11 thoughts on “Obama’s Three Horsemen Of The Ecopocalypse

  1. Jim

    the world needs to cut carbon dioxide because it causes global warming

    Indeed.

    President Obama should focus on dramatically ramping up investments into the research and development of green energy

    Good idea. I don’t see any Democratic opposition to increased R&D spending on green energy. If this doesn’t happen, it will be because the GOP doesn’t want it to happen.

    1. Steve A

      Sure Jim, cherry pick the two statements from the article NOT supported by any evidence from the author. Are you capable of contributing to the topic at hand without making statements obviously designed to rile up the locals? Or do you somehow see that as your purpose in life?

      Rand’s obvious point from the title of the post, and the article’s, is that the choice of the three specific examples Obama used to highlight the dire necessity of addressing global warming is not supportable by the facts. Agreeing with the author’s conclusions in that regard does not mean one has to agree with all of the author’s opinions offered throughout the rest of the article.

      Frankly, the authors conclusions regarding the three examples shouldn’t come as a surprise. Obama’s speech writers often don’t bother themselves with supportable examples; its all about the emotion. You would think that before including wildfires, drought, and hurricanes SOMEONE would have checked with the global warming community to see if those were still valid examples. But, sadly, no. They were picked for the obvious reason that they are examples the audience can relate to because of recency in the news cycle. Obama continues to play his useful fools like a finely tuned violin.

      So, how’s it feel to be played, Jim?

      1. Jim

        Lomberg, for reasons known only to him, would rather quibble with Obama’s rhetoric than confront the reality that his preferred policies are blocked by the GOP.

        1. wodun

          So you agree with Obama the the world is heading toward a fiery apocalpse with simultaneous drought and increased rain fall with fiery tornadoes hurricanes the likes of which god has never seen unless we come to our senses and recognize the second coming of our one and only savior Barak Obama?

          Maybe people would take Obama and the AGW alarmists seriously if they didn’t always claim we are going to catch on fire then drown and the only way out is to give Democrats money.

          1. Jim

            I agree with both Obama and Lomberg that carbon emissions are a problem, and that increased energy R&D spending is an important response to the threat posed by global warming. It’s the GOP that’s out of step with science here.

    2. Joe Triscari

      Jim,

      Given that you feel this R&D needs to spent and given that you think a democratic government will do the spending, is there any idea so stupid that you think those responsible for funding it should be held responsible?

      For example, should we spend 1/2 billion dollars investigating: Square wheels? Human flight by arm flapping? Cylindrical solar cells in place of flat ones?

      Are there nuanced reasons for doing one of these asinine ideas? If you think that say, flying by flapping your arms, needs to be tried before we can know, would it be reasonable to judge you scientifically illiterate? Can you imagine discovering that those ideas might not work without spending 1/2 billion?

      In the event profoundly stupid ideas start getting funded should we maybe cut off the source of funds? Even if the Earth Mother is crying?

    3. Rand Simberg Post author

      What’s really amusing about this, Jim, is that Lomborg is completely and credibly dismantling your Messiah’s junk science, and you’re completely ignoring it.

      1. Jim

        No, he’s critiquing Obama’s rhetoric. On the fundamental scientific question — the role of carbon emissions in dangerous global warming — it’s Obama, Lomberg and the scientific mainstream on one side, and the GOP on the other. Likewise on the fundamental policy question, which is whether governments should take action to reduce carbon emissions. Lomberg doesn’t support every Obama climate policy proposal, but Obama definitely supports Lomberg’s proposals, while the GOP opposes all of the above.

        Lomberg loves to pose as a contrarian, and I suppose that’s why you often link to him, but on the questions that matter he’s with Obama.

        1. Rand Simberg Post author

          On the fundamental scientific question — the role of carbon emissions in dangerous global warming — it’s Obama, Lomberg and the scientific mainstream on one side, and the GOP on the other.

          Lomborg doesn’t think it’s that dangerous.

          on the questions that matter he’s with Obama.

          The only issue on which he’s with Obama is that CO2 causes warming. The only policy he agrees with is basic R&D for renewable energy (which is not universally opposed by Republicans). He certainly doesn’t support cap and trade, or carbon taxes, or government loan guarantees to cronies.

  2. McGehee

    the world needs to cut carbon dioxide because it causes global warming

    In quantities possible only from a supervolcano eruption, this is true.

    I sure hope Boooosh doesn’t set off any supervolcanoes.

Comments are closed.