Vigende forståelse for det udsatte klima

Diverse — Drokles on February 3, 2012 at 5:58 am

Patrick Michaels skriver i Forbes om præsident Obama’s bemærkelsesværdige ændringer i sine politiske prioriteringer

Fast backward to February 24, 2009,  the date President of Obama’s first State of the Union Speech. The order of battle was “energy, health care, and education”.

That’s right, climate change came before health care.  Specifically, he said we should “…invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to our economic future: energy, health care, and education.  It begins with energy…to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change…I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution”.

Seems easy.  He won by a landslide, grabbed a big majority in the House, and with the expected help of some Northeast republicans in the Senate, passage looked like a sure thing. Further, reducing carbon dioxide emissions was bipartisan. Only six months before Obama’s election , Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi recorded a commercial agreeing on the need to stop global warming. Now.

Fast forward to January 24 , 2012. Education comes before energy.  Instead of limiting emissions, he leads off with a call for increased offshore drilling and gas drilling around the country, and finishes by saying “The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change”.

(…)

The great crack-up started a mere 123 days after  Obama’s first SOTU speech,  at 7pm on Friday, June 26, 2009, when the House of Representatives gave the President what he wished for:  passage of a cap-and-trade bill cutting U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide 83% in 41 years.  By 2050, the average American would be allowed the same emissions produced by a citizen in 1867.

Three days later, reality hit. On June 29, Scott Rasmussen’s presidential approval index, which is a three day average, went negative, meaning more people he polled “strongly disapproved” of the President than “strongly approved”.  Obama’s index has not been positive for one day since.

Også i England dykker angsten for udslettelse ved bedre vejr ifølge Daily Mail

Public concern about climate change is on the wane.

The number of people willing to alter the way they live in the hope of making a difference to global warming fell by around 10 per cent last year.

There was also a sharp drop in those who regarded themselves as ‘fairly concerned’ about climate change.

The figures, released by the Government yesterday, suggest that doubts about global warming have been growing since the summer of 2009.

This was before the damage inflicted on the cause by the ‘Climategate’ scandal later that year, in which leading scientists  were accused of manipulating data to support the case of man-made climate change.The credibility of global warming and concern about halting it appears to have been affected by the succession of three cold winters between 2008 and 2010.

Hvad mon stemningen havde været i Danmark, hvis fuglene blev spurgt? Fra Jyllands-Posten

En enkelt uge med bidende kulde har kostet 25 pct. af de danske småfugle livet. Der er tale om arter som fuglekongen, gærdesmutten og rødhalsen, som er særligt sårbare over for kulde.

“Hvis kulden fortsætter måneden ud vil vi miste 90 pct. af disse fuglearter”, siger Morten D.D. Hansen, naturvejleder og museumsinspektør ved Naturhistorisk Museum i Aarhus.

Det hører man ikke så meget om ved milde vintre. Der er økokatastrofen at bøgen springer tidligere ud end ens bedstemor synes at kunne huske.

1 Kommentar »

  1. [...] henviste jeg til en aftagende interesse for klimakatastrofen i både USA og England. Nu ser det også ud til at falde i økologiens moderland Tyskland, hvor kun [...]

    Pingback by Monokultur » Tysk klimatvivl — February 8, 2012 @ 6:36 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress