Nov 20 2008
The Pet Rock Presidency?
What kind of President will Obama be? We only have vague and conflicting impressions because his statements to date appear to be incoherent (at best) on a range of subjects. For example, he wants to eradicate al-Qaeda but run from Iraq. If we left Iraq and focused on the tribal regions of Pakistan, where does Obama think al-Qaeda might go for sanctuary? We really can’t afford to be playing whack-a-mole with terrorists.
The other incoherent thing he has been babbling on about is Global Warming, making apocalyptic claims that defy all reality:
The ‘science is beyond dispute, and the facts are clear’. Yes the science is clear. We are in a serious global cooling phase which even scientist associated with the alarmist UN’s IPCC predict will last a decade or more. Yes, the data over the last decade have proven ALL of the IPCC climate models 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.
But the sea levels are rising (on TV, not in the real world) storms are getting stronger (but they aren’t since the last two hurricane seasons are at a decades low intensity) and there is increased famine.
Well …. science shows that warmer global temperatures reduce famine as more crops can be grown for longer periods over greater ranges of latitude. In fact, models show global warming should reverse the worst area of famine on the globe, south of the Sahara Desert in Africa:
Global warming could significantly increase rainfall in Saharan Africa within a few decades, potentially ending the severe droughts that have devastated the region, a new study suggests.
The discovery was made by climate experts at the Royal Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, the Netherlands, who used a computer model to predict changes in the Sahel region – a wide belt stretching from the Atlantic to the horn of Africa that includes Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti.
Global warming will heat the land more than the sea, leading to changes in air pressure and weather. When the Netherlands team simulated this effect and combined it with warming caused by the expected rises in greenhouse gas emissions between 1980 and 2080, they found Sahel rainfall in the July to September period jumped 1-2mm a day.
Some scientists suspected that global warming might increase rainfall in the region, causing the so-called greening of the Sahara, but these are the biggest predicted increases so far.
So what is the pattern we are starting to see here for President-elect Obama? Well, it seems to mirror the Clinton model. The man who promised change is filling his cabinet with liberal democrat retreads. He is a Kool-Aid swilling liberal who wants to push the country left. Â He is not being bold, he is seeing what can be poll tested successfully. He is the man of fad. Whatever is popular he is for, whatever is not he claims no position.
With the country still a post 9-11 country when it comes to al-Qaeda it is no surprise Obama claims he will eradicate al-Qaeda, especially in the face of threats by its number 2 leader Ayman al-Zawahiri:
A statement purporting to be from the second-in-command of Islamic militant network al-Qaeda has called on Muslims to harm “criminal” America.
In the message, Ayman al-Zawahiri is heard accusing President-elect Barack Obama of betraying his Muslim roots.
He also likens him to a “house slave” – who had chosen to align himself with the “enemies” of Islam.
Mr Obama has said stamping out al-Qaeda “once and for all” will be a top priority during his administration.
On Sunday, he said capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden was “critical” to US security.
Obama talks big, but his endless efforts to surrender Iraq to al-Qaeda showed he was not really serious about destroying al-Qaeda. A few years back he tested the political winds and saw Iraq was unpopular so he went incoherent on national security in order to maximize his personal adoration. He cried for the end of a hopeless war. Then things turned around and now the nation sees Iraq as a victory. What will Obama do? Will he break the hearts of his liberal base and go against public opinion?
Obama doesn’t see the trap he is setting up for himself because he is sure he is doing all this brilliantly and no one can trip him up. He has very little room for error as the economy continues to tank. Way too many of his voters bought into the fad idea that Obama was going to bring on Nirvana, that he was the Chosen One.
Clinton was egotistical and naive too when he started his first term. When he went into office he was going to show off that dazzling intellect everyone was drooling about (this year it is tingly legs). After the disaster in Somalia, his political near-death experience of the WTC I bombing (hiding the fact this was an act of war on American under the mirage of a criminal investigation and trial) and Hillary’s Health Care blunder Clinton finally learned the limits of Presidential power and why you need a cadre of leaders around you who know the hidden land mines of each area of government.
Obama cannot afford to lose his messianic image. The wrath of the naive voter who doesn’t get what was promised is swift and brutal – just look at Bush and the far right when they did not get all of what they wanted. Â Obama has to face land mines overseas in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere (see here for a good overview of the real al-Qaeda and Islamo Fascist threat). The threat of terrorism is real and they are gunning for the new President.
I think the best indication of how dumb Obama could be is how he is blissfully unaware of what will happen if he imposes liberal policies on top of an ailing economy. He is a Kool-Aid guzzling liberal. His sheltered life and lack of real world experience has not given him the experience to understand the real world, he sees things through a lens not unlike the mentality seen on network TV shows.
For example, our economy is in shambles and the Messiah wants to make the mythical rising waters recede and cool an already cooling planet:
“At its core, it’s very simple – we need a price on carbon,” said David Crane, chief executive officer of NRG Energy, another Climate Action Partnership member. “We own coal-fired power plants. That’s what we do for a living. We’ve been developing low- or no-carbon technologies as we look to the future. … But again, we need a price on carbon, because it’s not cheap.”
Obama’s four-minute, videotaped speech largely repeated elements of his energy plan from the campaign trail, saying the nation must cut greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.
It is almost laughable. CO2 levels have been on the rise for 10 years, and the planet has been cooling over that same decade. The last time we had a record warm year was 1998 – when Bill Clinton was in office fighting impeachment! The current year is more reminiscent of 1995, right before the Clinton-Dole election year and when the GOP took over Congress.
Look, the only bright light in our economy is energy. Consumer prices fell in October (one month) by an amount not seen in 60 years:
The Consumer Price Index plunged 1.0 percent in October, its biggest drop since the Labor Department began monthly records in 1947. Core prices, excluding food and energy items, fell 0.1 percent — the first fall in more than a quarter of a century as prices for gasoline and all energy-related products fell.
It was all due to the lowered cost of energy. But Obama plans to go ahead and start taxing energy so that we will price ourselves out of certain energy solutions, which just happen to be incredibly popular at the moment. What is middle class American supposed to do with their oil heating system – convert it to nuclear power?Â
Even if things went well on the economy it would be well into next year before we cleared the trouble. But things are not going well, and more and more people are going to get financially squeezed or ruined without any price increases on energy. Obama correctly sees “Green” as the next big media driven fad. But fads are just that, fads. As we see our tax dollars going to lousy businesses, executive and union jobs which pay too much in salary and benefits, to financial institutions that got rich off bad loans, people are going to start to get angrier and angrier.
And just wait until they see more taxes on energy, no drop in CO2 (because our portion of the global CO2 pool is miniscule) and global cooling continuing despite the CO2 levels not shrinking. And when crops cannot be grown at today’s levels due to the cooling there will be real outrage at the cost of food, food shortages and famine. Â Obama (and too many other conservatives and moderates) have bought into the global warming myths (even 10 years after it stopped warming). Their pride and ego will not let them admit they were wrong, so we all get to pay for their crazy ideas on the latest fad and bring more pain to the average American and the poorest among us.
Obama’s pattern is becoming clear: he looks for popular positions and tries to push liberal policies through these fads. Some fads allow him to be openly liberal (Climate Change) and others he has to hide his liberal views under a smoke screen (Iraq victory). But Obama is Clinton 2.0. And that is going to really damage the democrats, because fool me once shame on you, fool me twice – shame on me. Fads are no way to govern.Â
Climate change denial?
We don’t deny climate change. The climate is changing right now.
It’s getting colder. In fact it’s freezing outside right now. Brrrr.
That very slight warming trend had it’s peak and now for
entirely natural reasons, the planet is getting back to it’s cold phase.
We should try to burn as much carbon as possible,
in fact we should convert all our electricity production that uses
gas to coal. Carbon dioxide is a very very weak greenhouse gas,
but it might help a little.
There’s this thing about propaganda, you can’t say it’s getting hotter
when it’s actually getting colder. Well you can but you look stupid.
I, for one, will insist upon and defend my freedom to burn carbon fuels
and live as good a lifestyle as I can afford.
If my government starts to make my life too miserable, I’ll move
somewhere more sensible and buy a 70s Olds 88 and keep the
pedal to the metal. I call it “saving the planet”.
It’s more than obvious that any failed Obama promise or difficult situation which continues in spite of the healing presence of the Messiah will be blamed on the Bush administration. Naturally, facts will be of no importance. The arrogance and outright criminality on display in the coming 4 years will make that of the Clinton administration seem non-existent by comparison. Rule by presidential fiat will become the norm. And of course, no one in the MSM will have the slightest problem with the trampling the Constitution is about to undergo. What a tragedy a great nation and once free people are about to endure. God willing, enough people passionate about the preservation of freedom will act decisively when the time comes.
Amen to that OldPuppyMax
My suggestion is get your female family members fitted for their Burqas, because it’s gonna happen…
Birdalone:
but not much longer due to the strange emphasis on climate change denial and opposition to stem cell research.
bird, I don’t want to be argumentative, but I think you mean “man-made climate change” if so, please for the record just give all of us just one single bit of credible evidence that the climate change has anything to do with human activity. Please, just one.
and I think you’ll find that AJ has no problem with ASCR, just ESCR. If you really think killing humans for research is a good idea, please tell us why and list one, just one single thing good that has come from ESCR. Please, just one.
dave m:
“convert all our electricity production that uses
gas to coal. ”
and “”defend my freedom to burn carbon fuels””
It might come as a surprise to you to learn that the element that is burning in gas and coal are exactly the same; Carbon.
In fact I defy you to name a fuel that ‘burns’ that is not carbon.
uh, please, only one.
I will concede there are a few elements, such as Magnesium that ‘burn’ but are not fuels in the conventional sense.
Redteam – I am not a scientist. I have observed a definite warming of about five degrees Fahrenheit in New York City and Western Massachusetts, where I have spent most of the last 39 years. My apartment is at the highest elevation of New York City, but I still cannot live there six months out of the year without A/C. My house is in the Berkshire hills, so I do not need A/C here, yet.
Whatever is causing it, I am a climate refugee, but also invested longterm if the seas do rise or a Cat5 hurricane hits the Northeast again like it did in 1938.
Just seems a good idea to stop overloading the atmosphere with CO2 and methane. I am NOT a rabid environmentalist, and think Waxman is going to go overboard. I tend to believe that renewables for home use are valid, and T. Boone Pickens’ plan to use natural gas for trucking and buses is a very good idea. NYC already does that with their buses.
I also believe the U.S. should be pursuing deepwater drilling off the continental shelf, and eliminating the import tariff on Brazilian ethanol because I’d rather be spending USD in Brazil than Venezuela. I think corn ethanol subsidies are a waste.
Today, I read in the local paper about SunEthanol, now Qteros. Seems the Q microbe discovered near a local reservoir by a UMass researcher in 1998 converts cellulose into ethanol without use of enzymes or need for heat. Pilot facility set for 2009, demonstration faciltiy in 2010, and commercial production in 2011 – from wood waste, cornstalks, and other cellulosic biomass. Investors are BP, Rockefeller family venture capital fund Venrock, Battery Ventures, and Soros.
As Sarah Palin tried to say, national security is tied into energy security. I figure if Brazil can run their cars on 100% sugar ethanol, we should be working on cellulosic ethanol.
As to the dispute between ESCR and ASCR, I have no opinion because I come from a belief system where life officially begins eight days after live birth. Half the global population has belief systems that do not even ask this question, mostly in Asia, which is why ESCR is moving to Asia.
Both my parents had Parkinson’s disease.
The role of the Federal government in any of this is questionable but like many Americans, I do not not think anyone’s belief system should be imposed on the rest of us.
Arguing about whether climate change is manmade or not, or whether Federal financing of ESCR is valid are two of the reasons Republicans are a shrinking political force.
Focus on what government should do, what it should cost, and get it done efficiently.
I really wish I had not wound up in NY and MA since college – it was by accident, and now I am ready to find another country, with a parliamentary system so I do not have to endure these two party coalitions that fail everyone.
Oh, I also believe the U.S. should pursue the kind of nuclear pwoer that is used in Japan and France, but the U.S. cannot function like those two very top-down centralized political decision making.
A consortium developed barge technology to tansform waste to energy while desalinating water to service the North Sea oil platforms. Giuliani refused to even listen when he was mayor, and neither did Bloomberg.
Failure of political courage.
Funny “Pet Rock” was mentioned.
Was thinking for months now, how Carbon Credits, Caps & Trade, etc… resemble the Pet Rock. Just a useless gimmick to make money.
The difference is the forcing of the purchase of Pet Rocks and what.
whre and how, the profits will be used. Scary.
AJ:
“For example, he wants to eradicate al-Qaeda but run from Iraq. If we left Iraq and focused on the tribal regions of Pakistan, where does Obama think al-Qaeda might go for sanctuary? We really can’t afford to be playing whack-a-mole with terrorists.”
That seems like a somewhat strange statement. I will admit that I didn’t know much about the Muslim faith before 9/11, or even before we invaded Iraq. I was aware of the terms “Sunni” and “Shia”, but I didn’t really know what they meant. But, I think it’s fairly clear that some Muslims have pretty serious issues with other Muslims.
Your statement above seems to imply that if al-Qaeda was forced from Pakistan, they would then run to Iraq. As such, what leads you to believe that Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda would be welcomed with open arms by the ruling Iraqi government?
Didn’t one of the turning points of the war happen when the Iraqi people turned en masse upon the new “al-Qaeda in Iraq” group that popped up after the invasion, and basically wiped them off the map?
If I am incorrect about where you think they would then run to, I apologize. But if so – where do you think is the most likely destination for them? (I’m fairly certain Iran has no love for al-Qaeda either.)
Birdalone: a little chemistry. All fuels burned in automobiles is one or some combination of hydrocarbons. LNG(liquified natural gas) is a hydrocarbon, natural gas is a hydrocarbon. Ethanol is one of the more expensive forms of hydrocarbons plus it has the negative effect of raising food costs because of so much sugar or corn being used for ethanol instead of food. Cellulose converted to ethanol is just another hi priced hydrocarbon. Every one of these fuels result in CO2 as a byproduct. And that is in the proportion of one molecule of CO2 for each C atom in the fuel. So regardless of the fuel type, for each equivalent amount of energy released, you get a proportional amount of CO2. CO2 clearly has been shown to have no effect on global warming. For every degree hotter you are on the average in NY, some place is a degree cooler on average.
Typically, in standard gasoline, the hydrocarbons consist of carbons chains which are 5-10 carbon atoms long.
Ethanol is a straight-chain alcohol, and its molecular formula is C2H5OH.
Methane is a chemical compound with the molecular formula CH4
all of these result in CO2 emissions.
As for having no opinion on ESCR vs ASCR, then why are you going to quit reading strata because of his opinion, which is, why kill humans for research when not one single thing has come from it to date vs why not use ASCR which has been proven very beneficial in things such as Parkinsons.
I liked this sentence “if the seas do rise or a Cat5 hurricane hits the Northeast again like it did in 1938.” Are you saying the weather is not yet back to being as hot as it was in 1938? what was causing the global warming back then?
So you may as well hang around, most posts are very interesting here.
RedTeam, I understand that ethanol affects the performance and efficiency of the car. It leaves the engine dirty and slows down the pickup of the car. Once people realize this, they end up going back to gas. I also understand that ethanol generates more pollution than gas.
Plus ethanol eats plastic.
So…why are we still pushing for more ethanol?
Redteam – cellulose-based ethanol is about energy security. Look at what Brazil has accomplished by NOT having to import foreign oil.
By focussing the argument on whether or not global warming is man-made, you (this Republican Party) lose credibility. Even Sarah Palin got it right – it’s happening in Alaska, so what do we do moving forward regardless of what is causing it.
The Hurricane of 1938 was an aberration of history, therefore no reason it cannot happen again regardless of longterm or shortterm climate patterns. Only hurricane I ever read about that moved at 50 mph. It is the PATH of 1938 that was so devastating. Landfall at Westhampton, NY and then at CT/RI border, yet the storm surge up the Connecticut River flooded towns as far north as New Hampshire.
You guys should pray for another one as one way of losing a few deep blue states. Downtown Providence RI had 28 feet of water.
The current GOP should be aware that too many voters think THIS GOP rejects ALL science because of the time-wasting discussions of climate change and ESCR. As a result, now we have Waxman et al in charge for at least two years. Thanks a lot.
50% of voters in New York and Massachusetts did NOT BOTHER TO VOTE this year because they do not think they have any alternative to liberal Democrats because this GOP has too many litmus tests.
May Coolidge (most under-rated president in our history) and Eisenhower haunt all of you who fight unnecessary battles based on belief systems not shared by a majority.
Birdalone: The average temp of the world was highest in 1935 than any other year in the last one hundred years, so until it at least gets back up to that temp, it’s kinda hard to claim the planet is getting warmer, and even then it’s hard to prove that man has anything to do with it seeing as there is at least 3 times as many humans on the planet as in 1935.
As to Brazil, so they don’t import oil? you said: Look at what Brazil has accomplished by NOT having to import foreign oil. You might want to check on that, in 2007 they imported 173,000 bbls per day and in 2008 they are averaging 215,000 bbls per day. The number of Autos in Brazil is approx 27 million, the number in the US is approx 250 million. Those numbers alone assure that the % of motor fuel as ethanol is not and never will be significant. As Brazil continues to increase the amount of ethanol consumed, why is the import of oil increasing?
and you said: The current GOP should be aware that too many voters think THIS GOP rejects ALL science because of the time-wasting discussions of climate change and ESCR.
remarkable. I think it is the lefties that are not looking at science, but emotion. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence of man-made global warming, in fact, most science clearly says it is NOT true. I will continue to hold that point of view, regardless of who it ticks off.
The reasons the GOP is losing ‘power’ is that too many conservatives are not practicing conservative principles. It’s hard to make a case that McCain wasn’t just as liberal on important issues as Obama is. Border security, global warming, drilling in ANWR, amnesty for illegals, Nomination of judges, the bailout. The conservatives in congress spend like drunken sailors.
Lurker
I’m certainly not pushing ethanol, in fact, I’m opposed to it. It increases the cost of food and causes food shortages. there is no shortage of fossil fuels in the US, just a shortage of development of our natural resources. We should be generating electricity with nuclear, hydro, solar, wind and coal. Save the natural gas and oil for automobiles. Presto, no oil imports from outside N. America.
Redteam will be finding his Conservative Party a permanent minority with such defensive rationales. With zero tolerance for compromise and consensus, your definition of conservative will keep losing. Spend your future throwing darts at your Waxman poster.
Brazil’s conversion of their auto fleet to flex-fuel is still in process – now at 50% ethanol consumption. Conversion of buses is still in early stage. Brazil has to import the grade of oil for diesel for trucks. But, they export more than enough of other products, including ethanol, to offset oil imports. And Petrobras deepwater drilling finds make it look like Brazil will be oil self-sufficient in a few more years – or able to trade their grade for whatever grade they do not produce. A country with a plan for energy security that started thirty years ago.
Birdalone, so the way to preserve the conservatives is to have them all adopt the liberal policies and goals? That’s why they are disappearing, they’re too busy adopting liberalism to practice conservatism.
Didn’t I quote you correctly? didn’t you say Brazil does not import foreign oil? Didn’t I tell you what their imports are?
I think you misunderstood the 50% consumption number in Brazil. They just reached the point where 50% of their autos burn mixtures of gasoline and ethanol. Of those 50% most of them burn a mixture in the range 20-25%. Quite a difference.
Redteam: I learned years ago there is no point in trying to have a dialog with a bully who has to have the last word, who has to try to discredit any other idea by focussing on tangential details.
You win. You can remove your earplugs now. Bully away.
Birdalone, your real problem is, you were making a case for something that was untrue and when it was pointed out to you that you didn’t know s**t from shinola, you turn tail and run.
(man made or natural global warming and ESCR being those things you were especially wrong on, well and you sure didn’t show any brilliance in your knowledge of Brazil and ethanol)
Your point was that for conservatism to survive they had to give up conservatism and adopt liberalism.. once it is all liberalism there will be no conservatism. some conservatives refuse to believe that the answer is to convert to liberalism. Will I concede that middle of the road is better for the majority? probably, but both far out sides aren’t willing to concede. No one seems to be calling for far out lefties to change, just far out conservatives.
Just the record, I am about 40 degrees to the right (90) being far right.) so don’t try to paint me as far out.
Regardless of labels, ideological bullies are at best rigidly intolerant, at worst, psychopaths.
Bullies are ALWAYS insecure.
Thanks for the evidence Redteam.
Four different data sets (NASA GISS, RSS MSU, UAH AMSU, and HADLEY) show global cooling. This includes NASA’s 30 years of 300,000 daily, satellite global temperature readings.
Several analytical studies of large amounts of data illuminate a threat of global cooling. Since 1998 global temperatures have cooled to 1970’s levels. The 25-30 year cool phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Decadal Oscillation have started. We are 11,000 years into an interglacial period that averages 10,000 years. These concurrent cooling trends could signal the beginning of a long overdue Maunder Minimum, an event that occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.
Current declining global temperatures correspond to the declining solar activity phase of the 11 year solar cycle. Isotopes created by cosmic rays and other evidence provide correlations between climate and solar/cosmic ray flux over a period of hundreds of millions of years. By 2020 the sun will be starting its weakest cycle of the past two centuries.
So what are the proper responses to global cooling?
Reference: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation – http://www.wyfb.org/
The cost of fighting global warming (GW) is growing. The EPA issued a notice of rules to regulate automobile greenhouse emissions under the Clean Air Act. This automatically initiates other provisions including requiring a permit from any enterprise that emits more than 100 tons of a regulated pollutant per year.
According to the Agriculture Department this regulation applies to any ranch or farm with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs. That’s 99% of dairies, 90% beef producers, and 95% of hog producers. At a proposed rate of $43.75 per ton of emitted greenhouse gasses that is $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per beef, and $20 per pig.
The Wyoming Farm Bureau has told its members that the EPA comment deadline is Nov. 28.
Look for all dairy, beef and pig production to move to other countries with nor reduction in global greenhouse emissions.