(Above: Do you not just love Al Gore's "doom-and-gloom" techniques used in scaring the people of not just the United States, but the world, into buying this B.S. about the existence of "global warming"?)
Introduction: The Mahdi to the Rescue!
I want to begin my article with a quote that will later be repeated in the interview by Der Spiegel journalists with German meteorologist Hans von Storch. Dr. Storch made this comment to the journalists who thought they knew more about the issues affecting global warming, or the lack thereof, due to their vastly-greater intellects as a result of being followers of the political Left. It is with great pleasure that I post his quote, as upon reading it when I found the article, I totally was beside myself with laughter:
"Are we going to declare war on China if the country emits too much CO2 into the air and thereby violates our constitution?"
According to the conservative-leaning news site aptly-titled Mr. Conservative, President Obama is set to announce Tuesday, June 25, a new global warming department as well as a new series of executive orders geared toward the regulation of power plants.
While speaking before what the site referred to as "a small, apathetic audience" at the very same Brandenburg Gate in Berlin that the iconic President Ronald Reagan delivered what became one of the most famous speeches in the history in our nation's history, Obama, who despite the fact that scientific data through research has determined that there have been no real vestiges of global warming over the course of the past 16 years, was undeterred in his announcement of this phenomena being the world's greatest threat. And while the site posits its opinion which I share that the president actively "rejects" Iranian and North Korean nuclear aspirations, "he is actively going to war against the climate."
Like any other tree-hugging liberal over the past 40 or more years. Obama is talking a big game but will no doubt fail at whatever it is he thinks he will be capable of doing. Through all or parts of his two predecessors in the global office -- Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- the change in the level of greenhouse gases has become a virtual non-factor. Yet, here is Obama, who again is another in the long line of Democrats and leftists from across the world claiming he has the solution to save the world from its ignorant inhabitants, and that only the government can do so.
To continue further, the Manchurian candidate-elected-president escalated his rhetoric when he sent out a tweet promulgating his intentions that this Tuesday, he will use his executive powers to attack power plants. Unfortunately, this will undoubtedly mean that his main target will be nuclear power plants, the industry in which my best friend is employed as a nuclear engineer. The announcement he used, in typical Obamian format patterned from the legacies and images of Communist dictators in the Soviet Union and China before him, was stated as follows in his tweet:
“Will you stand with President Obama in the fight against #climate change? Tune in on Tuesday.”
To quote Mr. Conservative:
"At least Americans can sit back and stop worrying about Islamic terrorism. It appears that, when it comes to destroying America, Obama is doing the job for them."
Below is the article from The Washington Post which broke the news of this initiative:
Obama says he’ll unveil climate plan in Tuesday speech ‘for the sake of our children’
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is preparing to unveil his long-awaited national plan to combat climate change in a major speech, he announced on Saturday.
“There’s no single step that can reverse the effects of climate change,” Obama said in an online video released by the White House. “But when it comes to the world we leave our children, we owe it to them to do what we can.”
People consulting with White House officials on Obama’s plan, to be unveiled Tuesday at Georgetown University, say they expect him to put forth regulations on heat-trapping gases emitted by existing coal-fired power plans. They were not authorized to disclose details about the plan ahead of the announcement and requested anonymity.
Environmental groups have been pleading with Obama to take that step, but the administration has said it’s focused first on controls on new power plants. The Environmental Protection Agency, using its authority under the Clean Air Act, has already proposed controls on new plants, but the rules have been delayed — to the chagrin of states and environmental groups threatening to sue over the delays.
An administration official said last week that Obama was still weighing whether to include existing plants in the climate plan. The official wasn’t authorized to comment by name and requested anonymity.
The White House wouldn’t disclose any details Saturday about what steps Obama may call for. But his senior energy and climate adviser, Heather Zichal, said last week that controls on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants would be a major focus. She also said the plan would boost energy efficiency of appliances and buildings, plus expand renewable energy.
Putting a positive spin on a contentious partisan issue, Obama said the U.S. is uniquely poised to deal with the serious challenges posed by climate change. He said American scientists and engineers would have to design new fuels and energy sources, and workers will have to adapt to a clean energy economy.
“We’ll need all of us, as citizens, to do our part to preserve God’s creation for future generations,” Obama said.
Environmental groups have for months been pushing Obama to make good on a threat he issued to lawmakers in February in his State of the Union address: “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.” Obama’s move to take the matter into his own hands appears to reflect a growing consensus that opposition in Congress is too powerful for any meaningful, sweeping climate legislation to pass anytime soon.
“They shouldn’t wait for Congress to act, because they’ll be out of office by the time that Congress gets its act together,” Rep. Henry Waxman, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in an interview.
Environmental groups applauded the announcement that Obama was finally releasing a plan for executive action, but made clear they want to see firm proposals — including controls for existing power plants.
“Combating climate change means curbing carbon pollution — for the first time ever — from the biggest single source of such dangerous gases: our coal-fired power plants,” said Frances Beinecke, president of the National Resources Defense Council. “We stand ready to help President Obama in every way we can.”
Another key issue hanging over the announcement — but unlikely to be mentioned on Tuesday — is Keystone XL, a pipeline that would carry oil extracted from tar sands in western Canada to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast. A concerted campaign by environmental activists to persuade Obama to nix the pipeline appears to be an uphill battle. The White House insists the State Department is making the decision independently.
Obama’s speech on Tuesday will come the day before he leaves for a weeklong trip to three African nations.
__
Upon further reflection into the history of the federal government's expenditures on the president and his family's traveling expenses as well as the exorbitant cost of living ($1.4 billion in 2011, compared to the British government spending a mere $57.5 million on the Royal Family), I am sure we will spend another $100 million somehow on Obama's trip to his home continent of Africa to be with his tribesman and fellow Muslims.
You can watch the speech in which President Obama announces his initiative below:
__
For opponents of the Mahdi, he always has an insult for them. Take a look at an E-mail, provided by another article courtesy of Mr. Conservative:
Take a look at these statements on climate change — give ‘em a good read through and see what you think:“Global warming has become a religion for many back here in Washington. To this crowd, there are no greater or more urgent problems anywhere. They worship at the alter [sic] of carbon generation and reduction.”“Nobody really knows the cause … the earth cools, the earth warms … It could be caused by carbon dioxide or methane. Maybe we should kill the cows to stop the methane, or stop breathing to stop the CO2 … Thousands of people die every year of cold, so if we had global warming it would save lives … We ought to look out for people. The earth can take care of itself.”“I’m also old enough to remember when the same left-wing part of our society was creating a global cooling scare in order to generate funds for their pet projects. So 30-some years ago the big scare was global cooling, and once they drained that [topic], they shifted to global warming.”“[Scientists] are making up their facts to fit their conclusions. They’ve already caught them doing this.”Sounds like things your crazy uncle would say at Thanksgiving dinner, right?You’d be wrong. These are all statements made by current elected officials in Congress, folks whose votes have the power to make an actual difference on this issue. These climate deniers need to be called out — and you’re the only ones who can do it.Add your name to join the team that’s going to hold these deniers accountable.OFA will be out there making sure that the people saying these things are called out — and the people who sidestep the facts are forced to step up and say what they actually believe is going on with our climate.Look, our crazy uncles aren’t the problem. But these members of Congress are using these far-fetched conspiracy theories as an excuse for not taking action on an issue that affects our environment, our economy, and yes, the planet our children and grandchildren inherit.Climate change is real, and we’re not going to get anywhere on the issue until these guys admit that.If you and I don’t say anything, nothing will change in Washington.Help climate deniers in Congress see the light and take a step toward progress. Say you’ll help hold them accountable:http://my.barackobama.com/Hold-Climate-Deniers-AccountableThanks,Jim MessinaChairOrganizing for Action
__
There are several reports, of course, from people in positions of authority in the sciences of climatology and meteorology who have been easily able to disprove either the existence of the "phenomena" of global warming or it does exist, the severity in which the Left would have you belief we are so afflicted by it. Since the first file is in .pdf format, I will have to place a link here courtesy of Dr. David Whitehouse.
Paranoia? Delusional? What about science, Mr. President? There are copious sources disproving your pipe-dream of a Utopian society predicated upon yours and every other tree hugger's ideals. There are, indeed, facts that will refute your claims that our lives are endangered based upon the patterns of human behavior since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain during the 18th Century (Courtesy of Der Spiegel):
Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?
AP
Icebergs float in a bay off Ammassalik Island, Greenland. Scientists are puzzled as to why global warming has not risen in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate experts have long predicted that temperatures would rise in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions. But, for 15 years, they haven't. In a SPIEGEL interview, meteorologist Hans von Storch discusses how this "puzzle" might force scientists to alter what could be "fundamentally wrong" models.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Storch, Germany has recently seen major flooding. Is global warming the culprit?
Storch: I'm not aware of any studies showing that floods happen more often today than in the past. I also just attended a hydrologists' conference in Koblenz, and none of the scientists there described such a finding.
SPIEGEL: But don't climate simulations for Germany's latitudes predict that, as temperatures rise, there will be less, not more, rain in the summers?
Storch: That only appears to be contradictory. We actually do expect there to be less total precipitation during the summer months. But there may be more extreme weather events, in which a great deal of rain falls from the sky within a short span of time. But since there has been only moderate global warming so far, climate change shouldn't be playing a major role in any case yet.
SPIEGEL: Would you say that people no longer reflexively attribute every severe weather event to global warming as much as they once did?
Storch: Yes, my impression is that there is less hysteria over the climate. There are certainly still people who almost ritualistically cry, "Stop thief! Climate change is at fault!" over any natural disaster. But people are now talking much more about the likely causes of flooding, such as land being paved over or the disappearance of natural flood zones -- and that's a good thing.
SPIEGEL: Will the greenhouse effect be an issue in the upcoming German parliamentary elections? Singer Marius Müller-Westernhagen is leading a celebrity initiative calling for the addition of climate protection as a national policy objective in the German constitution.
Storch: It's a strange idea. What state of the Earth's atmosphere do we want to protect, and in what way? And what might happen as a result? Are we going to declare war on China if the country emits too much CO2into the air and thereby violates our constitution?
SPIEGEL: Yet it was climate researchers, with their apocalyptic warnings, who gave people these ideas in the first place.
Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I'm driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can't simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I'll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.
SPIEGEL: Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, outside Berlin, is currently Chancellor Angela Merkel's climate adviser. Why does she need one?
Storch: I've never been chancellor myself. But I do think it would be unwise of Merkel to listen to just a single scientist. Climate research is made up of far too many different voices for that. Personally, though, I don't believe the chancellor has delved deeply into the subject. If she had, she would know that there are other perspectives besides those held by her environmental policy administrators.
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…
Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.
SPIEGEL: But it has been climate researchers themselves who have feigned a degree of certainty even though it doesn't actually exist. For example, the IPCC announced with 95 percent certainty that humans contribute to climate change.
Storch: And there are good reasons for that statement. We could no longer explain the considerable rise in global temperatures observed between the early 1970s and the late 1990s with natural causes. My team at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, was able to provide evidence in 1995 of humans' influence on climate events. Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments.
SPIEGEL: In which areas do you need to improve the models?
Storch: Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.
SPIEGEL: That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness along the lines of the climate protection brochures recently published by Germany's Federal Environmental Agency under the title "Sie erwärmt sich doch" ("The Earth is getting warmer"). Pamphlets like that aren't going to convince any skeptics. It's not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them. The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public's trust. We went through something similar with deforestation, too -- and then we didn't hear much about the topic for a long time.
SPIEGEL: Does this throw the entire theory of global warming into doubt?
Storch: I don't believe so. We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it. But if global warming continues to stagnate, doubts will obviously grow stronger.
SPIEGEL: Do scientists still predict that sea levels will rise?
Storch: In principle, yes. Unfortunately, though, our simulations aren't yet capable of showing whether and how fast ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica will melt -- and that is a very significant factor in how much sea levels will actually rise. For this reason, the IPCC's predictions have been conservative. And, considering the uncertainties, I think this is correct.
SPIEGEL: And how good are the long-term forecasts concerning temperature and precipitation?
Storch: Those are also still difficult. For example, according to the models, the Mediterranean region will grow drier all year round. At the moment, however, there is actually more rain there in the fall months than there used to be. We will need to observe further developments closely in the coming years. Temperature increases are also very much dependent on clouds, which can both amplify and mitigate the greenhouse effect. For as long as I've been working in this field, for over 30 years, there has unfortunately been very little progress made in the simulation of clouds.
SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?
Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.
SPIEGEL: What exactly are politicians supposed to do with such vague predictions?
Storch: Whether it ends up being one, two or three degrees, the exact figure is ultimately not the important thing. Quite apart from our climate simulations, there is a general societal consensus that we should be more conservative with fossil fuels. Also, the more serious effects of climate change won't affect us for at least 30 years. We have enough time to prepare ourselves.
SPIEGEL: In a SPIEGEL interview 10 years ago, you said, "We need to allay people's fear of climate change." You also said, "We'll manage this." At the time, you were harshly criticized for these comments. Do you still take such a laidback stance toward global warming?
Storch: Yes, I do. I was accused of believing it was unnecessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is not the case. I simply meant that it is no longer possible in any case to completely prevent further warming, and thus it would be wise of us to prepare for the inevitable, for example by building higher ocean dikes. And I have the impression that I'm no longer quite as alone in having this opinion as I was then. The climate debate is no longer an all-or-nothing debate -- except perhaps in the case of colleagues such as a certain employee of Schellnhuber's, whose verbal attacks against anyone who expresses doubt continue to breathe new life into the climate change denial camp.
SPIEGEL: Are there findings related to global warming that worry you?
Storch: The potential acidification of the oceans due to CO2 entering them from the atmosphere. This is a phenomenon that seems sinister to me, perhaps in part because I understand too little about it. But if marine animals are no longer able to form shells and skeletons well, it will affect nutrient cycles in the oceans. And that certainly makes me nervous.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Storch, thank you for this interview.
Interview conducted by Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter
Translated from the German by Ella Ornstein
___
Conclusion: The Emotional Appeal to the "Phenomena" of Global Warming Proven to be Minimal if Non-Existent At Best Is Comical and Thus Will Be Lampooned and Paradied
Sadly, the ignorance of both Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter are apparent just it seems to be the case with so many members of the media who associate themselves as leftists as they attempt to debunk Dr. Storch's own scientifically-based opinions that he derived based upon mounds of empirical data as a result of the fruits of his research. I have never been one to deny that there exists the phenomena of climate change, nor have I ever stated that it was not inadvertently the result of the industrialization of mankind beginning with the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain during the 18th Century. I do, however, find it highly more probable that as with the climate patterns scientists have meticulously researched from gathering information available to them from the many millenia that it is a gradual series of changes in our atmosphere which fluctuates in opposite directions over time. For President Obama to act as he plans to will result in the further decimation of an already-crippled, whose unemployment rose in the past month to 7.6% after it had experienced a trend of gradual-but-slow decreases. He does not care, however, if it results in the losses of scores of American jobs; he is doing it "for our children."
In concluding this article, I am going to add yet two more videos. This first one, however, is courtesy of the satirical Comedy Central cartoon we know through pop culture as South Park. Though he is a child of questionable virtue, my favorite character on the show on the rare occasions I do watch is Eric Cartman. My three favorite episodes, in fact, had little to no political or social satire in them, but were strictly comedic. Those episodes were the one where aliens give Cartman an anal probe, in which he farts constantly and kept on complaining about his "flaming gas"; the second being where Cartman take the "Beefcake 3000" muscle-building supplement to assist in growing more muscular, which of course backfires and he, instead, grows grossly obese; and finally, the episode where Cartman sings, "Kyles Mom is Bitch." As hilarious as the early episodes during the first couple of years of the series' run, which dates back as far as my freshman year in high school during the 1996-1997 school year, the show has over the past decade or so taken a different approach that has both the consequences of gained popularity as well as attracting to its creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, a great deal of controversy. To those gentlemen's credit, they have not cowered down before the tides of negative public opinion or less-than-favorable media publicity, as they have endeavored in tackling virtually ever social and political issue that has arisen in American during that period of time. The following, which is not exactly directed at either President Obama's spreading of the traditional "doom-and-gloom" fear tactics, does speak to the comparable comical levels of hysteria conservative-libertarians have observed out of their liberal political counterparts for decades now.
It is therefore with great pleasure that I present to you a clip from South Park's episode where the city's public officials grapple with the daunting task of alerting the public and dealing with the problem of the newest menace to the town's society: the rise of the infamous "Man-Bear Pig"!
Lastly, this is the finding by Weather Channel founder John Coleman, who declares that "as a scientist, I know global warming doesn't really exist" :
(Above: John Coleman, Part One)
(Above: John Coleman, Part Two)
(Above: John Coleman, Part Three)
(Above: John Coleman, Part Four)
No comments:
Post a Comment