‘Climate Change’ and the ‘Fundamental Transformation of America’

dnews-files-2013-06-obama-climate-plan-130625-670x440-jpgWhile speaking before an audience at Georgetown University on Tuesday, President Obama unveiled an ambitious agenda to combat “climate change.”

This agenda includes a “war on coal.”  Or so his opponents charge.

In actuality, though, the so-called “war” on coal is just a battle in the left’s war against “climate change.”

Everyone who hasn’t been living in a cave is aware of the fact that what is now called “climate change” was known, not all that long ago, as “global warming.”  That the latter label has largely been displaced by the former is a turn of events that sheds much light into the dark recesses of the leftist’s psyche.

In spite of the fact that, at least for a while, “global warming” was quite the buzzword in the popular culture, it—along with the leftists who spared no occasion to invoke it—experienced a decisive reversal of fortunes a few years back when “Climategate” came to the public’s attention.  Many distinguished scientists, it was revealed, conspired with one another to conceal that evidence which contradicted the idea of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.  Over 1,000 emails and an assortment of other documentation confirmed the doubts of skeptics who long insisted that the notion of global warming was an invaluable fiction to those who sought to annex ever greater amounts of power to the central government.

Of course, this wasn’t the only obstacle that “global warming”  had to surmount.  Regardless of what the experts say, the average person is much more disposed to trust his own senses than testimony that militates against it.  And the average person can see that for all of the hype over so-called global warming, in many parts of the country—and the planet—it still gets very, very cold.

So, global warming has had bad press and it is all too easily refuted by the daily experiences of millions, and maybe even billions, of people all over the globe.  Thus, the time was ripe to substitute for “global warming” a label that hadn’t yet been scandalized.  More importantly, it would have to be a label that was vague enough to defy empirical confirmation (and falsification) while conforming to the experiences of everyday life.

With the greatest of ease, “climate change” satisfies both of these conditions.

Yet it is precisely because “climate change” works so well in these respects that this seemingly innocuous term is the stuff of which the ideologue’s fantasy is made.

Obama and his ideological ilk know all too well that the “war” against “climate change” promises to be a war without end.

Change is a fundamental fact of life.  There is nothing in this world that isn’t susceptible to change, nothing that isn’t in a state of constant flux.  The climate is no exception to this rule. Since, then, the climate will always change, the war against climate change, in principle, can continue forever.

In other words, “climate change” supplies environmentalists—or, more appropriately, governmentalists—with the proverbial blank check, an interminably open-ended pretext for growing government indefinitely.

A society devoted to liberty is most in danger of undergoing just the sort of “fundamental transformation” that Obama wishes for America, it is most in danger of losing its character as a free society, when it is waging war. War is the emblem of all crises, and as Rahm Emmanuel infamously, but truthfully, said, “a good crisis” must never be permitted “to go to waste,” for it is in times of crisis when the government is not only allowed, but expected, to engage in activities that it wouldn’t ordinarily be able to pursue.

When a society is at war, the government becomes the agent par excellence of activism.  Politicians become “leaders” and citizens become servants to the war effort as their resources in time, energy, and labor are conscripted in the service of achieving “victory” over the enemy.

In this case, the case of the war on climate change, the enemy is intractable, for the enemy is us.  What’s worse is that given the amorphous concept of “change,” we have no definitive way to gauge progress, for there are no benchmarks, no place from which to begin and certainly no destination in sight.

Make no mistakes about it, Obama and his fellow travelers who ache to further consolidate the power of the national government care about “climate change” only inasmuch as it serves governmentalism, not environmentalism.   

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • anor277

    “………“Climategate” came to the public’s attention. Many distinguished scientists, it was revealed, conspired with one another to conceal that evidence which
    contradicted the idea of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.”

    This is news. Perhaps someone should inform the host of committees that investigated the original revelations and found no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. Certainly many of those scientists whose candid emails were hacked are still tenured professors and have not ‘recanted’. The article’s assertion is therefore factually wrong and accuses certain scientists of wrongdoing when they were simply doing an honest job. Global warming has increased since 1998 (in fact 2010 was the hottest year on record) and the evidence has been consistently plain to see up to the latest measurements. You either accept these data or ignore them, and it seems that many who write and comment here have decided to ignore robust and reproducible measurements.

    • Bamaguje


      • anor277

        Ah, these intellectuals follow me everywhere. How can I cope with their logic and reason?

        • nightspore

          “it is widely accepted that the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are undergoing unprecendented warming”

          Then why was there such a cold winter last year – from the British Isles to China? Why are the Arctic summer temperatures currently at the lowest they’ve been since 1958 when DMI measurements began? (Google dmi arctic temperature and have a look) Why is the Arctic ice extent currently as high as it’s been in the last 10 years. (I haven’t forgotten about the Arctic amplification guff, even if you’ve conveniently moved on.)

          • anor277

            And there you’ve got me, why indeed? Perhaps because weather is not climate; if indeed you can account for local trends of a complex system. Where I was staying last winter (actually it was summer in the southern hemisphere) experienced scorching and unprecedened temperatures. But I don’t claim this is as evidence for global warming.

          • tagalog

            I’ve always enjoyed the phenomenon of hearing the global warming/climate changeists discuss the current year’s weather as a harbinger of climate disaster (as when there are hurricanes – have you noticed the change in storm reporting in the past couple of years? – they now report Caribbean storms that don’t come anywhere near the U.S. coast line, and storms along the western Mexican coast, something they rarely did before), but respond to reports of years when there are extraordinarily cold winters by saying “one year’s worth of weather, even a decade’s worth, doesn’t translate automatically into a climate prediction.”

        • Stan

          No evidence of fraud?
          Read the emails yourself.

    • Smoking Hamster

      Where were the plaintiffs? For there to be a trial, there needs to be an interested party prosecuting the case. The committees weren’t interested in finding the truth.

      What about “hiding the decline?”

      • anor277

        “The committees weren’t interested in finding the truth.”

        When the original story broke, I recall that there were many serious charges levelled at the individual scientists: for instance that they had misrepresented data or had lied (both professional suicide). There was considerable venom in the press reports which described the affair. A series of committees were formed both in the US and the UK to investigate the matter (i.e. to question the work of scientists who had broken no laws but were merely suspected of something untoward).

        Do you think that if there were any substance in the claims made that the committees involved would not have publicized it? (I recall that some very prominent climate sceptics joined the ones in the US). An extensive review of the scientists’ work found that their work to be robust and reproducible. It seems that they have been judged guilty because it fits someone else’s worldview, and we certainly see an example of this in the article.

        • Smoking Hamster
          • anor277

            All that is reported here is innuendo. The tree-ring data were known to be inaccurate, and were trumped by actual non-proxy measurement of temperature. Again, given the circumstances, it is inconceivable that misrepresentation on the part of the individual scientists would not have been seized upon and publicized. No such publicity occurred. It may comfort you to think that there is a conspiracy to misrepresent evidence. I have no problems with the reported data. Thank you in any case for sharing that site – it’s a different perspective.

          • ziggy zoggy

            @nus277 just ignores the facts and keeps claiming that left is right. I know you get paid to do this but damn, you are one lousy liar. For a lie to be effective it has to be convincing, you halfwit. You cant just say the sky is falling and expect everybody to believe you year after year.

          • Stan

            Odd then that they now agree with McIntyre and McKittrick that their tree ring data was garbage.

            Try to keep up…..

    • nightspore

      Have you actually read any of the climategate emails? Why was Hal Lewis disgusted when he read the book on Climategate? Why did Judith Curry begin to have second thoughts, based on these revelations?

      Whitewashing by committee proves nothing. Pedophilies and rapists have been whitewashed by intellectual elites.

      If you can say that these characters were “doing an honest job” you’re either ignorant or a fool or a fellow bien pensant without moral coordinates.

      I see you also make the claim that 2010 was the “hottest year on record” (I think you’re confusing the US with the world here). This is only after gross adjustments have been made to the temperature record.

      • Smoking Hamster

        Exactly. Another point the climate during the 30’s was MUCH more extreme than today. The droughts were horrific and I wouldn’t be surprised if the temperatures were hotter as well on average after removing “adjustments.”

      • anor277

        I’ve read a few of them; they are largely irrelevant to the published data. You dismiss the findings of open enquiries. You also seem to have forgotten your manners. I do not know you, so please keep your personal comments to yourself.

        That 2010 was the hottest year is a matter of record. Multiple sources support this claim unambiguously. My viewpoint is not influenced by the weather on the North American continent.

        • Stan

          Better take a closer look at those inquiries and what they actually examined, and who they allowed as witnesses.

        • nightspore

          January 2010 – NWS reports longest stretch of cold in Florida for 100 years; week ending 1/6 1200 new cold and snow records reported across US; in Britain severe cold snap reported in Telegraph and other newspapers; 1/9 Int’l Herald Trib reports “cold causes disruption on both sides of the Atlantic”; Irish Times – Beijing suffers “prolonged cold spell”

          June and July – “brutal and historical cold snap has so far caused 80 deaths in South America”, whileTelegraph
          reports that Nashville had the coolest 7/21 on record

          November and December – “record cold” in Beijing (UPI), in Britain (Guardian, MSNBC, Daily Express), in Norway:
          “coldest November in 222 years” (Aftenposten), severe cold “across Europe and China” (IBNLive), also subnormal temperatures throughout Australia (BOM)

          Given these and more, then despite a hot summer in the US, it’s hard to believe this was the “hottest year on
          record” But then it’s wonderful what you can do with adjustment ‘algorithms’.

          • anor277

            And weather is not climate. The data are already on the page. There is nothing much I can cite if you consider the data suspect. There is also not much I can do if you consider the motives of the scientists to be suspect. Are there any data that you would consider sound?

          • nightspore

            Where are the innundated beaches? Or is the land rising along with the ocean? There is plenty of reason to suspect the land temperature records: see “The smoking gun at Darwin” (Australia), Paul Homewood’s articles on the manipulation of the Icelandic temperature record, and Steve Goddard’s postings on the (shall we say) exuberant adjustments of the USHCN temperature record. Also. Edward Long’s paper, “Contiguous U. S. Temperature Trends using NCDC Raw and Adjusted Data for One-Per-State Rural and Urban Station Sets”, which shows how little is left of the temperature rise if basic controls are included in the analysis.

            My take on this is that what began as an honest attempt to systematize temperature adjustments back in the 80’s has slowly turned into a game of self- and other-delusion. Part of the problem is that the temperature record wasn’t all that good in the first place; this is not high-powered physical science, although it’s now been gussied up to look that way. But this doesn’t explain the repeated attempts at hockey-stick-ization of long-term temperature records, which indicates a more serious debasement of science in this field.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Climategate revealed that phony climatologists falsified data and made up incredible lies about the so called environment. Just how stupid are you to post such a$$ munching lies, you worthless sack of dog$hit?

      • anor277

        You don’t seem to have any manners do you bud. Had the scientists falsified data do you really think that they would still be tenured?

        • ziggy zoggy

          Another non answer from hockey stick boy. Earth’s climate hasn’t changed in 16 years- not that it will matter when it finally does go up or down. Every projection made by the Chicken Littles has been wrong for going on 30 years now. Doomsday never comes but hey, maybe next year?

          • anor277

            A non-answer to a non-question. I am no under no obligation to answer absurd propositions. Please remember that I don’t know you and on the internet it is always preferable to talk to other individuals as if you are talking to them face to face.

            As regards global temperature, different reports consistently show that the year 2005 was hotter than 1998; the hottest 12 month period recorded was between June 2010 and May 2010. These are matters of record, which you can confirm quite easily.

          • ziggy zoggy

            “These are matters of record, which you can confirm quite easily.’
            Another stupid dodge. Even if those cherry picked figures were true they would prove nothing except that temperatures fluctuate annually. Average temps have been consistent for 16 years and counting. mankind has nothing to do with global temps and Co2 is a byproduct of warming released by oceans and not the cause of any warming. Cause and effect, not effect and cause.
            Just because somebody pays you to lie, that doesn’t make your mentally retarded lies persuasive in any way. F*** off back to the short bus.

          • anor277

            Not only do you refuse to accept honest data, you say that someone is paying me to lie. What a conspiracy! How much do you think each of my posts is worth? 5 cents, £5-00, £100-00? How much would someone pay me to tell the truth? How much do you think the authors of this table got?


            By the way, how long do you think you can get away with the use of such profanity in your posts? I am not the only person here who finds it objectionable.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Honest data? Your pals falsified data all the way back to 1940! A lie told often enough becomes the truth, eh? You obviously DO have a vested interest in the anthropogenic global warming scam. You should use some of your ill got loot to buy a dictionary and look up the definition of “conspiracy.” And “fraud.” And “canard.” And “prig.” Britain allows old queens like you to legally bugger 16 year old boys and you want to whine about profanity? Seriously? Next thing you’ll call me a racist.

          • anor277

            I don’t think such an intellectual analysis needs further comment. According to the previous poster that’s another £50-00 to my account. Thanks bud.

        • Stan

          Read the emails yourself, you might learn something!

  • cedarhill

    All tyrants and totalitarians need enemies. Their easiest are “external” ones they can tie to their internal opposition. For example, The Jew is the external enemy of most of the Middle East, thus it’s “normal” to kill suspected Jewish sympathizers as needed. And there always be an external enemy even it it’s a created one out of whole cloth.

  • Nyree Wright

    There have long been claims that some unspecified “they” has “changed the name from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change'”.
    In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used
    for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated
    changing the name in this fashion is a global warming ‘skeptic’.

    The scientific journal, ‘Climatic Change’ was created in 1977 (and is still published today).

    And check out this scientific article from 1956 –
    PLASS, G. N. (1956), The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change. Tellus, 8: 140–154. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x

    And this search on google books demonstrates that both terms have been in use since the 1970’s – http://tinyurl.com/GWvsCC

    And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term ‘climate change’ was in use before the term ‘global warming’, and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature:

    So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ refer to different physical phenomena. The term ‘climate change’
    has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades,
    and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years.
    Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to
    change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the
    change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global
    warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term
    ‘climate change’ is less frightening to the general public than ‘global warming’.

    There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth “they changed the name from global warming to climate change”.

    • Nyree Wright

      Jack Kerwick writes “That the latter label has largely been displaced by the former is a turn
      of events that sheds much light into the dark recesses of the leftist’s

      I would counter that Jacks reliance on right wing myths sheds much light into the dark recesses of his psyche”

      • ziggy zoggy

        I would counter that your reliance on left-wing fables sheds much light into the dark recesses of your psyche.

    • nightspore

      You’re being disingenuous, which is typical. Anyone who’s been following the antics of the warmists over the years knows that about 5 years ago, the mantra changed from “global warming” to “climate change”, which as the writer says is so vague that it can be supported by just about any weather phenomenon. (There doesn’t have to be any “conspiracy” behind this, incidentally. Just a common agenda in play plus the copycat effect.)

    • ziggy zoggy

      The terms “bull” and “$hit” have been in use a lot longer than “global warming” and “climate change.” We all know which terms describe reality and which ones don’t.

  • tagalog

    There’s no time. Just let your representatives and senators sign the new laws that there’s no time to read. Gotta get cracking on this problem. Like health care.

  • dizzyizzy

    I wrote about the Brits going over to climate change and against Darwin here: http://clarespark.com/2011/04/14/darwin-and-the-climate-change-debate-the-greens-have-it/. “Darwin and the climate change debate: the Greens have it.” Note that it is considered hubris to put man above the rest of nature. I think this is a key point of the Green ideology, which is now heavily infiltrated by Reds calling themselves Red-Greens. The source is Germany and its mystical nature cult.

  • defcon 4

    The zero is against coal (which the US has in abundance) yet strangely uninterested in the fact that much more oil is used throughout the world than coal, perhaps it’s because oil is the blood which keeps islamonazism alive and well in the 21st century.

  • spyeatte

    Permanent war against the people, requires permanent rebellion against the oppressors (the left). Never trust or submit to the ones that worship Saul Alinsky.

  • VHG1

    The left’s “enemies” are either anyone who disagrees with them or some unseen mythical creature that can’t be seen or felt, makes no sounds, leaves no tracks but is out there! Like Big Foot! UFO’s, and those other grainy shaky videos of ghosts!

  • MarilynA

    Obama obviously thinks by being head of the most Powerful country in the world that he is God’s equal, if not his better. Since climate changes have been proven to be cyclical and caused by “acts of God” or nature, it takes a really big ego to think that one person can reverse natural actions and reactions by mandating that people change their behavior based on the theory that Man is responsible for all natural disasters. History is replete with others who thought they were equal to, or smarter than, God. Obama needs to get his nose out of his Koran and read the Bible. Start with the story about the Tower of Babel. then there is Sodom and Gomorrah. . There are other examples of God’s displeasure of other would be Gods who challenged his decisions. Remember…Moses did not part the Red Sea. God did it after Moses appealed to him.

  • okokok


    Oh Look Darrell Issa Is Lying Again, Part One Million Seven Hundred Sixty Thousand Seventy Two
    Read more at http://wonkette.com/521083/oh-look-darrell-issa-is-lying-again-part-one-million-seven-hundred-sixty-thousand-seventy-two#bjZQvfMIOJP0F9iP.99

  • johnnywood

    Elections have consequences.

  • apkandroidapp

    apkandroidapp.com: The centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s plan to respond to this “growing” threat – and the proposal most vilified by opponents – is a plan that would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to set new standards restricting the amount of carbon emitted by both new and existing electric power plants

    Obama says carbon pollution is “critical” part of Keystone decision

    Obama’s adaptability on climate change and immigration

    “We’ll use more clean energy and waste less energy throughout our economy,” Mr. Obama said.

    • ziggy zoggy

      The election is long over. Stop campaigning, you dumb@$$.

    • Stan

      The only thing critical about the Keystone decision is that Warren Buffet’s trains are making billions hauling the oil that would go through the Keystone pipe.
      If the pipe goes ahead Buffet’s trains will go empty.

      • pookieamos

        Yep , you’re right . I also heard that Obamas buddies were going to make a fortune building the pipeline out of Canada to China . Screw the American people , that’s the Obama mantra.

  • tagalog

    He’s been running his second term for less than a year, and it’s already so depressing I can’t stand to watch the Sunday morning news programs, not any of them, from Fox News Sunday to Meet the Press to Sunday Morning With George Stephanopoulos (or however it’s spelled). I just read a book and put it up so I can’t see the screen and let my wife talk to the TV instead of me. Today, I agreed with Juan Williams for I think the first time ever when I heard him say about the DOMA case that “the struggle is over.” Yep, got that one right.

    • pookieamos

      I truly feel your pain and misery , I feel exactly like you do ! My new ecscapism from FOX and politics is BINGO ! I just have to get away else I’ll go insane . Yep , I can blame my new addiction on Obama , but heck from what I’m seeing America will be dead and burried before I’m broke ! I figure anymore why save it.

  • Stan

    Middle east oil producers import coal so they can free up more oil for export to the US.