‘Obamaclimate’ Rules For Global Warming Would Be Just As Disastrous As Obamacare
Adam Hartung argued here at Forbes.com earlier this week that the United States needs to implement an Obamacare-style program to address global warming. Hartung’s column inadvertently illustrates that Obamaclimate would be just as disastrous as Obamacare.
The most memorable and illuminative statement made in the Obamacare debate was Pelosi smiling and saying “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” In other words, “We don’t know what the heck we are passing here, but it is big government, and therefore we like it.”
The American people are now finding out what is in it, and they don’t like it. In the words of Democratic U.S. Senator Max Baucus, Obamacare is fast becoming a “ wreck.”
Adam Hartung now wants a federal Obamaclimate plan. Apparently, one train wreck per presidential term isn’t enough for some people.
While Nancy Pelosi acknowledged Congress had no idea what kind of a law it was passing, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just acknowledged in its most recent report that it has no idea why global temperatures haven’t risen during the past 17 years. IPCC also acknowledged its models have consistently predicted more warming than has occurred in the real world. IPCC admitted its previous predictions about Himalayan glacier melt were wrong. IPCC contradicted alarmist assertions that global warming was shutting down oceanic conveyor belts. IPCC political appointees were embarrassingly caught telling contributing scientists that they would have to change their scientific assessments to conform with political agendas. And the list of IPCC flubs and embarrassments goes on and on….
“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
“We have to restrict energy use, reduce living standards and shut down economic growth even though we don’t have a strong scientific case for doing so.”
Cue the trains barreling toward each other on a single track.
To be fair, Hartung did cite IPCC’s relatively undisputed finding that global temperatures were rising somewhat about 20 years ago. And, extending the trend back a little farther, we emerged from the Little Ice Age a little more than a century ago.
Okay, but so what?
Escaping the Little Ice Age, which entailed the coldest temperatures of the past 10,000 years, was – and is – beneficial to human health and welfare.
Hurricane activity is becoming less frequent and severe.
Tornado activity is becoming less frequent and severe.
Global crop production sets new records on a near-yearly basis.
Deserts are shrinking and plant life is expanding in some of the earth’s most arid regions.
Global soil moisture is improving at almost all sites in the Global Soil Moisture Databank.
And Hartung argues that we should implement an Obamaclimate train wreck to fight against these benefits?
The only plausible negative impact mentioned by Hartung is global sea level rise. Even here, however, he cannot help but strain credulity with his assertions. Hartung claims, “we can now predict the oceans will rise between 1 and 6 feet in the next 50 years.” Really?! Global sea level rose merely 7 inches during the entire previous century, and there has been little or no acceleration in sea level rise this century. How does that translate to between 1 and 6 feet of sea level rise in merely 50 years? Adam, I will wager whatever sum of money you wish that global sea level will not rise by either (take your pick) 7 inches in the next 10 years, 14 inches in the next 20 years, 21 inches in the next 30 years, 28 inches in the next 40 years, or 3 feet in the next 50 years. This gives you the benefit of a slower pace of sea level rise than the midpoint pace of your prediction and whatever pace or time period you wish. Of course, you will not accept the wager because you and I both know your prediction lacks credibility.
Throughout his column, Hartung laments such things as, “I never hear any business leaders talk about how they are planning for global warming. No comments about how they are making changes to keep their business successful.” There is a reason for this. When government predictions and programs fail, Nancy Pelosi and her political allies don’t personally go broke. When entrepreneurs prescribe or follow bad advice, however, they go broke. American entrepreneurs are too smart to foolishly lose their personal finances on yet another round of ridiculous global warming assertions.
James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News
And apparently now they want to regulate airline emissions.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2013/10/airline-emissions
This could go as far as not allowing planes to land in cities who do not meet proper emissions standards. Just more ways the UN is trying to keep the developing down, and the developed spending.
Good point. Does anybody talk about the inequality this creates? Do they care?
It must be tough on left. Having to hold so many conflicting opinions must be exhausting.
They aren’t conflicting. The end goal is power, not equality or “a saved planet”. All of their positions push the government to control more of your life.
“We have to restrict energy use, reduce living standards and shut down economic growth even though we don’t have a strong scientific case for doing so.”
This. People don’t know how much this will hurt them.
Why is none of this evidence presented publicly and widely known? It is ridiculous that the climate alarmists keep getting away with it.
I don’t know. Fortunately, alternative media is becoming more popular. People need to hear more than the party line.
“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
One of the most infamous lines in history.
It’s right up there with “let them eat cake!”.
Great comparison. I can see Pelosi as Marie Antoinette.
If only Pelosi would befall the same end as Marie Antoinette!
And Harry Reid’s Grandfather was convicted of stealing a horse and was hung.
Anyone missing a horse?
Lastly When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer ‘Present’ or ‘Not guilty.’
“IPCC political appointees were embarrassingly caught telling contributing scientists that they would have to change their scientific assessments to conform with political agendas.”
It’s stuff like this – on top of their science being wrong, repeatedly – that makes it truly unbelievable that the IPCC still has credibility.
How much longer can global warming alarmists continue to make these claims with a straight face?