On Climate Change, Obama Talks the Talk But Does Otherwise

On this year's Earth Day, President Obama celebrated by taking Air Force One on a short trip from Washington D.C. to the Florida Everglades.  As some have noted, that short jaunt  burned the equivalent of a year's worth of fuel for 17 automobiles.

When the President goes anywhere, there is an entourage of at least 4 planes; not just Air Force One.  There is also a backup Air Force One; and at least 2 heavy-lift cargo jets that burn fuel faster than Air Force One. These are needed to carry all the automobiles and helicopters necessary for the trip.  International excursions usually add another cargo jet and another passenger jet to carry additional aides and extra reporters.  Also required, are at least two fully-armed fighter jets to escort the President's plane. Then, of course,  an advanced security team must be flown in to make sure that he is fully protected.  When on the ground, the motorcade causes thousands of cars to be backed up in traffic jams; all the while those cars sit idling and wasting gas and spewing unnecessary CO2.

I guess what bothers me most about Barack Obama and his continual complaining about our carbon footprint and climate change, is that he is one of the nation's single biggest polluters of CO2.

Already he's our most traveled President. His trip to India in 2010, cost the earth an estimated 19 million tons of carbon dioxide.  A trip that also involved 40 aircraft and 34 warships that were brought into the region.  Last year, he and 900 people descended on Brussels for a 24-hour trip.  That involved 3 cargo jets and a motorcade of 45 vehicles and protection by 350 motorcycle police.

Then, there are all his vacations, golfing, and fund raising trips.  In fact, early in his first year in office, he took Michelle on a one-evening date to New York City.  And, then all those one-day trips all over the country to pitch an agenda item in front of some crowd of affected and disaffected workers, or other small group of Americans.  One estimate has the President's personal annual carbon footprint at 41,000 tons while the average American only spews out 19.8. 

Then we have Hillary Clinton who, under Obama's direction, was the most traveled Secretary of State.  A record that her replacement, John Kerry, is on track to break. Of course we have to add all the First Lady's "good will" trips she's taken on her own.

The simple fact is that if President Obama truly cared about Climate Change and carbon footprints, he would lead by example. But, like so many on the left, he could never once consider himself part of the problem.


References:

Obama’s Earth Day Flight Emits More CO2 Than 17 Cars Would In A Year: http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/22/obama-earth-day-flight/

Study: Obama Most Traveled President, With 31 Costly Trips Abroad: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-travel-presidents-summit/2014/03/24/id/561415/

Flashback: How Big Is Obama’s “Carbon Footprint”?: http://www.thepiratescove.us/2013/06/24/flashback-how-big-is-obamas-carbon-footprint/

Obama India Trip: 40 Aircraft, 34 Warships, 3,000 Entourage, Entire Taj Mahal Booked, Coconut Removal, Bomb-Proof Tunnel Construction, 19 Million Pounds Of CO2 @ $200 Million Per Day?: http://sadhillnews.com/2010/11/04/obama-india-trip-40-aircraft-34-warships-3000-entourage-entire-taj-mahal-booked-coconut-removal-bomb-proof-tunnel-construction-19-million-pounds-of-co2-200-million-per-day

Are you watching Vladimir? Obama lands in Belgium with entourage of 900 and 45 armored vehicles for ONE night only costing THEM $10.4 million in security: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2589438/Are-worried-Vladimir-Obama-lands-Belgium-entourage-900-45-armored-vehicles-ONE-night-costing-10-4-million-security.html

Hillary Clinton breaks travel record - Associated Press: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78594.html

5 Facts You May Not Know About How Much Obama’s Travel Costs You: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/123748-money-well-spent-obama-now/

First Family Vacations: http://www.judicialwatch.org/obamas-vacations/

Obama's Miami visit on immigration sparks mixed reactions: http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2015/02/25/24008531/

Obama touts immigration plan in his third visit to Las Vegas: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-1122-immigration-high-school-20141122-story.html

President Obama tours to call for minimum wage rise: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-25949797

Obama trip mends a broken heart: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/16/politics/obama-south-dakota-broken-heart-50th-state/

Google Search on Obama's Visits Over Minimum Wage: https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+visit+minimum+wage&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Kerry did not set out to break Hillary Clinton’s mileage record, but that may become one measure of his ultimate success: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/07/31/john-kerry-six-month-report-card/F5CBhgRDlXEaQxQUeyvPtI/story.html

Obama frames global warming as national security threat: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150520/us--obama-cf7a594290.html

Obama and Climate Change: Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Even as a Senator, running for the presidency, Barack Obama made fighting climate change a priority. In fact, in his latest budget submission, the dollars to fight it got top billing and some big bucks.

So, one would think that, if climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, this President would personally do as much as possible to minimize his own carbon footprint.  But, no.  Instead he has used Air Force One, and its entourage of vehicles and other planes, more than any other President in our history; and, subsequently, has left a massive carbon footprint on the planet.

When ever any President travels, there is a minimum of two copies of Air Force One (one serving as a backup), 45 vehicles, and 3 massive cargo jets to transport those 45 vehicles.  On top of that, there are hundreds of members of the Presidential entourage who can't be accommodated by the two hundred available seats on the 2 Air Force One's.  In fact, on a recent trip to Belgium, 900 people accompanied Obama. That meant that 700 of them needed to arrange their own transportation over and above what Air Force One could handle.

Of course, there are times when any President must travel.  But, think about this. Was it necessary for Obama to take all those aircraft, vehicles and personnel in order to use a New York City GAP store as a mere "prop" to sell an increase in the minimum wage?  Oh, yes, he did buy a few clothes. But here's a question.  Were there no GAP stores near the White House in Washington, D.C.?  Well, in fact, a Google search shows there are two.  Yet, it was essential that he travel 400 miles to New York City and burn up as much fuel as possible.


These prop-trips to sell some personal political agenda item are a constant habit with Obama.  It seems like he has made 2 or 3 of them a week since he's been in office.  But, he doesn't have to pay the bill or, more importantly, worry about his personal impact on the planet.  Yet, he wants all of us to pay more and conserve more in order to fight climate change.  Even Jimmy Carter, when telling us to turn down our thermostats in order to conserve energy and fight the OPEC oil embargo, did so while wearing that now-famous sweater.


The fact that the President doesn't personally reduce his own carbon footprint just shows he doesn't care or really believe in it.  If he did, he would walk-the-walk to match all the talk.  Instead, combating climate change is just another political issue that he uses to garner votes.


References:

Obama's Budget Puts Climate Change Front and Center: http://mashable.com/2014/03/04/obama-budget-climate-change/

Air Force One Stats: http://askville.amazon.com/total-seating-capacity-Air-Force/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=13637222

5 Facts You May Not Know About How Much Obama’s Travel Costs You: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/123748-money-well-spent-obama-now/

Are you watching Vladimir? Obama lands in Belgium with entourage of 900 and 45 armored vehicles for ONE night only costing THEM $10.4 million in security: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2589438/Are-worried-Vladimir-Obama-lands-Belgium-entourage-900-45-armored-vehicles-ONE-night-costing-10-4-million-security.html

President Obama makes shopping stop at New York Gap as part of minimum wage campaign: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/obama-unscheduled-trip-gap-part-min-wage-campaign-article-1.1718211

Obama's 'Drought' Ignorance

Desperately needing to strengthen the Democrat's environmental base in advance of the 2014 elections, Obama burned tons more carbon dioxide -- more than you or I would use in our lifetimes -- by flying Air Force One and its companion plane to the West Coast in order to link California's drought to climate change.  There, awaiting the President's arrival, was an entourage of heavy, armor-plated and extremely low-mileage limousines that had been advance airlifted in a  massive gas-guzzling military cargo plane.

Then after surveying some of the dry earth in the area,  the President stepped in front of the cameras and used the California drought as an example of climate change.  He even said that science had predicted it.  After that, his entourage whisked him off to one of the 9 well-manicured and deep-green golf courses in the area that are responsible for using up 17% of all the available water in that county.

Now, it's quite rare that the always-simpatico New York Times would ever take this President to task; but, they did this time.   And, well they should.   This is because he was so off base in linking California's drought to climate change or global warming that even the "Times" couldn't hold its tongue.  As the paper pointed out, computer modeling had never predicted a drought for California.  Instead, the "state" was supposed to have warmer and much wetter weather. Further, the same scientists that didn't see the drought coming, also can't predict when it will end.

Droughts, since the history of time, are an ever occurring fact of nature. Long before the itsy-bitsy carbon footprints of this country's first pilgrims arrived here, there was the Medieval period from 900 to 1500 A.D.  During that time, California had numerous and decades long droughts. In the 1950's, it was so bad that many of the Golden State's natural lakes were mere mud puddles.  The worst drought ever in the recorded history of this country took place during the dust bowl years of the 1930's.  Maybe, this most intelligent President overlooked Steinbeck's Classic "The Grapes of Wrath".

The bottom line is that California doesn't have a climate change problem when it comes to water. They have a population problem. A water usage and planning problem and, an environmental activism problem.

If the state's population was even 10% less than it is today, the drought wouldn't be an issue. The state has not built a single, new water retention facility in the last 30 years.  Yet, during that time, their population has grown by more than 32%.  On top of that, environmentalists have forced California to dump billions of gallons of excess reservoir water into the oceans in an effort to keep a few environmentally protected habitats from being flooded.  Additionally, they have blocked  desalinization of sea water, which would provide an endless source of fresh water, because the process might adversely affect sea life. Fortunately, the state's first desalinization plant is scheduled to go on line 2016.

Once again, the politicization of climate change by using false linkages, makes it less believable.  Though, to an ideologue like Obama, that doesn't seem to matter.


References:

New York Times: Science Linking Drought to Global Warming Remains Matter of Dispute: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/science/some-scientists-disagree-with-presidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html?_r=0

Time.com: Scientists fear California's long-ago era of mega-droughts could be back: http://science.time.com/2014/01/23/hundred-years-of-dry-how-californias-drought-could-get-much-much-worse/

Drought In the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_States

The Man-Made California Drought: http://naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5921

Desalination isn't the answer to California's water problem: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/13/news/la-ol-ocean-water-desalination-20131112

Toxic CO2?

If you listen to the Gore-ites of the world, the 3/100's of a percent of our total atmosphere that is comprised of carbon dioxide (CO2) is literally choking the planet. The EPA, under Obama, now considers it a "toxic gas" subject to stringent controls. However, increasingly, the world's peoples are not buying into all this horse-cart litter regarding the supposed toxicity of CO2; simply, because the earth isn't really getting any hotter. Yet, the world's liberal governments are still pressing on to control it.

I, for one, believe that higher levels of CO2 will result in increased plant activity; thus, reducing those high levels of atmospheric CO2 down to normal levels. This is the basis of the Gaia theory (or hypothesis) that was first suggested by James Lovelock of NASA in 1960.

Now, we have this very interesting YouTube video that seems to support the Gaia theory with a real-life, side-by-side example of two plants; one getting nearly three times the level of CO2 over the other. The results are amazing:

Why the Greenhouse Effect And Global Warming Make No Sense

The whole concept of global warming and climate change is based on the fact that CO2 and some other gases, trapped in our upper atmosphere, act as a reflective blanket and radiate heat back to the earth in much the same way as a glass enclosed greenhouse maintains warm temperatures for plants; even in the depths of winter. But, anyone who actually owns a greenhouse also knows that the greenhouse effect only works during the day and, at night, the lack of the sun's radiant heat must be offset with some form of gas or electric heat.

So, with this simple concept in mind, it seems obvious that the sun is what truly drives the greenhouse effect.

If we are to assume -- as the global warmists would have us all believe -- that CO2 reflects thermal energy, we must also assume that it is also capable of reflecting or blocking the sun's thermal energy from reaching the earth. Therefore, it is only logical that some of the sun's energy won't be able to warm the earth as the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases rise in our atmosphere. So, at the very least, the warming effect of increased CO2 is probably being more than offset by the amount of the sun's thermal energy that is being blocked.

Another reason that the greenhouse effect doesn't make any sense has to do with simple thermal dynamics. At the heart of this concept is the fact that space is a lot colder than the earth is warm. In fact, in the depths of space, the temperature is 2.7 degrees kelvin or about -455 degrees Fahrenheit. At best, the warmest parts of the earth can only reach 130 degrees Fahrenheit. So, in essence, the tendency of the earth is to cool rather than to heat up. Most of its warmth is at the surface. The farther away from the surface you go, the colder it gets. You only have to look to the ice caps on the world's mountain tops to know this to be true. Therefore, by the time that earth's radiated heat makes it to the CO2 layer that is trapped in the earth's upper atmosphere, that heat has been cooled to freezing temperatures. So, therefore, what amount of real thermal energy is actually being reflected?

Furthermore, because space is so cold, the likelihood of one extra degree of the earth's radiated warmth being reflected back to the surface is highly improbable. It is more logical to believe that, thermally, the earth is less likely to warm space than space is to cool the earth.

What the Warmists don't want to talk about is the fact that most of the heat that is trapped at the earth's surface is the result of the amount of water vapor that is present in our atmosphere --- both in terms of clouds and humidity. Water vapor is the true greenhouse gas and it is the reason that we aren't just some big snowball in space. Water vapor makes up 95% of the earth's atmosphere. By contrast, CO2 only makes up less than 4 tenths of one percent of it. Even the smallest changes in the amount of water vapor in our atmosphere will have a substantial effect on the overall temperature of our environment. And, no amount of tree ring data and ice cores can tell us how much water vapor was present at any particular time in the history of the earth. Because of this lack of data, the computer models that are predicting future temps are totally deficient and not at all reliable. That is why, I believe, the current global warming scientists are so perplexed by the more than decade long flat-lining of world temperatures. Their models just don't work.

Through simple observation, anyone can easily understand how important humidity and clouds are to temperature. If you live in area of the country were the temperatures are capable of plunging below zero, you know that the coldest days -- the days when jet liners flying overhead actually create a "crackling" sound --- are those days that are totally cloudless and the humidity levels are so low that everything you touch gives you a static electricity shock. Those living in desert areas know that cloudy days will keep the the night from cooling off to the more comfortable temperatures that would otherwise be seen on cloudless nights.

There is just so much about the effect of CO2 on global warming that makes absolutely no sense. In most cases, simple logic trumps what we are being told. To me, the science will be settled when the majority of scientists -- and not just those whose theories are being tainted by fat government grants --- are in concert about the cause of global warming. Until then, I will remain one of those evil skeptics.

Ask Your Philodendron If CO2 is Dangerous

Probably, the most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my life is the EPA's decision this week to call CO2 a "dangerous gas". Even school children know that plants won't survive without CO2. We,and all the other animals on earth, expel it all day long as a byproduct of producing the energy that we need for us to live, grow, and be active. I guess, for that matter, water, too, is dangerous. Even though you absolutely have to have it to survive, you could drown in it too! So, let's classify water as dangerous!

To me, this kind of insanity doesn't make the Climate Change argument any more valid. It just makes a joke out of the whole process. Are we now going to force people (akin to the treatment of cigarette smokers) to take their dangerous breathing outside? I can just see a new line of self-help books being released like: "How to survive without breathing anymore!" Then, too, the New York Times best seller might be something like: "Waiting to Exhale: The Green Story." My guess is that sometime shortly, Kathleen Sibelius of Health and Human Services will have to declare a "carbon dioxide pandemic". Maybe she will do a show-and-tell on how to avoid expelling your breath on others who might be nearby. Expect the see the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to start reporting how widespread carbon dioxide poisoning is each week.

But, while it may seem like the EPA decision is just a joke, there may actually be a more sinister and intentional side to that decision. One that is the intentional arming of all those militants who are at war with carbon footprinting.

When you really think about it, by classifying CO2 as a dangerous gas, the EPA could shut down almost anything that emits CO2. And, because of this insane decision, every environmentalist was just handed the hammer that they needed to clear the decks of every CO2 producing activity that they don't like.

Make no mistake about it, the EPA just opened the door to a whole new world of lawsuits. Cap and Trade is now completely immaterial to the process of controlling carbon dioxide. The battle, now, will be fought in the courts and by groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. If the EPA doesn't take action to shut down your local cement manufacturer or coal-fired power plant or steel mill, the environmentalists with go to court and force the law to shut them down -- using the EPA's ruling as the basis of their legal action. This is perfect for the environmentalists. Previously they had tried and failed to get polar bears defined as an endangered species so that they could sue, and used that as a basis to shutting down carbon producing manufacturing operations. This will be just like ACORN using the Community Reinvestment Act to force banks to give out unqualified home loans; but, this time, environmentalists will have their heyday and the consequences will be much more disastrous for society.

What the EPA did this week -- like most of Obama's thugs -- was done without any thought as to the far reaching consequences. From the closure of Gitmo to the prosecution of CIA personnel to the trying terrorists in a civilian court, this Administration is just insane. They are totally driven by ideology. And, they don't care what happens to the country and society in the wake of their decisions.

The Hypocrisy Of the Copenhagen Fly-In

In just a few days, between 12 & 15 thousand attendees will descend on Copenhagen(Click to See Full Story: "Road to COP15 in Copenhagen") to participate in the 15th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference. Representatives from more than 180 countries will attend. These will include government heads of state and delegates, scientists, environmentalists, and -- oh yes -- "green advocating" celebrities from Hollywood and around the world.

To get there, these thousands of people will fly in on, primarily, private jets, government aircraft, chartered jets, and -- I suppose -- some will actually use commercial airlines. Each government contingent will have an entourage of, probably, two, three, or even a half dozen vehicles that have been bullet-proofed and won't get your average fuel economy. President Obama will be there too. Prior to his trip, several secret service agents will fly in and scour the area to insure the President's safety. Additionally, a fleet of bullet-proofed Presidential and presidential escort vehicles will be airlifted into Copenhagen on heavy transport planes.

Now, it might be a bit presumptuous of me; but, isn't this fly-in and the amount of carbon being thrown into the atmosphere a wee bit hypocritical? After all, these are the people who are getting together to save the planet from all that man-produced carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide that is produced by carbon-based fuels such as jet fuel and gasoline. Haven't any of these people heard of streaming video technology and video conferencing that could eliminate or minimize this kind of "meet-me-in-Copenhagen" carbon explosion? Does everyone have to go? This just shows how hypocritical the "climate change/global warming" movement is. They all want to save the planet -- but, they don't want to have to actually do any of that saving themselves.

Cash For Clunkers: A Green Flunker

Our science community has been busily putting pen to paper and has been able to calculate the "green" impact of the soon-to-be $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program. In general, it is believed that the program will save about "one hour's worth" of all the CO2 output of this entire country over one year's time; or, about 700,000 tons of CO2 (Click to See Full Story).

To put this into perspective, there are 8,760 hours in every non-leap-year year. Our population grows by about 2 percent per year, and, therefore, it is safe to assume that our carbon output grows by the equivalent of 175 hours each year. In comparison to the mere hour of carbon savings from the Cash For Clunkers Program, our population growth will completely offset that savings in just 2 days. Further, think about how futile the Cash For Clunkers program is in terms of the sheer population growth in both China and India. Combined they have 8 times our population and are growing twice as fast as we are in terms of their per capita carbon output. Therefore, when looking at the mammoth and overall task of saving our planet from CO2, the carbon savings of the Cash For Clunkers is nothing "less" than infinitesimal.

The only thing that "Clunkers" did is continue to bury us in debt and create another government welfare program for a bunch of car buyers who were probably going to replace their cars anyway.