Obama, Hollande and Other Climate Change Liars

By: Andrew_McKillop

Flat Earthers Agree

In a June 2013 address at Georgetown University, Barack Obama derogatorily referred to deniers of global warming, climate change and bad weather as “members of a Flat Earth Society." The same month, the UK-based Flat Earth Society's president Daniel Shenton told 'Business Insider'  that he personally believes “the evidence available does support the position that climate change is at least partly influenced by human industrialisation.". He also said he wasn't amused by Obama using his Flat Earth Society as an example of backward thinking, and suggested Obama should criticize organizations like the American Enterprise Institute, which violently disputes that either global warming or climate change are real, but does not take a firm position on bad weather.

President Obama or whoever tweets under the name @BarackObama is careful to say that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that #climate change# is real”, before making the assertion that the change is “man-made and dangerous". To be sure bad weather is also man-made and dangerous. Obama has slide-and-fudge room by asserting that climate change is real because almost no sane person would deny it exists. He can also claim it is “man-made” because it would be highly surprising if human changes to the planet did not have some climate spinoff. But like the near-majority of western elite deciders currently in power, he always has to go further and firstly imply that any climate change “is man-made”, and secondly that all climate change “is dangerous”.

Whenever high levels of scientific doubt exist about key subjects with a distinct economic, political or social handle, these doubts are often concealed by ‘noble-cause corruption’ and 'the principle of prudent action'. Scientists will exaggerate levels of confidence in their findings if it promotes prudent action they happen to support and especially in key policy battleground areas such as climate, health, security and education. Many scientists entered such fields because they were already committed to a particular policy agenda. For politicians like Barack Obama the subject is much more more narrow-focus. For them, alarm about the climate or bad weather is a lever to show their concern, generate more policy and programs, more taxes and more spending.

Richard Lintzen of MIT, in a widely published late August 2013 article first published by the 'Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons', on “Climatism” or global warming alarmism, said it was for him the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda. Like myself and others, including scientists, he compares “climatism” with Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union. He said: “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” The science is dumbed down, any discussion of the subject becomes slogan trading, prizes and accolades are awarded only for squeaky-clean politically-correct statements, and all scientific logic goes out the window.

President Obama this week announced his intention to create a new "resiliency fund" in a speech in drought-struck California. He said:  "We have to be clear a changing climate means that weather related disasters like droughts, wildfires, storms, and floods are potentially going to be costlier and harsher.". His Chief adviser for Science and Technology, Dr John P. Holdren backed this with the astounding claim that “(bad) Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change”, adding that people must understand that extra-cold weather in the US is directly caused by global warming – that is anthropogenic global warming. Cold weather is caused by global warming.

Weather is Caused by Climate Change

This was the exact wording of Holdren's statement. He did not add the word “bad” although Obama in his attempt to whip political support for his proposed new $1 billion fund, which will very likely not be voted by Congress, did especially identify droughts, fires, floods and storms. The immediate-basic problem is that bad weather cannot be legislated against. Mr Obama and his fellow riders on the climate change train can only talk about “mitigation” while they deny that climate can only change and has always changed – and deny that the only subject for legitimate scientific debate is the rate and direction of change, assuming there is a direction. 

Holdren gave reporters a few details of Obama's proposed fund. He said that if the financing came though, the fund “would invest in research to gather data on the impacts of climate change, help communities prepare for the impacts, and support innovative technologies and infrastructure to ready the country in the face of a changing climate.” 

Holdren refused to give a reply to questioning about the USA climate record in year 2013, having the lowest number of tornadoes since the 1950s and the lowest number of forest fires since 1984.

Obama administration officials preferred to talk about California's worst drought since the 1500s – without explaining how tailpipe and smokestack emissions of “carbon effluent” helped bring about the drought of 500 years ago. In the UK, facing its “worst floods since 1776” this sets the climate clock back to well before the best-by date set by the UN-accredited (but not a full-status UN organization) IPCC, which says that human-caused global warming started in 1800. That is, with industrialization. For the IPCC, this was the start of Human Soiling of the Atmosphere.

In his 1971 book with Paul Ehrlich entitled 'Global Ecology Readings Towards a Rational Strategy for Man', Holdren had no problems claiming that “climate science” suggests there is a “probable likelihood of a new ice age caused by human activity”. Holdren cited industrial air pollution, dust from farming, jet exhausts, desertification, agricultural fertilizer pollution, urbanization causing albedo change trapping heat and triggering polar vortex inflows of colder air – and so on – while also saying that volcanic activity will “probably likely” cause a new ice age.

However, in exactly the same book, Holdren also said that human beings cause “excess heat”, by the CO2 greenhouse gas effect. He claimed in 1971 that soon after the human-caused new ice age, there would be “massive global warming”, also caused by human beings.  As recently as 2009, Holdren proposed combining his two doom scenarios, suggesting we purposely inject pollutants into the upper atmosphere – the so-called “geoengineering” solution - using the global cooling effects of upper atmosphere human pollution to cancel out the global warming effects of human pollution. 

Holdren, this year, therefore had no problem at all explaining extreme cold weather as “due to global warming”. Cited by 'The Hill', January 8, he said: “The U.S. must expect more instances of Arctic-like weather in the future as the polar vortex — known typically to circulate around the Arctic — weakens its centralized hold due to global warming”.

Heads You Lose, Tails I Win

Belief in human-emitted CO2 causing global warming, which causes climate change, which causes (bad) weather is politics-friendly, if only in the western energy-intensive but “postindustrial” nations. Attitudes on the subject among the Chinese, Russians and Indians (despite Rajendra Pachauri) are negative, but the “science of international accords” is lost in political horse and slogan trading on “who polluted first must pay most”. To who? To do what?

Obama does not have any time for that. He has a primarily domestic agenda.  AGW can be used to crank up new taxes and spending while showing the statesmanlike quality of the politician spouting the junkscience. Although bad weather cannot be legislated against – it can be used to take, make and spend public money – in the world's most indebted country.

On January 27, John Holdren felt bound to say from the White House that “If you’ve been hearing that extreme cold spells like the one we’re having in the United States now disprove global warming, don’t believe it.....no single weather episode can either prove or disprove global climate change.” Holdren also produced an official two-minute video clip featuring the polar vortex to back up his assertion. This gravitas explains why in mid-2013, President Obama shifted his message on climate change.

Like other “climatist-changists” such as France's Francois Hollande (also an exchangist) Obama's new line of patter has shifted from renewable energy and "green jobs", and is now focused on “extreme weather mitigation” and the “legacy issue” of preserving the planet for future generations. This are nicely-crafted, fuzzy-edge themes which are hard to nail down as fixed and set targets which the politician can either deliver – or fail to deliver. Henceforth the specter of “bad weather” and “protecting future generations” will be held aloft whenever the wind blows the wrong way or too hard, if its too hot, and also if its too cold. The White House in January rolled out a “comprehensive climate change action plan” based on the three pillars of mitigating carbon effluent, climate change adaptation, and international climate policy accords. 

France's Hollande is always quick to take on new and shoddy gimmicks – for example trying to imitate Dominique Strauss Kahn's horizontal endeavors – so with little surprise he signed on to Obama's new line of climate change patter. Speaking to reporters, February 10, White House spokespersons reported by 'The Hill' said that Obama will bring up his new standards for funding coal-fired power plants in some Less-developed countries, as one major contribution to “pushing larger climate rules leading into the Paris climate talks in 2015”. Obama said: "We'll also be talking to President Hollande about our new initiative to end public financing of coal-fired power plants overseas except in the poorest of countries, and discussing ways in which France can help support that initiative".

France “supports the initiative” by building nuclear power plants, while its oil major Total Oil SA pursues shale gas fracking development in all countries – outside France! What could be more “comprehensive”?

Reality mitigation is now firmly set as the last stage of political “climatism”. For how long the lie of “total scientific consensus” will hold up is now unsure, due to increasing number of scientists refusing to take part in a shoddy circus of distortion and hysteria dressed up as science, The west's answer and successor to Lysenkoism is going down the drain.

By Andrew McKillop

Contact: xtran9@gmail.com

Former chief policy analyst, Division A Policy, DG XVII Energy, European Commission. Andrew McKillop Biographic Highlights

Co-author 'The Doomsday Machine', Palgrave Macmillan USA, 2012

Andrew McKillop has more than 30 years experience in the energy, economic and finance domains. Trained at London UK’s University College, he has had specially long experience of energy policy, project administration and the development and financing of alternate energy. This included his role of in-house Expert on Policy and Programming at the DG XVII-Energy of the European Commission, Director of Information of the OAPEC technology transfer subsidiary, AREC and researcher for UN agencies including the ILO.

© 2014 Copyright Andrew McKillop - All Rights Reserved Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisor.

© 2005-2022 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.