‘Politically contrived nonsense’: Scientific studies, data and history refute Obama’s climate/national security claims – Climate Depot’s Rebuttal

Climate Depot Statement on President Obama’s latest round of claims linking ‘global warming’ to national security. See: Obama Readies U.S. Troops For The War On ‘Global Warming’

Statement by Marc Morano, Climate Depot Publisher: “It is hard to even take today’s speech by Obama seriously on either a logical, scientific or political level. The speech was so farcical in its claims that it hardly merits a response. It is obvious that the climate establishment is seeking new talking points on ‘global warming’ to change the subject from the simple fact that global temperatures are not cooperating with their claims.

See: Global warming ‘pause’ expands to ‘new record length’: No warming for 18 years 5 months

clip_image002

If any Americans actually believe the climate claims linking ‘global warming’ to a rise in conflicts, no amount of evidence, data, logic or scientific studies will likely persuade them. But given the high profile nature of the comments, a rebuttal to the President’s climate claims is necessary.

Claiming that melting ICE is more a threat to the U.S. than ISIS is a hard sell, particular given the latest data on global sea ice. See: Sea Ice Extent – Day 137 – 3rd Highest Global Sea Ice For This Day – Antarctic Sets 49th Daily Record For 2015

Contrary to the President’s claims, it seems ISIS may in fact trump ICE as a bigger concern.

Image result for obama climate change

Obama also claimed that climate ‘deniers’ were a huge part of the problem. Obama explained: “Denying it, or refusing to deal with it, endangers our national security and undermines the readiness of our forces.”

Obama seems to be borrowing his claims from Rolling Stone Magazine. See: Forget ISIS, skeptics are greatest threat?! – Rolling Stone: Climate ‘Deniers’ Put ‘National Security at Risk’

Also see: Paper: ‘Osama bin Laden cared more about global warming than GOP Sen. James Inhofe’

But actually believing the above statements endangers our capacity for rational thought and evidence based research. Actually believing Obama’s climate claims, undermines our nation’s ability to distinguish real threats from politically contrived nonsense.

UN climate treaties and EPA climate regulations will not prevent wars, conflicts or impact the creation of terrorist groups.

The President seems to believe every modern malady is due to ‘global warming’ See: White House doom: Climate change causes allergies, asthma, downpours, poverty, terrorism – Lists 34 effects

President Obama claimed that man-made climate change was partly responsible for the …

Paper: ‘Osama bin Laden cared more about global warming than James Inhofe’

http://national.suntimes.com/national-politics/7/72/1152602/osama-bin-laden-james-inhofe-global-warming
A letter from bin Laden — which is believed to have been written in 2010 — reveals that he was perturbed by the lack of an adequate response to the millions of people affected by floods in Pakistan, which left 2,000 dead.

Here’s a quick excerpt:

Indeed, what our Ummah is experiencing, of effects associated with the enormous climate changes and the great suffering the natural disasters are leaving behind that now become prevalent throughout the Muslim countries, renders the traditional relief efforts insufficient. Relief work is mentioned as the only solution for these disasters, without warning that it is a plague or suffering from Allah Almighty, and the first solution is faith and correct deeds. One of the correct deeds is assisting Muslims.
Bin Laden even proposed establishing a ”permanent relief organization” to help poor areas deal ”with such more frequent, diverse and massive consequences of climate changes.”…

Obama using the EPA to shut down coal fired electricity generation in the USA

President Obama using the EPA to shut down coal fired electricity generation in the USA

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=3710

These two online articles show that concern is rising in the USA about two main issues around the shutdown of coal fired power – the impact of higher electricity prices on the less well off and the reliability of the grid. I hope that policymakers in the USA can learn from Australian experience after our Coalition Govt foolishly introduced a tiny RET scheme (Renewable Energy Target) in 2001 – then in 2010 this was vastly increased by GreenLabor. Of course the USA gets 20% of electricity from nuclear energy – I do not know if that sector can take up any slack from reductions in coal use. IMHO Australia is sleepwalking towards increased risk of grid instability but adopting the 33Gwh target for 2020 has eased that risk a little. On the other hand some states are working towards higher targets. Queensland wants 50% renewable energy by 2030 and the ACT (only ~300K people) has a 90 percent renewable energy target for 2020. All against a background of China increasing emissions out to 2035 at least. Nothing we try to do matters a cup- full of warm spit.

— gReader Pro…