31 May

If lying caused global warming, Obama would already have cooked this planet

                                       

obama-bullshit-decoder-ring

Continuing his scaremongering about the end of the world vis-à-vis global warming, Barack Obama decided once again decided to prove that facts mean absolutely nothing to him.

President Barack Obama said the curbs on carbon emissions to combat climate change that his administration plans to unveil next week will also help address a growing threat to the nation’s health.

“We don’t have to choose between the health of our economy and the health of our children,” he said in his weekly address, which was recorded yesterday at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington. “As president, and as a parent, I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that’s beyond fixing.”

Bloomberg adds:

Obama recorded the address after meeting with children who are being treated at the hospital for asthma, which is aggravated by air pollution. As part of the campaign to build support for the rules, which are to be unveiled by the EPA, he plans to talk about the initiative during a conference call with the American Lung Association and other public health groups.

Scientists and physicians increasingly link a rise in allergies, asthma and other respiratory diseases to the elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by climate change.

Bullspit.

News you can use:

– Asthma attacks are precipitated by LOW levels of CO2 which cause bronchoconstriction.

– Nasal allergies may be controlled with CO2.

Now for Obama’s Grande Stupidité:

President Obama warned Friday that storms like Hurricane Sandy will become more frequent as climate change intensifies.

While being briefed by emergency response officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) headquarters, Obama urged the public to prepare now for this year’s hurricane season.

“The changes we’re seeing in our climate means that, unfortunately, storms like Sandy could end up being more common and more devastating,” Obama said.

We should all hope that all hurricanes that make US landfall would be the same strength as Sandy.

The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale rates hurricanes on a scale from 1-5, 5 being the most severe. Sandy came ashore as a Category 1 hurricane. Category 1 is the weakest of hurricanes.

The reason Sandy caused the damage it did is because of something called syzygy.

Higher-than-normal tides — tied to a full moon — have added to Hurricane Sandy’s coastal flooding threat.

As you might expect the explanation is a matter of simple astronomy, not any kind of lunacy associated in folklore with a full moon.

“It’s not the moon’s phase that matters, but the position,” says astronomer Phil Plait on his Bad Astronomy website.

During a full moon, the moon is essentially lined up on the opposite side of the Earth from the sun (this is what allows the near surface of the moon to be illuminated in its full splendor) and the gravitational tug of war between those two intensifies at this time, resulting in higher tides.

This kind of alignment of astronomical objects is called a syzygy (SIH-zhih-jhee) and sailors have understood the effect for centuries. So, for Hurricane Sandy, the higher-than-normal tides that threaten to add to an 11-foot storm surge feared for lower Manhattan are simply a matter of bad timing.

The high waters of Sandy were a caused directly because Sandy came ashore during a full moon and a high tide.

Period.

Flashback:

NASA Study Predicts More Severe Storms With Global Warming 8.30.07

NASA scientists have developed a new climate model that indicates that the most violent severe storms and tornadoes may become more common as Earth’s climate warms

Fact:

It’s been 3100 days since a Category 3 hurricane made US landfall.

Fact:

Tornado activity hits 60-year low in 2013.

Fact:

NOAA predicts near-normal or below-normal 2014 Atlantic hurricane season.

Ever see what happens to plant life in an enriched CO2 environment?

It’s a thing of beauty.

Barack Obama is either a complete idiot and stupid as a brick wall or he is a liar of galactic proportions. If he didn’t know of the relationship between asthma and CO2 he should have known before he opened his mouth. He’s the goddam President. It’s his responsibility to know. It’s the particulates in the air that instigate asthma and allergies, not the CO2. But then, there’s not the money in particulates that there is in CO2. It’s also his responsibility to know the facts about Hurricane Sandy and present them honestly, but Obama is not an honest person.

DrJohn’s Law.

Whatever Obama says, the opposite is going to be true and more than ever you are an idiot to believe anything Barack Obama says. Let’s add something to filter through your Barack Obama Bullshit Decoder Ring. When Obama talks about your health, it’s not about your health, it’s all about taxes.

So is Obama an idiot or a liar?

The answer is both.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, ClimateGate, Disasters, Environment, Global Warming, Politics, propaganda bureau, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, May 31st, 2014 at 11:22 am
| 621 views

37 Responses to If lying caused global warming, Obama would already have cooked this planet

  1. Randy says: 1

    Everyone of them are lying. Now the polar bear expert confesses that he lied after poor Gore won so many awards using the polar bear dying on the ice shard! http://americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html

    ReplyReply
  2. Ditto says: 2

    If lying caused global warming, Obama would already have cooked this planet

    There’s so much hot air in this administration they are like a convection oven.

    The U.S. has been extraordinarily fortunate lately: we have not been witness to the fury of a major hurricane (category 3 or higher) landfall since October 2005 when Wilma hit southwest Florida as a Category 3 storm. (Other countries have not had such good fortune these past few years. )

    Since the hyper-active 2005 season, the U.S. has had just six Category 1 and 2 hurricane landfalls: Humberto (TX), Ike (TX), Gustav (LA), Dolly (TX), Irene (NC), and Isaac (LA). Sandy was not technically a hurricane at its NJ landfall, and if it were, it would have been a Category 1 storm.

    Weather happens. Opinion: Time to get real about climate change

    No scientist denies that climate changes. Geology professor Tim Patterson of Carleton University explains: “Climate is and always has been variable. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually.” Scientists such as Patterson deny they deny climate change; they are denial deniers.

    If anyone could rationally be labelled climate-change deniers, it is those who hold the absurd view that our climate was relatively tranquil until the arrival of humans. They seem to not know that half of North America was under a vast ice sheet only 22,000 years ago. As Patterson has written, “Ten thousand years ago, temperatures rose as much as six degrees C in a decade, 100 times faster than the past century’s 0.6 degrees C warming.”

    The “deniers” label is an attempt to equate those who question political correctness on climate to Holocaust deniers. It is designed to frighten dissenters into silence. Besides having no place in civilized discourse, it is a fundamental error in reasoning, an ad hominem logical fallacy, against the man instead of the idea.

    Ad hominem attacks are only one of the fallacies poisoning the climate debate. Campaigners regularly use guilt by association, straw-man arguments and appeals to emotion, motive, and authority, to divert the public from considering the arguments of skeptics. Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, has even received death threats for his outspoken candour. Ball says: “I didn’t choose to be a climate skeptic for my health.”

    ReplyReply
  3. another vet says: 3

    They say this is a crisis and a national security issue. In the last few weeks we’ve been told that LAX will be under water as will Miami, Charleston, and one other city whose name I forget. Some of these events are to happen around 2030. It’s time to put them on the spot publicly. If all of this is true as they vehemently claim it is, there is no possible way we will be able to change the climate that fast to stop it. For one thing, it will require the cooperation of China who doesn’t show any inclination to adopt green technology any time soon given their recent $400 billion dollar oil deal with Russia. Millions of American lives are at stake. Sounds like justification for a war. Obama should be flat out asked if he is willing to go to war with China in order to force them to go “green”. That will tell us exactly how committed they are to their cause and how much they actually believe what they say. Given that our all volunteer military is not big enough to fight China (and possibly Russia) reinstatement of the draft will be required. It’ll be interesting to see if the lefties out there are going to be willing to put their lives or the lives of their children on the line so China puts up wind farms.

    ReplyReply
  4. This one says: 4

    Fact: You’re an idiot if you still are a climate change denier. And you’re an idiot if you’d rather do little or nothing about it so as not to inconvenience yourself but you’d let your grandchildren suffer.

    Again…write a letter to your descendants about your views. Put it in a safe place. I’m betting future generations of your family with think of you as the family fool.

    Watch Cosmos this week:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k

    ReplyReply
  5. Buffalobob says: 5

    What difference does it make? The man believes in perpetual motion.

    ReplyReply
  6. Randy says: 6

    If anyone is really interested in understanding a real scientist using correct scientific principles, read this.
    http://climateguy.blogspot.ca/2014/05/dr-jean-louis-pinault-explains-his-idea.html

    ReplyReply
  7. john says: 7

    The Catholic Church seems to now be one of the good Doctkor’s despised groups. Previously the Pope had installed enough solar panels in the Vatican to have the whole country/city carbon neutral. Now all the American Catholic Bishops are also taking a strong stand against carbon pollution. “At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God’s creation and the one human family.”
    -U.S. Bishops
    http://catholicclimatecovenant.org/catholic-teachings/bishops/
    Can climate change deniers be considered mainstream ? or should they be classed as fringe?

    ReplyReply
  8. retire05 says: 8

    @john:

    “At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God’s creation and the one human family.”
    -U.S. Bishops

    A statement made in a very lengthy comment over 13 years ago.

    Never mind the link you provided is comprised of radical, left wing so-called Catholics who could not find their way out of a religious paper bag.

    Can climate change deniers be considered mainstream ? or should they be classed as fringe?

    No one denies climate change. The climate changes with each season, from hot to cold, and back again. What we say is that you have no solid proof, or any documentation that has not been doctored by those like Mann, that proves the earth is continuing to warm. As a matter of fact, it seems the earth is not warming, and hasn’t been for over a decade.

    But by changing the terminology, from global warming to climate change, the far left can continue to push their agenda of global control. And lemmings like you continue to forfeit your God-given rights to follow right along.

    ReplyReply
  9. Nanny G says: 9

    @john: John, there’s nothing wrong with people using their own money to put up solar panels on their own property.
    In Europe the power companies do penalize them with higher rates when they have to add to their own power from ”the grid.”
    But so be it.
    And I’d love to see solar freakin’ roadways become the new driveway and parking lot material for arenas and malls.
    What Obama is all about is a next generation of crony capitalists pretending to build solar panels and hire people while they simply enrich themselves at the taxpayers’ expense.
    Do we really need to put coal power out of business so these friends of O’s plans look financially feasible?
    Do we need more Solyndras?
    Apparently that’s the only way.
    O is making his ”enemies” look bad so his friends appear to be good in comparison.
    Sad.

    ReplyReply
  10. Kraken says: 10

    @john:

    Can climate change deniers be considered mainstream ? or should they be classed as fringe?

    It’s interesting that a drone would cite the words of a religious figure to support AGW mythology.

    Only religion has infidels, heathens, heretics, blasphemers, unbelievers, deniers, etc. Not science.

    Science has skeptics. In fact true science is founded on essential skepticism. Without it, you don’t have a science.

    Besides, AGW mythology has been wholly discredited.

    Global Warming stopped 17 years ago

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html

    However even that is suspect considering all of the scandals which have rocked the science,

    http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/

    95% of the climate models are wrong

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/114474-just-settled-science-95-global-warming-models-wrong/

    The 97% consensus figure often cited is bogus, nevermind that true science is never dependent on consensus anyway,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024

    And many scientific papers are merely computer generated gobbledygook

    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/feb/26/how-computer-generated-fake-papers-flooding-academia

    So the Collective is going to have imagine a new pseudoscience to help the collection of 3rd world dictators at the U.N. weaken America and plunder its treasure.

    I hear ocean species depletion might be the next bit thing in pseudoscience fashion.

    ReplyReply
  11. Randy says: 11

    AGW is a huge scam. The Aussies have figured that out. Eastern Europe has also figured it out, too. Only socialists who want to spread the wealth around using carbon credits, people like Al Gore and Michael Mann who profit from AGW scares and those who are connected to politicians like Obama who give them subsidies and cushy contracts.

    ReplyReply
  12. UpChuck.Liberals says: 12

    Dr. John, thank you, great piece and awesome video. Sadly those that are getting too much self-produced methane from their rectal-cranial inversion won’t appreciate it.

    ReplyReply
  13. Smorgasbord says: 13

    @john: #6
    It would be interesting to go back to when the EXPERTS said global warming started, find out how high the oceans were along both of our coasts, then compare that height to where they are today. If global warming exists, then the oceans should have started to rise from that date to now. If they haven’t, then the whole thing is a lie. Does anybody have that info?

    ReplyReply
  14. Smorgasbord says: 14

    Whatever a king says becomes law. The only problem as obama sees it is that he hasn’t been crowned yet, but he knows it will come, so he can act like a king now.

    Anyone who has ever heard obama without his TOTUS, or paper in front of him, knows that he just babbles on and doesn’t say much of anything. One question I would like to ask obama is, “Can you remember the last time you told the truth?” I wonder what he would say.

    It’s his responsibility to know.

    A king doesn’t have to know anything.

    ReplyReply
  15. Smorgasbord says: 15

    @This one: #4

    Again…write a letter to your descendants about your views. Put it in a safe place. I’m betting future generations of your family with think of you as the family fool.

    If people would have done this 30 year ago, and the ancestors are reading it today, they would think that THEIR ancestors are the idiots, because they would have been warning about global COOLING. That is what the politicians were warning back then. I’m old enough to remember it.

    The family fool is the one who keeps trying to convince people of something that does not exist. Wouldn’t the people living right on the east and west coast notice if their water level has risen any since they were a kid, and grew up there? Wouldn’t ANYBODY who lives ANYWHERE in the world that lives right at the edge of the oceans notice ANY rise since the time they and their ancestors lived there. I haven’t hear of any, have you?

    Show me anybody who can show me how the water level has risen where they live, and I can be convinced it is. If it is rising, and will rise many feet in a few years, why did Al Gore buy a house that is close enough to the ocean that it will be under water in a few years? With him warning about the oceans rising many feet, wouldn’t he want to be at least that many feet about that level.

    If you want to make a bunch of money, figure out how high the waters will rise, then buy land that begins at that level, then in a few years you will have waterfront property to sell. You could make billions.

    ReplyReply
  16. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  17. Jim S says: 16

    @This one:

    Fact: You’re an idiot if you still are a climate change denier. And you’re an idiot if you’d rather do little or nothing about it so as not to inconvenience yourself but you’d let your grandchildren suffer.

    So why then is it OK so saddle those same grandchildren with the massive debt that leftards are so fond of?

    ReplyReply
  18. Dc says: 17

    The entire AGW movement is a political/religious movement that has little to do with science or the scientific method. They discard what doesn’t support their predictions. They change hypothesis and adjust models after they are proven inaccurate and continue to insist they have been right all along.

    We we had weather events that did not fit their predictions or models…they never admitted they were off in their predictions, etc. They just came up with the phrase: “Weather, is not climate”. And anyone who would question them is a “climate denier”. Climate…by definition…is “weather” over “time”. So, yes..they are absolutely linked together…because today’s weather, IS an indicator (however, small) of tomorrow’s “climate”.

    I also do not know any “scientists” who would call C02…something necessary for life on this planet….a “pollutant” any more than they would call excess water…that causes drowning or flooding/etc….a “pollutant”.

    Having said all that…yes…we have weather. And I’m no scientist. But, the little I have studied…I know that there are MANY things that make up our weather and effect our environment. …beyond “us”…and always have been. There “are” things happening in our environment related to warming. The artic ice shelf is melting and running off into the sea. At the other end of the world…ice melt is not as much of an issue for sea level because the ice is mostly in water. (put some ice in a glass…fill it to the top..the let the ice melt….it doesn’t run over, because the water in ice state displaces the same amount of water as it does in a liquid state……that would be physics I believe?) We also have more ice growth there on land. The artic ice is on land…and the melt is running off into the ocean….which could raise the water level over time. How much time…they don’t know….but it WILL be offset by many other things (heat/evaporation, displacement, currents, etc).

    I have NO trouble accepting science or observable conditions. But, some of the CO2 driven theories and prediction it would seem to me have less to do with science, and more to do with politics…AND…money…and power. At least in terms of their goals. I have no trouble seeing that water and air patterns and warming in oceans, etc…can create conditions for all sorts of weather conditions..etc. But, their capability of predicting anything short term OR long term has been very poor. So, why suddenly…do they have this capability for long range predictions?

    If it was a “scientific forgone conclusion” that their theories and preductions were accurate…we’d all be underwater by now. And the fact that we “have” weather…and it “changes” is not some sort of scientific secret recently discovered by Mann and company.

    Finally, just look at it this way…taking it all into account….ask yourself a question: do you think weather can change over time? If the answer to that is yes…do you think there are limits as to how much the weather can change based on C02 levels? Becuase the “science” behind that…tells us….that there is just a smuch chance the earth can shrugg off these patterns and start a new cycle that will offset things…as there is that it won’t. The “GWA” are suggesting…that our weather will continue down this cycle of warming and will not counter cycle enough to offset the warming gains…and thus the earth will continue to warm.

    I think those who believe this should save a letter and open it later in life. I’ve already been through this….(ie., global cooling in the 70s leading to a new ice age). They were wrong. And reemerged with global warming. …now climate change.

    ReplyReply
  19. Redteam says: 18

    @This one:

    Fact: You’re an idiot

    “nuff said.’

    ReplyReply
  20. Jim S says: 19

    @Dc:
    Frozen water is actually less dense than liquid water. That’s why it floats. The arctic icecap is already floating… so if it melted, no change either way. The antarctic is different, because it sets on top of land, for a large part of it anyway. If it melted, seal levels would rise… by how much, I’m not sure… be a good math problem to estimate it… ;-)
    The global warming cultists (if they can call us “deniers”, we can call them “cultists”) seem to forget that where most of us are sitting now was under over a mile of ice just 15,000 years ago. All those cavemen driving SUVs really did a number on things. ;-)
    It’s also interesting that methane and water vapor are even more potent “greenhouse gasses” than CO2. Better not go back to horses, and keep the fuel cell powered electric cars off the streets. (they emit steam)

    ReplyReply
  21. Redteam says: 20

    @Kraken:

    Besides, AGW mythology has been wholly discredited.

    Global Warming stopped 17 years ago

    True Kraken, the climate changers are confused. The subject was global cooling until about 1980, then it changed to ‘global warming’, then when the climate started cooling again, they didn’t want to have to go backk to ‘global cooling’ so it became ‘climate change’. of course, the climate changes every season, so now they don’t have to be concerned about being correct. If they think they can predict what the average temp will be 10 years from now, let them try to predict tomorrow. I doubt they can get it within 2 degrees. I just love it when they come out with a hundred percent chance of rain and the sun shines all day. So accurate prediction of the weather is not a science. It’s only guessing.

    ReplyReply
  22. Kraken says: 21

    The arctic icecap is already floating… so if it melted, no change either way.

    Regardless, the arctic icecap has seen a 50% increase.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25383373

    “Weather, is not climate”

    Except for when it is apparently.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/global-warming-causes-lessmore-snow.html

    The subject was global cooling until about 1980

    I can remember the global cooling chicken littleism.

    http://omnologos.com/a-new-treasure-trove-of-1970s-global-cooling-articles/

    This was the letter that our ancestors wrote to us on their views on the matter, to paraphrase This One. Since the world hasn’t ended in a mediocre Roland Emmerich screenplay, who exactly appears to be the fool?

    ReplyReply
  23. Randy says: 22

    Here is a recent article that describes the mini-ice ages since the last major ice age. It give one a good idea that the climate is cyclic. Michael Mann ignored the last mini-ice age to make his data fit his theory and to not have to address cyclic climate changes. http://junkscience.com/2014/06/01/denis-avery-hits-one-deep/#more-58476

    ReplyReply
  24. Dc says: 23

    Yep, the largest greenhouse effect comes from water vapor (clouds). The one large contributor to warming is….wait for it…..the sun. Who would have thunk it? And beyond that…as far as math and science go…you can easily decrease your rate of warming trend in your model by nearly half…but simply using F instead of C for your calculations. (ex: a rise in temp from 15C to 17C is a aprox a 13% increase. Switching to F, a 59F to 62.6F change is aprox a 6% increase. )

    Jim,
    The other interesting calculation to take into account would be the amount of water evaporation off the ocean when temps increase. You don’t get billions of dollars and gov’s willing to hand over control over their economy….by claiming everything is gonna be ok.

    ReplyReply
  25. Smorgasbord says: 24

    @Dc: #17
    Let’s see how the global warming thing is going

    Antarctica set record of -135.8
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cold-dis-comfort-antarctica-set-record-1358

    Arctic ice caps grows by 29% in one year
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

    114 of 117 climate predictions were wrong
    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/

    Temperatures haven’t risen for 17 years
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

    Arctic sea ice up 50%
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/

    Weather stations placed near heat sources
    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/
    http://surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

    I just figured out who is responsible for the global warming scare: SPECULATORS. They figure that if they can convince people who live along the oceans that the water will soon cover their property, the speculators can buy up the property cheap, then sell it later on when global warming will be proven to be in error. It is a masterpiece of a plan.

    ReplyReply
  26. Smorgasbord says: 25

    @Jim S: #19
    You reminded me that many documentary type shows showed sea fossils at the top of mountains. Let’s not forget that large deserts were once jungles. Let’s also remember that the continents were once one continent, then split up, and ALL OF THEM are still moving apart. In fact, they are predicted to go to the opposite side of the Earth, then come back together again. It would be interesting to see how they look after they have smashed into each other as far as they can go.

    ReplyReply
  27. Redteam says: 26

    @Smorgasbord:

    who live along the oceans that the water will soon cover their property

    Or they could sell them houses on stilts and big boats.

    ReplyReply
  28. Smorgasbord says: 27

    @Redteam: #26
    For many years I have told myself that I want to live at least 30-40 feet above any river or stream, because there is always a chance of heavy rains flooding them, and the oceans have too much potential for tsunamis, and a lot of the land tends to wash away. If a person wants to live right at the edge of a water source, they shouldn’t expect me to pay for their damage.

    An easy way to prevent most flood damage is to pass a law that bans building residences and businesses in flood planes. Each city, county, and state has maps that show where flood planes are, but there is no law preventing developers from building in them. Before you buy any property, check to see if it is in a flood plane.

    I lived in a town that flooded, and the city manager showed us city employees on a map where the flood plane went right through the center of town, and that is where the water went.

    ReplyReply
  29. Nanny G says: 28

    @Smorgasbord: An easy way to prevent most flood damage is to pass a law that bans building residences and businesses in flood planes. Each city, county, and state has maps that show where flood planes are, but there is no law preventing developers from building in them.

    Ah, but here’s the rub.
    Cities, counties, states all used swampland and wetlands to cheaply put up colleges, hospitals, senior housing.
    I went to Long Beach State (now, UCLB) and learned it was built on both an earthquake fault AND a wetland! (Oh! AND an ancient Indian burial ground!)
    My mom almost bought a senior-only condo only to learn it was subject to deep flooding and that, during an earthquake its land liquifies! All the roads and condos simply sink and are later power hosed clean.
    It isn’t just the rich who live on beaches who are the problem.
    It is the poor and inexperienced who don’t read the fine print.
    After what these public entities have done in building in dangerous places, it would be very difficult for them to turn around and prevent others from doing the same.
    Let the buyer beware.

    ReplyReply
  30. FAITH7 says: 29

    Obama says: “As president, and as a parent, I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that’s beyond fixing.”

    This is why OFraud and those on the bandwagon are ‘irrelevant’.

    The list of damage the liberals, progressives and far left have imposed on ‘the children’ – ‘our children’ of the United States is more staggering then any pseudo ‘climate change’…that any normal (non-indoctrinated) person/child knows is another progressive fallacy especially, Especially – in the ‘context’ it is being used - which is just another Government power grab of (taxpayer money / and Government power imposed on citizens (the future ‘children’ /adults). In my opinion, they are ‘being set up’ for an even more oppressive ‘future’…

    Obama and his liberal-left-progressive-ideology inclusive of his willing minions and MSM Administration continues to spend spend spend SPEND the United States into oblivion….
    in the process “condemning” our “Children” and leaving to them Massive Debt and an economy that is so sick and in such poor health in other words – in shambles.

    The ‘future’ children will no doubt be more focused on their ‘struggle’ to just survive what our Government has done to “our Children”, and the ‘restrictions’ imposed on their lives. So indoctrinated into the ‘collective’ they will not have the individual intelligence to be able to fight back…against the government…

    And, I do include many many politicians from both sides of the isle who have jumped on this ‘bandwagon’… who’s hands are ‘dirty’ and have assisted in, instead of ‘fighting back’ at the absurdity of all these progressive / liberal scare tactics…the current one being ‘climate change’ – somehow being ‘our’ fault… laughable..

    ReplyReply
  31. Smorgasbord says: 30

    @Nanny G: #28

    Cities, counties, states all used swampland and wetlands to cheaply put up colleges, hospitals, senior housing

    .
    The places that are known trouble spots should be banned for building on. Also, if a building would be destroyed, it should not be rebuilt on the same spot.

    ReplyReply
  32. Smorgasbord says: 31

    @FAITH7: #29
    A good example of what is coming for America is to look at Germany after WW I. In the agreement, Germany was made to pay for the damage, and it was taxes to much that the economy tanked, and it went into a great recession. This eventually gave Hitler his chance to take over the country.

    ReplyReply
  33. Davol says: 32

    I’ve always got to point out how cleaver this all is, in that it has all of us arguing about the weather and nobody is talking about a planet becoming hopelessly polluted by real toxins as opposed to what my mouth exhales all the time. Well played powers that be. We are all this stupid.

    ReplyReply
  34. Jim S says: 33

    @Davol: I’ve said for years that one of the real dangers of the global warming cult is that it hurts the credibility of people worried about actual pollution.

    ReplyReply
  35. cathy says: 34

    I admit I didn’t read EVERY word of everyone’s comment but I sure didn’t see anything about the H.A.A.R.P. facility and geoengineering of the weather and using weather as a weapon.

    ReplyReply
  36. Ditto says: 35

    @cathy:

    With good reason. There is no more evidence supporting the theories that the Earth’s global weather patterns are driven by AGW, than there is that world wide weather is being driven by HAARP installation environmental warfare.

    ReplyReply
  37. Ditto says: 36

    Climate McCarthyism claims yet another victim

    Rossiter, a former Democratic congressional candidate, has impeccably liberal credentials. As the founder of Demilitarization for Democracy he has campaigned against US backed wars in Central America and Southern Africa, against US military support for dictators and against anti-personnel landmines. But none of this was enough to spare him the wrath of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) when he wrote an OpEd in the Wall Street Journal describing man-made global warming as an “unproved science.”

    Two days later, he was sacked by email. The IPS said: “We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies…Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of US policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours.”

    In the WSJ OpEd entitled Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change, Rossiter argued that Africans should benefit from the same mixed energy policy as Americans rather than being denied access to fossil fuels on spurious environmental grounds by green activists. He wrote: “The left wants to stop industrialization – even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false.”

    But the Institute for Policy Studies (“Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice, and the Environment”) is ideologically committed to ensuring that Africans only enjoy the benefits of expensive, intermittent, inefficient renewable energy such as wind and solar.

    Nor is Rossiter alone: Climate Science Defector Forced to Resign by Alarmist ‘Fatwa’

    Professor Lennart Bengtsson – the leading scientist who three weeks ago signalled his defection to the climate sceptic camp by joining the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation – has now dramatically been forced to resign from his position.

    His views on the weakness of the “consensus” haven’t changed. But as he admits in his resignation letter, he has been so badly bullied by his alarmist former colleagues that he is worried his health and career will suffer.

    Bengtsson’s recruitment by the GWPF (the London-based think tank set up by former Chancellor Lord Lawson) represented a huge coup for the climate realist cause. The Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction – was by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

    But this, of course, is why he has been singled out for especial vitriol by the climate alarmist establishment – as he describes in his resignation letter.

    With the AGW Facists Progressives, you will only have as much free speech as they allow you and only if you preach their collective views.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>