Chris Pandolfo:
Barack Obama just couldn’t help himself. As President Donald Trump took steps to withdraw from the Paris climate accords, undoing one of Obama’s most egregious executive overreaches, the former president released a statement criticizing Trump.
“The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created,” Obama said. “But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way …”
As Trump speaks, Obama issues statement on Paris deal pic.twitter.com/clpLdNoFpP
— Jordan Fabian (@Jordanfabian) June 1, 2017
“The absence of American leadership”? Really, Mr. Obama?
Let’s talk about the absence of American leadership the voters just freed themselves from after eight years of Obama’s pathetic presidency.
Under President Obama’s absent economic leadership, the U.S. economy stalled at an anemic 1.9 percent growth rate from which the economy finally seems to be emerging under President Trump.
Under President Obama’s absent health care leadership, premiums skyrocketed because Obamacare’s market-distorting policies saw favorable health insurance plans disappear from countless American workers and families.
Under President Obama’s absent leadership abroad, America’s enemies were emboldened. The Middle East became more dangerous with the rise of ISIS. Iran is in open violation of the nuclear deal Obama negotiated. Between apology tours, crossed red lines, and the hollowing out of the American military, Obama’s foreign policy was an unmitigated disaster.
@Greg:
You’re talking about Chicago, Obozo’s town, anything is likely.
Modern day beijing, but you don’t want them to have to make any improvements. Only the US.
@Richard Wheeler:
is that the same fans of whom she said: I hope they fu@king die?
wanna bet she gets her palms greased first?
Ask those people that died at her concert, who won?
@Redteam: You’re just a bitter and VERY cynical old codger RT–kinda sad
Kitt Yea she had the good heart and guts to go back.
@Richard Wheeler:
As long as you’ve been reading my comments, you don’t know me at all. I’m neither bitter nor caustic. I’ve had a very successful life. Accomplished all or most of what I wanted to. Just realistic that if we can’t figure out how to get the liberal socialists out of meddling and fraternizing with the Muslims, things are not going to turn out well for the country. Yes, I can see how you would love the way things are going there in gayfornia where they just voted to give you and everyone there in the state free insurance. Well, free except for that 15% increase in taxes on your total income.
So you think it was appropriate for that little girl to say, “I hope they all fu$king die”? Maybe she was talking about all the animals you are asking for Mercy for.
@Redteam: It would be interesting to ask one or two of the victims or the families how much $$$ they get distributed to them each. Loads of these type concerts and no one seems to follow up where the $$ actually goes.
Many rock concerts for everything from end hunger to Bangledesh. I know the Artists hearts are in the right place its their brains I question, follow that cash.
@kitt: So true Kitt, probably some politician getting rich off it, like the Clinton’s did of the Haiti hurricane relief. They raised many millions from the Hurricane and kept about 98% for themselves.
Kitt $$$$$$ At least the artists have hearts—-Homophobic Repubs. lost theirs long ago
@Redteam: I dont know if it is politicians, often the proceeds go to one “charity” often the overhead of those gobble up much of the $$$ Hillary most definitely ripped off Haiti big time.
@Richard Wheeler: Sorry dude you are starting to sound like a zombie. Break out of the name calling and or add references to accusations, do you fear Milo?
@Richard Wheeler:
Yes, Slick had a big heart when he made about 150 million off of the money raised for Haitians hurricane relief.
Kinda like algore and all the money he’s making off his phony climate deals.
@Redteam, #59:
There’s no credible evidence of any kind that Bill or Hillary Clinton monetarily benefited from the Haiti relief efforts. There are only crap articles like this one, that make damning accusations and then yammer on and on, without ever getting around to citing any specific evidence. People apparently aren’t smart enough to figure out that they haven’t actually been
@Greg:
You’re not serious. right? You do believe the earth rotates around the sun, right? I would say the evidence was about equivalent. Google Clintons stole money from Haitians from Hurricane relief. You’ll get at least 50 links. Yes, they’re mostly the regular liberal news sites, but you eat that crap up. right?
Here’s just one example:
Oct 11, 2016 … Haiti Needs $2 Billion the Clinton Foundation Stole From Its Relief Funds … No doubt, there’ll be a drumbeat asking you to donate to Haiti’s hurricane relief, … But very little of this aid money actually got to poor people in Haiti.
I’d say the link from your comment is very reliable. But there are dozens and dozens more.
Kitt T’ll say it again Repubs are represented right here by a number of heartless, racist, homophobes. Hell they’re proud of it.
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler: Yeah, big hearts. $140 ticket… “Here, here’s a dollar.” HUGE heart.
Where is the Republican homophobia?
@Greg: Sure, just look at Haiti. It’s all fixed up.
Well, if generating plant shut downs made mere months before the deadline of new regulations specifically intended to shut them down isn’t obvious to you…I’m not sure what would be.
On the other hand, that statement could be interpreted as saying that fracking and capitalism (typically supported by conservatives and opposed by liberals) managed to accomplish in roughly a year what more than 20 years of environmental agitation and government policy were apparently completely ineffective at…think about it.
Not at all. But, as far as ignoring the obvious, you *HAD* noticed hadn’t you that those problems had been substantially reduced *WITH* most of those ‘antiquated’ (try doing a little research on just how many dollars have been spent on technology upgrades to those facilities in order to reduce the sulfur dioxide/nitrous oxide/particulate emissions that caused those specific, real problems) plants still in operation?
However, you yourself said in another thread on FA:
Just so we’re clear, you do realize it’s typically not those on the right who support the view that CO2 is a pollutant? And that you apparently agree that the EPA, under Obama, used misdirection and propaganda to promote regulations specifically targeted at coal generation?
Interesting.
@Richard Wheeler:
Heartless? if you don’t have a heart, you ain’t living.
Racist? I’m not sure if there are any blacks on here. That takes care of the racists.
homophobes? We should all feel sorry for homosexuals, do you realize that’s the best it’s going to get for them? They recognize that they have a mis-wired brain and that’s not reversible. So it’s not going to get better. Why would anyone ‘fear’ them?
@Jay, #64:
CO2 at natural levels is not a toxic component of the atmosphere.
To claim that the argument being advanced by around 97 percent of all climate experts is that CO2 is a toxic pollutant is a deliberate misrepresentation of what they’re saying. What they’re saying is that increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are raising global temperature—that certain human activities are adversely affecting planetary climate, and that a number of very negative consequences will follow.
While oxygen is obviously essential to life, prolonged exposure to an atmosphere consisting of 100 percent oxygen can literally kill you. Prolonged exposure will bring about a variety of damages on a cellular level, and ultimately hypoxemia acidosis, leading to death. Should we call oxygen a pollutant?
Generally speaking, the left supports the view about CO2 that the vast majority of climate scientists have taken. The EPA tends to treat CO2 as if it were a pollutant, because that allows them to get some regulatory purchase on the problem.
Propagandists then respond with a ridiculous argument that goes something like, “Ha Ha. Those idiots at the EPA claim you’re exhaling pollution.”
RW, since you predicted Lib Pete Carroll would sign CK, thought you would like to know that he did not. I’ll bet the owner said ‘no way’. CK is still free to find a job in a Muslim country.
@Greg:
you can’t have an atmosphere of 100% oxygen. anything combustible would burst into flames if Oxygen were at 100%. Ox and CO2 will always be in balance with mild variations. Always has been, always will be. Humans can’t change that. If they tried to consume all the oxygen, it would become CO2 which would then break down in high concentrations to Carbon and Oxygen. Mother nature knew what she was doing, and she didn’t make men smart enough to over rule her.
Let’s say a lot of volcanos erupted and filled the atmosphere with CO2, what would men do to correct that? Nothing, they would be dead. What would mother nature do, grow extensive forests and convert the CO2 back to Ox til it got balanced. Mother nature is the supreme chemist of the earth and mankind hasn’t been able to overrule her yet.
Except that I’m not the one making the claim. I most assuredly do not think CO2 is a pollutant. That viewpoint is expoused by the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and other fellow travelers on the left.
Prior to Michael Mann, at least 97% of scientists agreed that the Medieval Warm Period existed. In fact, the original IPCC report graph of long term global temperatures included the MWP.
Now? Hockey Stick uber alles and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia…
The 97% is also not quite cast in stone – at least not if you aren’t a kool-aid drinker and have any familiarity with ‘Lies, damn lies and statistics’.
The author analyzed the surveys and actual responses and determined:
In the Oreskes/Peiser study, only 1.2% of roughly 1,000 respondents ‘explicitly agreed with the IPCC declaration’ . For Doran/Zimmerman, it was 2.38% of 3,146. For the most commonly cited Cook et al study, the actual breakdown of explicit agreement was (drumroll please) 0.54% of 11,944.
It’s been a long time since I’ve been in a math class (although less time since statistics), but those are a ‘fur piece’ from 97%.
As far as the dire impacts, in 2015, IPCC lead author Richard Tol made the statement “… a century of climate change is not worse than losing a decade of economic growth.”
And that’s from within the IPCC, not exactly a bastion of ‘deniers’.
Well, substitute CA for the EPA; cows for humans; switch to the other end of the alimentary canal and while they may still be idiots, they are idiots with regulatory power and by god, they WILL control GHG emissions!
As the saying goes ‘You can’t make this sh*t up’. Although you can apparently try to regulate it…
@Jay: The question I keep asking is, if the science is so settled and the point so clear, why does the left always have to LIE about the data?
@Bill… Deplorable Me:
Because otherwise they would have to admit they are (shhhh, say it quietly) W-R-O-N-G and have no justifiable reason to control everything.
If even one computer model actually matched real world data, or there was one data set that hadn’t been ‘adjusted’ to the point of laughability, there might be some basis for discussion, but I wouldn’t recommend holding your breath.
@Jay, #69:
I’m hoping to make a killing by investing in Bovine Beano® shares.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: Those that argue that ‘the science is settled’ is either ignorant of physics or are lying. mass and energy can not be created or destroyed, only the form changed. Considering Carbon dioxide, that is only a ‘fuel’ (Carbon) combined with an accelerant, Oxygen. When you combine Carbon and Oxygen, you have a combustible. when it is ‘combusted’ it becomes the elements again, awaiting only to be recombined. What happens when the Carbon Oxygen is supplied with energy? It splits back into the elements and gives off the energy (heat). The concentration of CO2 varies over different areas of the globe. Hawaii has much higher levels than Antarctica, but only Hawaii present day is compared with Antarctica past to get a trend upward. If you took 30,000 year old readings of Hawaii and compared them with modern day readings at Antarctica you would get exactly the opposite chart that the ‘reality deniers’ would like you to see.
@Greg:
Good luck! From what I could find, the CA cap & trade market was running ~$13/ton for CO2. SInce methane is supposedly 75-100 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, you ought to be able to do well.
Although, since it’s lighter than air, measuring a ton may be difficult!