Climate change priorities | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    Our Imperial Savior said in a New York Times interview last year that there was "no evidence" the Keystone pipeline would be a "big jobs generator," claiming it might create 2,000 jobs in the construction phase but far fewer permanent jobs. We are left to wonder if the Keynes "multiplier" so commonly used by Dems to justify projects as fiscally sound, doesn't apply to money spent on construction or paid to construction workers. Maybe it doesn't apply to money coming in from out of country (i.e. Canadian money)..

    Could this be the same individual who touted "shovel ready" construction jobs several years ago as the cure for the near record unemployment we were experiencing?? Yes, I believe it was. So what do you think was different about the two situations?? Could it possibly be that one alternative is financed with US Taxpayer money and the other is financed with foreign (i.e. Canadian) capital?? It isn't really clear just how many continuing jobs would have been created if there had been such a thing as a "shovel ready" project. As the result of rebuilding bridges or roads or the like, a few maintenance jobs may have been created (assuming that anyone bothers to do maintenance any more) but that's about all. So what do you suppose changed??

    Could it have anything to do with trying to placate the "tree huggers" who donated to his campaign and have become increasingly restive?? In "caving" to the environuts on this issue which is stoutly supported by the AFL/CIO, the Anointed One seems to be throwing the union under the bus. But then, he did already pay them back for their support when he reworked the nation's bankruptcy laws to put the union ahead of the secured GM Bond holders in the GM bankruptcy proceedings several years ago. Of course the unions likely believe that a political debt is a continuing obligation and can't be settled with a "one time" sop. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't already have their "What have you done for us lately" signs already printed and ready to hand out if a unplanned protest should occur.

    And, speaking of the "tree huggers..What makes the entire situation truly weird is that with or without the Keystone pipeline, the Canadian oil is going to be recovered and utilized one way or another. Without the pipeline, it either goes to China or is sent to the U.S. by rail. Either or both of those alternatives result in a significantly greater carbon "footprint" (ergo more climate change??) and environmental risk (i.e. leaks, fire, other physical damage) than if the oil comes to the U.S. via the pipeline. The environuts seem to be willing to "cut off their nose to spite their face" in their irrational effort to stop the pipeline. When the environmental movement takes those kinds of idiotic positions, a lot of thinking folks abandon or avoid the movement as well they should - and you can't blame them..

    It is interesting that our Secretary of State John Kerry is in Indonesia suddenly spouting the party line about "Climate Change" and denigrating those who do not whole heartedly support the notion, relegating them to the "flat earth society". Forget Benghazi. Forget global warming. Worry about carbon footprints and climate change. He seems to support the (clearly mistaken) notion that "climate change" is the most important thing we need to be doing something about. Surely he is not trying to change the subject prior to the runup to the 2014 election. Of course not. Hmmm... And BTWit might be interesting to know just how and why the term "global warming" morphed into "climate change".

    India, Indonesia, and China are major contributors to the carbon pollution in the atmosphere. Of course we know that it is a really bad thing to be doing - especially when the only purpose is to generate economic expansion and improve the lot of their populace. That seems to be a notion that is foreign to the Anointed One and his spear carriers (i.e. expanding the economy instead of simply taking from the rich to give to the poor.) While the Chinese and others add carbon to the atmosphere by building coal fired power plants, we hold up our end of contributing to carbon in the atmosphere by flying the Anointed One and the likes of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton (when she was Secretary of State) and Al Gore all over creation, each leaving a large carbon footprint wherever they go. But, that's different. Of course it is...

    In talking about atmospheric pollution it is strange that Secretary Kerry didn't mention just what Indonesia's Mount Kelud volcano, in eastern Java, did to the atmosphere. Reportedly it hurled ash 9 miles into the sky which I would think is surely not good for the atmosphere. Nor did he mention the other 130 active volcanos (+/-) in Indonesia and what their potential is for contributing to atmospheric change.

    And how about the island of Hawaii?? The Kilauea volcano on Hawaii has been erupting continuously for over 30 years (yes, 30, count 'em). It creates a form of pollution called "Vog". In Hawaii they take VOG seriously enough to require people buying property on the Big Island (not sure about the other islands) to sign a disclaimer similar to the "Radon" disclaimer required in many parts of the mainland when purchasing a house.

    The following is quoted from Wikipedia:

    "Vog is a form of air pollution that results when sulfur dioxide and other gases and particles emitted by an erupting volcano react with oxygen and moisture in the presence of sunlight. The word is a portmanteau of the words "volcanic", "smog", and "fog". The term is in common use in the Hawaiian islands, where the Kilauea volcano, on the Island of HawaiŽi (aka "The Big Island"), has been erupting continuously since 1983. Based on June 2008 measurements, Ki lauea emits 2,000 - 4,000 tons of sulfur dioxide every day."

    Presumably that amount of pollutant spewing into the atmosphere does not contribute to carbon based "climate change", or surely our Secretary of State would be talking about that also. However volcanos do contribute sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere. (That is a scientifically measured fact - no "models" required.) The sulfur dioxide spewing from the volcanos morphs into acid rain which reportedly isn't very good for the environment (also a measurable fact - still no "models" required. Hmmm...). Maybe Mr. Kerry is with the "flat earth society" when it comes to worrying about acid rain and what it does to our oceans not to mention its effect on plants and the like.

    Also...We "know" that there have been several ice ages. It is widely believed that significant global cooling was the cause of those "ice ages" the existence of which have been fairly well documented.. The evidence of several ice ages seems to be well enough documented to consider their existence as "settled science" - which is considerably more than can be said about the largely discredited "findings" of the British scientists (?) whose untested and unproven models produced the so called science that has driven the man made global warming distraction. What do you suppose it was that made the ice ages recede?? Could it possibly have been "global warming"?? That certainly seems likely. (It was either that or dinosaur flatulence.) That would certainly suggest that the cooling and subsequent warming of the globe is cyclical like just about everything else in nature. Do you suppose that the cooling of the globe and the subsequent warming followed, in turn, by more cooling really are natural phenomena?? We can only wonder why no one seems to be interested in exploring or discussing that notion..

    How presumptuous do you suppose we need to be to believe that man can control nature?? If man can indeed control nature, as the Anointed One and his sycophants are wont to suggest (or at least imply when they talk about controlling global warming), there are perhaps some other areas where the danger is much more imminent. Start with hurricanes and tornados. Then proceed to volcanic eruptions. Then maybe we could take on earthquakes. Surely the existence of hurricanes, tornados, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes and the damage they do is "settled science". The difference between them and "rising sea levels" is that they represent threats. The damages predicted as the result of global climate change won't materialize for a long time (if ever). The damages wreaked by hurricanes etc are already with us, so why don't we take on those problems first?? Oh!! Not so much grant money available to look for solutions as to how to control those things?? And besides working on a problem that is not predicted to materialize during the lifetime of most of us means that workable solutions will not be expected for a long time. The same cannot be said about controlling hurricanes and tornadoes and the like. It certainly begins to look as though we are being scammed - again...

    D'ya think??