Obamination:Treachery at the U.N.; Global Malarkey

Quotes are taken from a transcript of President Obama's remarks to the General Assembly, published by the New York Times. [Emphasis added.]

Third, we must recognize that in the 21st century, there will be no peace unless we take responsibility for the preservation of our planet. And I thank the Secretary General for hosting the subject of climate change yesterday.

Those words show us what resonates in the cavity between Obama's ears. "My audience is composed of ignorant, stupid, gullible fools who will take any bait I present to them, hook, line and sinker." War is caused by narcissism: the irrational assumption that one is uniquely predestined to rule or ruin. War is caused by the lust for power. War is caused by greed; the urge to seize wealth from producers rather than become producers. War is of human origin, the evil which grows in the minds of prideful men. CO₂ does not cause war, war criminals do.

The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied. Our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred. If we continue down our current course, every member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders. Our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources. Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear. Future generations will look back and wonder why we refused to act; why we failed to pass on -- why we failed to pass on an environment that was worthy of our inheritance.

With that paragraph, Obama paints the false atmosphere of crisis whose purpose is to suspend rational thought and stifle critical debate, greasing the skids for a power grab.

And that is why the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over. We will move forward with investments to transform our energy economy, while providing incentives to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We will press ahead with deep cuts in emissions to reach the goals that we set for 2020, and eventually 2050. We will continue to promote renewable energy and efficiency, and share new technologies with countries around the world. And we will seize every opportunity for progress to address this threat in a cooperative effort with the entire world.

"Investments" ? No! Unjust, usurpations designed to impose grinding poverty and concentrate power in Washington. Investment means allocating surplus funds or deferred consumption to an enterprise which will hopefully yield gain, recognizing its potential for producing a loss instead. If you mortgage your home and suffer deprivations to start a new business, that is investment. When the government doubles your energy bill artificially, that is usurpation, it is not investment.

Obama deals in fantasies, not facts. "Renewable energy" is not a realistic alternative to fossil fuels. How many tons of coal are used to produce electricity each year? How many tons of whatever biomass fantasy will be required to replace that coal? What factors of production will be needed to produce, process, transport and utilize it? Is it possible to produce enough 'alternative' fuels? What are the opportunity costs involved?

How many million gallons of petroleum distillates are used to move people and goods on our highways each year? How much vegetable oil will be needed to replace them? Where will you grow the corn and soy beans? What will be needed to harvest and process them, transport & distribute the finished product? Where will you get the hydrogen for your fantasy fuel cells? Where will you get the electricity to break up water to obtain the hydrogen? Those details have not been worked out, and will not be. The sales pitch is full of horse feathers and snake oil.

Efficiency, another buzz word. Lets reduce the abstraction slightly. The President wants you to replace your existing appliances with new, more efficient appliances which will supposedly use less power. Have you examined the price tags of the super efficient appliances? Can you afford to buy them? Can you make the payments on your existing equipment, scrap it and make the payments on more expensive replacements? Will the anticipated reduction in consumption make the payments? If you use less electricity, you will wind up paying more for each KWH because the utilities have fixed costs to recoup plus the new carbon tax. Your chances of remaining above water are slim indeed in the real world. These are matters requiring cold, iterative calculation, not unreasoning emotion and urgency.

"Share new technologies" translates to subsidize Africa & Asia with tax dollars from your pocket. "Cooperative effort" translates to more tax dollars from your pocket.

And those wealthy nations that did so much damage to the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead. But responsibility does not end there. While we must acknowledge the need for differentiated responses, any effort to curb carbon emissions must include the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth. And any effort that fails to help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that climate change have already wrought and help them travel a path of clean development simply will not work.

You see, its the white man's burden. You will be poorer, colder in winter, hotter in summer, in the dark at night, and hobbled & impeded on the way to work. Your standard of living is about to decline substantially.

It's hard to change something as fundamental as how we use energy. I know that. It's even harder to do so in the midst of a global recession. Certainly, it will be tempting to sit back and wait for others to move first. But we cannot make this journey unless we all move forward together. As we head into Copenhagen, let us resolve to focus on what each of us can do for the sake of our common future.

Translation: you are the golden goose, prepare to be sacrificed.

Obamination: Treachery at the UN; National Interest,common interests, faith and technology

Quotes are taken from a transcript of President Obama's remarks to the General Assembly, published by the New York Times. [Emphasis added.]

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust.

When have skepticism and distrust of America not been rampant? From Rome to Moscow and from Istanbul to London, the world is full of ex-colonial powers stewing in resentment over lost empire and glory. Envy of American prosperity and power are natural, regardless of our policies and actions.

Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.

It is obvious that the reference to unilateral action is about the invasion of Iraq. Several important nations had economic interests in Iraq, with caused them to oppose taking effective action to stop Iraq's aggression and quest for weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. can't accomplish anything when stake holders veto necessary action against their client states. They are protecting Iran's quest for nukes just as they stalled action against Iraq. .

Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests.

Never? Not in Cairo? Not in Berlin? Of course not!

But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 -- more than at any point in human history -- the interests of nations and peoples are shared. The religious convictions that we hold in our hearts can forge new bonds among people, or they can tear us apart.

This is old ground, which should be familiar to regular readers of my blog posts. Russia seeks to regain lost hegemony. China seeks increased power and influence. The Islamic nations seek to restore the Caliphate and conquer the world. We seek peace and prosperity, others seek empire. There are no common interests not superceeded by ambitious greed, envy and pride.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God, sent to implement a divine plan of salvation. Muslims believe that Jesus was Allah's slave who will return as a genocidal warlord to complete their conquest of the world and final genocide of the Jews. How in Hell can those diametrically opposed beliefs forge new bonds of unity? Because of their beliefs, Muslims have been engaged in genocidal conquest for the last 1386 years. President Obama would have us believe that he can make that stop by wagging his tongue and waving his magic wand.

The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or forever darken it.

Years before I was born, Germany began researching the possibility of using nuclear fission to create a devastating explosive device. Physicists and mathematicians who pioneered the bomb development brought their knowledge to America, enabling us to be the first to develop the bombs which ended the Second World War. How would the outcome have differed if our enemies had developed the bomb first? Fat Man & Little Boy made peace, saving countless lives that would have been lost in an invasion of Japan.

The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it.

President Obama is playing domestic politics with this slogan, trying to build support for idiotic policies that will devastate our economy, deepen and prolong the depression and ruin our standard of living. Anthropogenic global warming is a fallacy based on incomplete data and limited models which do not reflect reality. Bluff & bluster supplemented by a crisis atmosphere ginned up by Obama and his Socialist allies have replaced scientific inquiry and debate.

What happens to the hope of a single child -- anywhere -- can enrich our world, or impoverish it.

President Obama did not complete that thought in the next paragraph. He left it hanging as an ambiguous framework on which the needy & greedy can plant and cultivate their hopes of tapping our treasury. That is an obvious appeal to the International Socialist impulse which is popular in certain parts of Europe. Keep that slogan fresh in your mind, it is important to comprehending the depraved depths of Obama's hypocrisy.

EPA comment period closes Tues

EPA's CO₂ comment period closes Tuesday, June 23, 2007. If you have not yet told them where to go with their egregious power and money grab, now is the time to do so. If CO₂ regulation is not nipped in the bud, we will be penalized for everything we do; for every breath we take.

The proposed regulation is related to the Waxman-Markey bill, which will bankrupt us jointly & severally. This is a case of fabricating and exploiting an artificial crisis for political & economic exploitation.

Consider this information from Green Watch America.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''

31,478 scientists have signed the statement you just read. 9,029 of those scientists have PhD degrees. 3,803 of them have expertise in atmospheric, earth, and environmental science. Sound like a consensus to you?

http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2009/06/epa-comment-period-closes-tues-tell-em.html

EPA comment period closes Tues: tell ‘em no state-establishment of CO2-phobic religion

Only a couple more days to let the EPA know what you think of its proposed war against CO2. Just click on the little yellow “add comments” balloon. The following is a comment (ending at "sincerely") that you can copy and paste. (If you choose to roll your own, feel free to leave it here too.)

Dear EPA: There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the primary driver of natural temperature change is solar-magnetic activity, yet the solar flux is completely omitted as an influence on climate in all four IPCC assessments and in the Obama administration's new "Climate Change Impacts in the United Sates" report. This omission is rationalized on grounds that the existing theories of how solar activity affects climate are still formative. The scientific method rejects this rationalization. Observational evidence is supposed to trump theory, not vice versa, but the IPCC is using theory (its distrust of existing theories of the mechanism by which solar-magnetic activity drives global temperature), as an excuse for ignoring the overwhelming evidence that solar-magnetic DOES drive global temperature. Not all religions are anti-scientific, but the demonstrably anti-scientific nature of CO2 alarmism proves that it IS religion, not science. EPA regulations are supposed to be science based. Imposing restrictions based on an anti-scientific religious doctrine would not just violate the EPA's mandate, but would violate the constitutional prohibition on state establishment of religion. Solar-magnetic warming: theory and evidence The sunspot-temperature theory is actually looking pretty solid. It is known that a strong solar-magnetic flux shields the earth from high energy cosmic rays which otherwise, according to the theory of Henrik Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, would ionize the atmosphere, seeding cloud formation. Thus the solar wind in effect blows the clouds away, giving the earth a sunburn. Whatever the precise mechanism, researchers have found that solar-magnetic activity “explains” statistically about 60-80 percent of global temperature change on all time scales going back hundreds of millions of years. On the decadal time scale, see the seminal 1991 paper by Christensen and Lassen (“Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate”) and the 2003 isotope study by Usoskin et al (“Solar activity over the last 1150 yrs: does it correlate with climate?”), which found: “a correlation coefficient of about .7 - .8 at a 94% - 98% confidence level.” For longer time scales, see the 2003 paper by Shaviv and Veiser (“Celestial driver of Phranerozoic climate?”), which found that found that the cosmic ray flux explains statistically about 75% of global temperature variation over the last 550 million years. Omitted variable fraud Solar activity was at “grand maximum” levels from 1940 and 2000 which, given the historical correlation between solar activity and temperature, could easily explain most or all late 20th century warming. When the IPCC and others omit the solar-magnetic variable from their models, any warming effect of solar activity gets misattributed to whatever correlated variables ARE included in their models. By sheer coincidence, CO2 reached its own “grand maximum” levels (at least compared to the rest of the Holocene) in the second half of the 20th century. Thus in the alarmist models, whatever warming effect the omitted solar-magnetic variable is responsible for gets misattributed to CO2. You can find rationalizations for this omitted-variable fraud in every IPCC report. For instance, section 6.11.2.2 of the Third Assessment Report does not question the correlation between solar activity and climate, but dismisses the cosmic-ray cloud THEORY as too speculative to include in their climate models:

At present there is insufficient evidence to confirm that cloud cover responds to solar variability.

But they don't just leave solar-magnetic activity out of their models. Because their forecasts are based entirely on their climate models, they also leave solar magnetic effects completely out of their climate forecasts, despite knowing that there is SOME mechanism (even if the cosmic-ray/cloud theory turns out to be wrong) by which solar-magnetic activity is the primary driver of global temperature. The only solar variable they do include is solar output or Total Solar Insolation (from long to short-wave radiation), which does not include the solar-magnetic flux. The Fourth Assessment Report does the same thing, looking only at TSI, as do all of the analyses that follow from these reports. For instance, if you look at he “Natural Influences” subsection of the Obama administration’s new report, you will see on page 16 that the only natural influence listed is “solar output’ (or TSI), which is why it is shown graphically to be so tiny. Solar output is close to constant over the solar cycle (less than 0.1% variation), which is why it is called “the solar constant." Because TSI is nearly constant, it cannot account for the many thousands of years of close correlation between solar activity and temperature. That must be coming from the one solar variable that DOES vary with solar activity: the solar magnetic flux. Every IPCC climate scientist knows this, yet they still omit the solar-magnetic variable. Proof of omission: page 16 graphic from the June 2009 report by U.S. Global Change Research Program (in effect, the NOAA). The only natural warming effect listed is total solar output, which does not include the solar-magnetic flux. Similar graphics can be found in each of the IPCC's assessment reports, where this analysis originates. Religion, not science When the alarmists omit solar-magnetic effects on the grounds that they are not satisfied with with existing theories of HOW these effects work, they are not just committing statistical fraud, but they are contradicting the very definition of science. Observation (the overwhelming correlation between solar activity and global temperature) is supposed to trump theory, not vice versa. Consider an analogy. Until Einstein developed his theory of general relativity there was no good theory of gravity. Newton had a description of the gravitational force (that it diminishes by the inverse of the square of the distance) but nobody had any sensible account for the mechanism by which massive objects were drawn to each other. Applying the standards of the IPCC, a pre-Einsteinian or pre-Newtonian scientist should have forecast that when a stone is released in the air, it would waft away on the breeze. After all, we understand the force that the breeze imparts on the stone, but we don't understand this thing called gravity, so we should not include it, even though we observe that heavy objects fall. That is not science, and neither is CO2 alarmism. Data is supposed to trump Theory. By using theory (the proclaimed insufficiency of solar-magnetic theory) as an excuse to ignore the evidence (where solar activity is known to somehow warm the climate), warming alarmism perverts the scientific method. That makes it religion in the constitutionally barred sense. Not only is this belief system embraced by millions of people WITHOUT EVIDENCE, but it is embraced in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Alarmism about CO2 is not just a religion, it is a demonstrably irrational religion, equivilant to believing that rocks will waft away on the breeze. EPA is supposed to make science-based rulings. If you regulate CO2 based on demonstrably anti-scientific ideology, it will be an unconstitutional state establishment of religion. The current cooling trend fits the solar-magnetic theory, not the CO2 theory All of the major temperature records show that the earth's average temperature has been falling for ten years now (with the 21 year smoothed temperature falling for five). In this period, CO2 has continued to increase, while the sun has descended into a prolonged solar minimum. This turn in the sun (breaking the coincidental correlation between solar activity and CO2 that existed for the previous 70 years), is rapidly unmasking the hoax of anthropogenic global warming. It should not take a rare astrological event to unmask an obvious statistical and scientific fraud. Will the EPA now destroy its reputation by codifying the "green" religion at the very moment when the heavens themselves are exposing its dishonesty? If you choose this course, you will be destroying the nation's economy and the lives of your countrymen in the service of your own anti-scientific religious beliefs, in violation of your oath of office.

Sincerely,

On the subject of state established religion This is also the subject of our blogbursts, trying to stop the Flight 93 Memorial Project from stamping a giant Mecca-oriented crescent on the graves our murdered heroes: A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab, and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. (Some mihrabs are pointed arch shape, but the archetypical mihrab is crescent shaped.) The Crescent of Embrace memorial is actually a terrorist memorial mosque, replete with a full complement of typical mosque features, like the minaret-like Tower of Voices that has an Islamic shaped crescent on top and turns out to be a year-round accurate Islamic prayer-time sundial. Outcry over the apparent Islamic symbolism forced the Park Service to make changes. They promised that they would remove the Islamic symbol shapes, but they never did. They call it a broken circle now, but the circle is broken in the exact same places as before. The unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.