Barack Obama: First post election statement on climate

Posted: November 15, 2012 by Rog Tallbloke in climate, Forecasting, Politics, Uncertainty

Necessarily skyrocketing days may be over for Obama

There’s no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices, and you know, understandably, I think the American people right now have been so focused and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth that, you know, if the message is somehow we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anybody’s going to go for that.

I won’t go for that.

If, on the other hand, we can shape an agenda that says we can create jobs, advance growth and make a serious dent in climate change and be an international leader, I think that’s something that the American people would support.

Comments
  1. Tempestnut says:

    Weasel words and back tracking. He has no room to manoeuvre with the US economy in a perilous State. In 5 years Global warming will be poison to the electorate. Any way he’s spoiling the photo of the shuttle main engine.

  2. Zeke says:

    Wikipedia entry to avoid:

    “It was realized that Obama’s policy of using a falsified theory of climate and state scientism to engineer de-industrialization would be unpopular with the peasants,

    and therefore it was proposed that the peasants should be brought under Party control by the establishment of a low carbon economy, and the construction of a smart grid, which would facilitate the “creation of jobs” and economic activity.

    The Public Broadcasting System was eager to report the success of the government policies in energy and of the worthless wind turbines, so based on false reporting and miscalculated figures, the country became an exporter of energy resources while at home citizens actually perished in winter and summer months, and no longer had autonomy in the use of electricity in their homes or industries.”

  3. tallbloke says:

    Zeke:

    Scary ain’t it?

    No doubt the state broadcaster would have consulted some ‘experts’.

  4. Hans Jelbring says:

    I like the concept of “state scientism” as a term describing how science and scientific methods have been converted into a belief system promoted by the state (top politicians regardless of party line in most western countries), which can be considered a new religion since about 20-30 years.

    Needless to say state scientism has nothing to do with science even if that concept might be deluted by a number of interpretations.

    From Wikipedia:
    “In modern use, “science” more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is “often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use.”[4] This narrower sense of “science” developed as scientists such as Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton began formulating laws of nature such as Newton’s laws of motion. In this period it became more common to refer to natural philosophy as “natural science”. Over the course of the 19th century, the word “science” became increasingly associated with the scientific method, a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist was created by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell to distinguish those who sought knowledge on nature from those who sought knowledge on other disciplines. The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word “scientist” to 1834. This sometimes left the study of human thought and society in a linguistic limbo, which was resolved by classifying these areas of academic study as social science. Similarly, several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist today under the general rubric of “science”, such as formal science and applied science.”

  5. Trick says:

    Since doing a Presidential climate story post this is modified to be on topic via Kurt Vonnegut Jr. in “Slaughterhouse Five”:

    “The name of the book was AGW…It was about an earthling (NASA GISS employee) kidnapped by extraterrestrials and put on display in a zoo on planet Zircon-212 that had no GHE. This fictitious zoo inhabitant had a weather channel link showing storm systems back on earth, the status of Earth’s monthly global climate anomaly with a black telephone supposedly connected to the White House and stock brokerage back on Earth. The creatures on Zircon-212 told their captive it was up to him to save Earth from AGW with a $1Million brokerage account that would make him very wealthy when transported back.

    The telephone, weather channel link, monthly anomaly report and brokerage account were all fakes of course. They were simply stimulants to make the Earthling perform vividly for the crowds at the zoo – to make him jump up and down and cheer, or gloat, or sulk, or tear his hair, to be scared to death, or to feel as contented as a baby in his mother’s arms.

    The Earthling did very well on paper. That was part of the rigging, of course. And religion got mixed up in it, too. The weather channel reminded him that the President of the United States had declared National Prayer Week, and that everyone should pray. The Earthling had seen some bad AGW news on the monthly anomaly charts just before that. So he gave praying a whirl. It worked. The monthly anomaly went down.”

  6. oldbrew says:

    ‘take on climate change in a serious way’ is a speechwriter’s meaningless sound-bite.

    <>

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science

  7. Zeke says:

    And speaking of the 28 expert “scientists” at the BBC who turned out to be activists (: (;

    It is right to lament the desecration of ideals like impartiality in the press, the betrayal of previously agreed charters, and to grieve the abuse of the natural sciences. The single goal of “science” is now plainly to terrorize people about their electricity, water, crops, cattle, and air. And the politicians in collusion with the scientists reverse advancements in technology claiming “environmental risk” and “the public good.”

    But we do know that the real and clearly stated aim is to re-make the economies of the Western nations. Whether it is referred to as a transition to a Green Economy, or Low Carbon Economy, or Sustainable Economy, it is the same.

    Re-making the economy has been done before.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

  8. Konrad says:

    A little to the left. A bit more…Pyro armed. Fuel valve open, Ox valve open. Ignition!