Putin continues to woo the common sense American by saying what many of us have been thinking for years about a myriad of subjects. The latest…Climate change is a farce being used against industrial development, and oil and natural gas.
Recall Obama’s 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft several weeks ago. Kroft pressed Obama by telling him Putin was challenging his leadership by putting ground troops in Syria. Part of his answer was,
” My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change in an international accord that potentially we will get in Paris.”
I remember watching this interview and thinking, “What did I miss?” First we are talking about Russia’s “screw you” attitude towards American involvement in Syria, then we have Obama defending his leadership abilities by pushing forth silly ideas like climate change? Obama’s capacity to embarrass America never ceases to amaze me. Climate change, a serious issue indeed when you stack it up next to Syria and our ineffective foreign policy.
It is unfathomable how much attention the liberals have gotten off of a manmade crisis, and how they use it to deflect any legitimate question in regards to the failed policies of this administration. It has truly been manufactured in order to stop countries from being able to be industrious and make money. Look at what Obama’s policies have cost the West Virginia coal industry,
“more than 8,000 direct mining jobs and tens of thousands of support positions.”
It has been said that even IF, all the countries in the world reduced their carbon footprint, we still wouldn’t be able to bring the temperatures down to the supposed perfect degree. Furthermore, if a country, perhaps China for instance, would decide to go off the reservation and expel more carbon than it should, who is going to discipline them? Would the US send in ground troops to find the excess vapor?
In an article in Investor’s Business Daily states,
“Feel-good policies that do nothing but massively raise costs and kill jobs aren’t something to be celebrated. Nor should the leaders who propose them.”
But, leave it to Obama to lead on something that adds no valuable hope or change. The only thing he seems to be excelling at these days is making our country insignificant, and he does so by pushing junk science. The simple fact that weathermen these days can’t tell me the exact temperature two days from now, much less what it is going to be in 50 years to a tenth of a degree, makes me a little skeptical.
So, in the midst of Obama’s dreams of glory at the coming December UN Summit on climate change in Paris, Putin remains an unapologetic skeptic of the effect countries can make on global warming. Andrey Illarionov, former economic advisor of Putin and now CATO Institute Senior Fellow says,
” We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited,” he said. “It became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to ‘fight’ global warming was rather unfounded.”
Clearly liberal journalists are irritated that Russia’s president and therefore its national media give little attention to climate change. Take for instance the following from a New York Times article,
“Wildfires crackled across Siberia this summer, turning skies ochre and sending up enough smoke from burning pines to blot out satellite views of the 400-mile-long Lake Baikal.
To many climate scientists, the worsening fires are a consequence of Siberia getting hotter, the carbon unleashed from its burning forests and tundra only adding to man-made fossil fuel emissions.”
It goes on to explain how the Russian people are being kept in the dark about the seriousness of climate change.
“…because media coverage across state-controlled television stations and print media all but ignored it. On national TV, the villains were locals who routinely but carelessly burn off tall grasses every year, and the sometimes incompetent crews struggling to put the fires out.
While Western media have examined the role of rising temperatures and drought in this year’s record wildfires in North America, Russian media continue to pay little attention to an issue that animates so much of the world.”
What makes more common sense? A fire being started by spontaneous combustion because of elevated carbon or one catching fire from brush burning?
What makes more common sense, a fire being started by spontaneous combustion because of elevated carbon, or one catching fire from brush burning? Chances are, you’ll choose the latter culprit. As for liberals, they’d always go with climate change as the cause of everything evil in the world, even the actions of ISIS can be blamed on it.
The fact remains, they can’t handle leaders who have differing opinions of global warming that are based on intelligence and logic. They remain intolerant of anyone with a belief other than their own, and just can’t seem to coexist with people who speak out against their agenda.