"We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity," Obama declared. "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms."
Alas for those who still believe in the president's intellect, the examples he provides as evidence of climate change are the very ones that prove the opposite.
Let's look at Obama's "raging fires". While most forest fires are started by natural causes - lightning is the biggest culprit - it is government-decreed environmental laws that have turned standard replenishing fires into infernos. The inability of citizens or the government to clear out dead underbrush creates a ton of dry kindling that serves as an endless supply of fire fuel, while the policy of afforestation — the establishment of trees or tree stands where none previously existed- is creating a situation known as water depletion, leading to dried out woods (and lower water supplies to fight the very same fires they cause).
Better to blame global warming, than to change deadly policy.
"Crippling drought"? Here's a chart that will scare you:
Too bad, when put in historical context, it seems as if conditions are actually better than they were 100 years ago:
As reported by the Telegraph UK (because the US media will no longer report truths that are harmful to the liberal agenda):
According to a commonly used model of drought patterns, researchers had previously assumed that higher global temperatures were causing greater evaporation of water, and therefore more droughts.
But a more detailed analysis of weather data, including wind speed, humidity and radiation levels, found that in fact there has been "little change" in drought over the past 60 years.
Researchers from Princeton University and the Australian National University said drought was "expected to increase in frequency and severity" in the future, but added that currently used prediction methods are inaccurate.
Finally, the "powerful storms", as Obama once again tries to use Hurricane Sandy as a political prop. Again, the overwhelming judgement of science is that we are merely in an upswing cycle, and nohing close to the frequency of storms seen back in the mid 1950's:
From Real Science, more charts that prove conclusively:
If there is a correlation between CO2 and hurricanes making landfall in the US, it is the opposite of what is predicted. As CO2 has increased, hurricanes have decreased.
Barack Obama said long ago that if elected, he would return science to its "rightful place". It seems as if he believes the proper place for science is in service of the Democratic party and the liberal agenda. And the media, for its part, seems to agree.
It's gonna be a long four years. If we make it that far....