery in our nation and also in other nations. Decreasing American production would actually be immoral - as opposed to the pretend immorality alleged against those who refuse to pretend-save the Earth.

Even if you believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, a theory based on computer models that has a significant dearth of actual data to support it, there is little reason to believe it is a disaster of planet threatening proportions. The Earth has had long periods of time with much higher temperature sand much higher levels of CO2 and has not only survived but has thrived.
AGW has always been about belief. People who can not add two and two blithely inform us that by devoting some billions of dollars to alternative energy sources we will almost overnight be able to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions without a significant hit to the economy; in fact, our economy will thrive with all the new green energy jobs that will b e created. This ignores all sorts of problems, not least of scale, and is a sure fire prescription to causing immense damage to our infrastructure.
To the true believer, no facts can have an impact. To the true believer, no price is too high to pay to save the planet. If Barack Obama goes ahead with these plans, it suggest that while we may not know much of what he believes, on AGW he is a true believer. This is not comforting since, unfortunately, the only way to "save the planet" is to shut down the economy. Even as the Europeans are turning their backs on Kyoto as impractical and too much of a burden for their economies at a time of global recession, Barack Obama signals his intent to assault our economy in unimaginable ways.
Maxed Out Mama:
Economically speaking, this is total lunacy. But [Obama] believes. Nor does he need Congress to act, since the EPA is already dealing with petitions to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. He simply does what he said he would do before the election, which is to regulate CO2 as a HAP. Even farms would have to go through permitting, as would large stores, etc.
As you read through that [report], it's important to understand that "demand response" programs involve turning off power to users. [...] When they start turning off your lights all the time, you're not going to be so pleased.


*Regarding Baraxpiration dates(The End Zone TM!), Scott at Powerline:
In "Opportunism knocks, part 3" and other posts we wrote at length about the September 2007 vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment supporting the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Clinton voted in favor of it. Obama refrained from taking a position or voting on it. Once Clinton voted in favor of it, however, Obama castigated her for the vote. He described it as "saber rattling."

The morning after Obama sewed up the Democratic nomination in June, he appeared before AIPAC and enthusiastically supported the position he had previously castigated throughout the campaign. It is a story that shows the peculiar cynicism and deep calculation with which Obama conducted a purportedly idealistic campaign, and it is of course a story that the mainstream media somehow missed.
AIPAC is the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, and is a huge supporter of Israel. It's not possible for Barack's timing and actions to have been more cynical.

No comments: