Posts Tagged ‘$10 trillion’

Al Gore And Artic Ice: Truth Is VERY Inconvenient

December 16, 2009

The gods in charge of exposing scientific liars and fraud must be working overtime these days.

In addition to the giant treasure trove of deceit known as “Climategate,” we now have Al Gore – last year’s recipient of the Nobel Prize for Science – revealing what a lying demagogue and fraud he is:

December 15, 2009
Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don’t add up

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Mr Gore is not the only titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal.

World leaders — with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard — are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal.

Meanwhile, five hours of negotiating time were lost yesterday when developing countries walked out in protest over the lack of progress on their demand for legally binding emissions targets from rich nations. The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal.

Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling.  […]

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

“Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge. […]

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”

First of all, the “developing countries” want “progress” toward a deal that would see TEN TRILLION DOLLARS in Western wealth flow to them.

And given the fact that the United States underwrites about a quarter of the U.N.’s budget, and given that most of the world has decided that the United States is mostly responsible for global warming, you can bet that America will be assessed a fair amount more than $2.5 trillion as “our share.”

Then you start to find out that the left really want a tax of $145 trillion to “fight” global warming.  And your head just starts spinning around on your neck.

You’d think we’d really want to have our science iron clad before agreeing to such a massive commitment.  But not so much.

What we have in place of science is “scientism,” science as a religious commitment, science exploited to serve the ideological cause of socialist redistributionism.  And socialism has been disguised as “saving the planet.”

Former prime minister and current global warming alarmist Tony Blair says that we need to destroy our economies so that developing nations might enjoy our wealth “even if the science is not correct.”

And the science that blames man as the cause of global warming is not even close to correct:

Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore’s lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp.

“Wrong,” say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.

Let’s review the greenhouse theory of global warming. Our planet would be one more icy rock hurtling through space at an intolerable temperature were it not for our atmosphere. This thin layer of gases — about 95 percent of the molecules live within the lowest 15 miles — readily allows the sun’s heat in but resists its reradiation into space. Result: The earth is warmed.

The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans. […]

When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.

Is it really “science” to completely ignore 97% of the CO2, and ignore 99.9% of the greenhouse gasses in general, and even ignore the sun itself as the cause of global warming?  Is it really “science” to ignore thousands of years of geologic history, not to mention the fact that “Greenland” was called Greenland because it used to be green during a previous warming period?  Is it really “science” to allow a scientist who was caught red-handed perpetuating scientific fraud years ago to continue to dominate the climate change debate?

Is it really “science” to simply relabel “global warming” to “climate change” when the actual science started to demonstrate – contrary to the global warming lobby’s shrill claims – that global warming hasn’t happened the last ten years?

And is it really anything even remotely close to “science” to claim that “the science is settled and the debate is over” when that is simply false?  If the science is so settled, then why on earth is it that these global warming alarmist feel the need to so routinely misrepresent the facts?  Why do they deliberately destroy data?  Why do they refuse to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests?  Why do they abuse the peer-review system to undermine fellow scientists?

Al Gore has been playing a hysterical alarmist game with bogus facts and figures for years now.  That alarmist propaganda was actually why he won the Nobel Prize.  In fact, Gore has been screaming that all our ice would melt for years.  Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard writes a good article demonstrating how disgraceful and despicable Al Gore and many others have been in this regard.

Another good article details that the polar ice caps actually AREN’T melting.  Arctic ice is currently decreasing, but Antarctic ice is actually increasing.  And when you put the two ice caps on a chart, you see that the overall ice level is quite stable, just as it has been for the past 150 years.

The thing that most bothers me is that documented liars and frauds such as Al Gore and Michael Mann have been allowed to continue to be liars and frauds.  The postmodernist left does not even regard truth as a valid or meaningful category anymore, and all that remains is “the will to power.”  By any means necessary.

The inconvenient truth for the left is that “climate change” has been documented by their own scientists to be little more than a gang of thugs manipulating the data to suit their agenda while using their power to punish any would-be modern Galileo who disagrees with them.  The inconvenient truth for the rest of us is that “truth” doesn’t even matter to the left — which is why liars and frauds remain to perpetuate more lies and more fraud.  All that matters to them is raw political power. And nothing but nothing would perpetuate leftist power than imposing massive socialist redistributionism in the name of “saving the earth.”

Advertisements

Looks Like Obama Needs His Own ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ To ‘Hide The Decline” In Approval

December 11, 2009

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” — Phil Jones, junk scientist.

Looks like Barack Obama needs his own equivalent of Phil Jones and Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline of his dwindling support.

December 11th, 2009
Can’t Hide the Decline: Obama Hits New Polling Lows
Posted by Tom Bevan

Excluding the Rasmussen and Gallup overnight tracking polls, there have been seven major national surveys released this week. President Obama has recorded an all-time low job approval rating in six of the seven:

Quinnipiac 46%
Marist 46%
CNN/Opinion Research 48%
Ipsos/McClatchy 49%
CBS News/NY Times 50%
Bloomberg* 54%

Only one poll – FOX News/Opinion Dynamics – showed in increase in President Obama’s job approval rating over the last month. In the current survey, FOX has Obama at 50% approval, up from his all-time low of 46% recorded in last month’s poll.

The net result, of course, is that Obama has also reached an all-time low approval rating in the RCP National Average at 48.9%. Obama initially dropped under the 50% for the first time over Thanksgiving – he spent three days at 49.9% between November 25 and November 28.  After ticking up back over 50% right after the holiday break, Obama went under 50% again on December 4th and has remained there for seven straight days:

I don’t know why Real Clear Politics would exclude Rasmussen and Gallup.  They both say the same thing.  Rasmussen has Obama’s approval at 47% as of December 11.  As does Gallup.

When a president sinks below 50% in the polls, he is no longer speaking for the people.  He loses influence, loses relevance, and loses the ability to lead.  Not that Barry Hussein ever actually had the ability to lead to begin with.

As Dennis Miller put it, Obama has “smaller coattails than a naked midget.”

Obama – the Messiah of the whole wide world – is officially the lowest rated first-year president in American history, according that latest poll by Gallup.

Obama is probably so popular amongst the socialist-redistributionists of the world because they think that Obama will break his nation’s back by agreeing to pay “America’s share” of the $10 trillion wealth redistribution handout to the countries that hate us most in the name of “climate change.”

We already know that the man who said, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” is yearning to impose an additional $200 billion per year tax on the American economy, and an additional $1,761 a year tax on American families.

More and more Americans are waking up and realizing that Obama’s hoax and chains actually means freezing in the dark.

They are realizing that the president of “God damn America” wasn’t just speaking in exalted metaphors when he said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”  He truly wants to undermine our lifestyle while he “fundamentally transforms” America.

Meanwhile, ObamaCare just keeps getting worse and worse.  The health care “reform” that was supposed to lower the cost of health care and save the system is going to cost $234 billion more (even in the first ten years, when we tax for ten years, and pay benefits in only six) and will literally cause 1 in 5 hospitals to go broke.

Everywhere you look, Obama and the Democrats are failing.  They are making things worse.  And I mean “Depression” worse.

I’m reminded of something I wrote just before the 2008 election:

Right or wrong, this is how I feel: I actually hope that if Obama wins, Republicans lose HUGE.  You know how, when you realize that your professional sports team won’t make it to the playoffs, you come to start hoping they lose so many games that they’ll receive a high draft pick?  I’m kind of there in my politics, given an Obama win.  The fewer Republicans there are to blame for the disaster that is going to overtake this country, the better.  The whole charade that has led to such anti-Republicanism has been due to the demonization by Democrats and by the overwhelmingly biased liberal media.  Let Republicans be so utterly rejected that liberals have no one – and I mean absolutely no one – to blame but themselves so that their ideas and their candidates can be vilified for the next fifty years or so.

And the American people are regretting their choice.  Last year, George Bush was reviled as the worst president in history.  But now, only 50% would rather have Obama as president than Bush, and 44% would prefer Bush to Obama.

Which is to say that George Bush is looking better and better (at least compared to Obama), and Barack Obama is looking worse and worse (even when compared to Bush).

Maybe Obama can get global warming scientists to say that the president’s approval is a matter of settled science, and the debate is over.

Obama Refuses To Take Any Responsibility For His Failing Presidency

December 10, 2009

There comes that moment in every great man’s life when he realizes that it’s time to put up or shut up.

Obama hasn’t reached that moment yet.  And I personally don’t believe he ever will.  Or even can.

Obama gave a speech at the Brookings Institute yesterday, December 8.  He said:

One of the central goals of this administration is restoring fiscal responsibility. Even as we have had to spend our way out of this recession in the near term, we have begun to make the hard choices necessary to get our country on a more stable fiscal footing in the long run. Despite what some have claimed, the cost of the Recovery Act is only a very small part of our current budget imbalance. In reality, the deficit had been building dramatically over the previous eight years. Folks passed tax cuts and expensive entitlement programs without paying for any of it – even as health care costs kept rising, year after year. As a result, the deficit had reached $1.3 trillion when we walked into the White House. And I’d note: these budget busting tax cuts and spending programs were approved by many of the same people who are now waxing political about fiscal responsibility while opposing our efforts to reduce deficits by getting health care costs under control. It’s a sight to see.

To begin with, sixty percent of the overall deficit from the last ten years has occurred during the last three year period that the Democrats have been in control of both the House and the Senate.  Any claim that Democrats were the fiscally responsible party is just frankly a complete lie.

And as we look to which party is accumulating debts that have never been seen in the history of the human species, take a look at this graph of reality, to the tune of Joe Wilson’s hit song, “You lie!”

Link

You don’t have to be an economist or financial expert to see that the Marxist red Obama bars utterly dwarf the gray Bush bars.

Let’s take a look at the real numbers:

The Obama Administration Budget released today contains a total $2.867 trillion in red ink, just 38 days after Obama’s inauguration on January 20.

In contrast, the Bush Administration ran up a $2.7519 trillion deficit over an 8-year period that included 7 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan; the economic downturn after 9-11; the addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare; a massive increase in federal education spending under No Child Left Behind; and the current recession and 2008 Wall Street bailout.

Bush Surplus/Deficit Fiscal Years 2001-2008 (billions of dollars)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Statistics
2001    128.2
2002    -157.8
2003    -377.6
2004    -412.7
2005    -318.3
2006    -248.2
2007    -160.7
2008    -454.8
TARP    -750.0
Total  -2751.9

Obama Budget Deficit FY 2009/10*
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Statistics
2010       -1750
2011       -1117
Total      -2867

*The Obama deficit total does NOT include the impact of the $787 billion Stimulus package approved by House Democrats in February.  It also excludes any effect of an Obama contingency request for an additional $750 billion to use for bank rescue.  If the contingency amount is included the total deficit for FY 2009/10 is $3.617 trillion

So what we basically learn is that Obama’s deficits in just two years are greater (which means worse) than Bush’s entire 8 years in office.  And if you factor in the spending that Obama racked up all by his lonesome, he accumulated greater deficits in just ONE year than did Bush in eight.

We need to realize that the $787 billion stimulus – which is not counted under Obama’s deficit that STILL outdoes the deficits racked up during Bush’s entire eight year presidency – was not a “mere” $787 billion.  It was actually $3.27 TRILLION according to the Congressional Budget Office.

As Newsmax reporter David Patton put it:

The gargantuan stimulus bill Congress has rubber-stamped with virtually no Republican support contains tens of billions of the very spending projects that made the legislation a lightning rod for criticism.

And although the bill is generally described as costing $787 billion, the Congressional Budget Office reports the actual figure is now closer to $3.27 trillion.

That stems from the $744 billion it will take to pay for the additional debt the legislation will create, and $2.527 trillion in increased spending from the new and expanded programs the bill will spawn over the next decade.

That put-us-into-the-poorhouse stimulus spending was ALL on Obama.  And while we go from fiscal year to fiscal year (i.e. October 1 to September 30) to “officially” calculate a president’s deficits, it is simply a moral crime to saddle George Bush with Obama’s $3.27 trillion porkulus that no Republicans voted for, and then blame Bush for the most massive spending program in human history that was passed by Obama and for Obama.

Nor do the numbers reflect that President Bush only used HALF of the $750 billion TARP money, and left the rest of it for Obama to spend.  That money all went on Bush’s deficit “tab,” but thanks to George Bush’s efforts, Obama got half of it for himself.  Pretty sweet deal for Obama.  And yet he still bit the hand that fed him:

(CBS/AP) Acting at Barack Obama’s behest, President George W. Bush on Monday asked Congress for the final $350 billion in the financial bailout fund, effectively ceding economic reins to the president-elect in an extraordinary display of transition teamwork.

Obama also sharply criticized Bush’s handling of the money and promised radical changes.

Bush’s move sets the stage for Obama to get swift access to the $350 billion and the opportunity to overhaul the much-criticized rescue package after taking office next Tuesday.

Bush’s classiness was outmatched by Obama’s classlessness.

In any event, no matter how you slice it, we are looking at Obama red ink that so profoundly drowns out the Bush red ink that only a fool would say anything else.

And yet that is precisely what Obama is doing.

Here we are, just today, with Democrats passing another $1.1 trillion in spending in a 1,088 page, earmark-laden pork package, with not one single Republican supporting it.

And they are determined to pass a health care that’s going to cost this country at least $2.5 trillion every ten years.

And take a moment to calculate America’s “share” of the $10 TRILLION dollar tab that Barack Obama and many in the Democrat Party are trying to commit this country to pick up in the guise of saving the planet from “global warming.”

We’re seeing more spending and more deficits and more debt under Barack Obama than any human being who has ever lived has ever seen in human history.  And he blames Bush for it?

What’s wrong with him?

Any real leader worth a dog turd in the back yard doesn’t waste time blaming the leader before him for problems.  Rather, he puts that “the buck stops here” sign on his desk, he takes responsibility for the situation he is facing, and he solves the problem.

If I had a nickle for every time Obama has said that he “inherited” the crises he is now facing, I would be very rich indeed.  As it is, the president who promised that he would put “an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics” has defined himself by doing the precise opposite.  George W. Bush, by contrast, inherited a severe recession following the dot com bubble collapse beginning in December 1999 just as Clinton was leaving office that led to $10 trillion in equity being erased.  And of course he inherited the foreign policy and domestic security failures that led to the 9/11 attack – which damaged the economy even further.

But you didn’t find Bush giving speech after speech (or any speeches at all) blaming his predecessor.  Rather, Bush “manned-up” and took responsibility for the nation as it was.

That may be why Bush has made such a dramatic comeback in public opinion:

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that’s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country’s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

More and more Americans are getting furious that Obama is spending all his time and energy blaming Bush for what is going on during Obama’s presidency.

The very real question is whether Obama can do anything OTHER than blame Bush.  Thus far, he hasn’t solved much of anything.