Climate change not a presidential election issue yet

Cattle try to keep cool in the remains of a farm pond in a pasture heavily damaged by drought August 3, 2012, near Cuba, Illinois. / Getty Images

(AP) WASHINGTON - Barack Obama promised to tackle climate change when he first ran for the White House four years ago, but - battling this summer for a second term - he speaks little of the issue even as the United States suffers through a drought of historic proportions, wild storms and punishing heat that topples temperature records almost daily.

As late as April, Obama told Rolling Stone magazine climate change would be a central campaign issue.

"I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we're going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way," he said.

But as the campaign against Republican challenger Mitt Romney reaches an early boil, even before the parties hold their nominating conventions, climate change is little spoken of by incumbent candidate Obama, who four years ago foresaw millions of new jobs through investments in "renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels."

Instead Obama is fighting a Romney challenge in a tight race over the struggling American economy and stubbornly high unemployment. Gallup polling repeatedly shows the economy as the chief concern among American voters at 65 percent, while environmental and pollution issues were mentioned by less than 1 percent of those polled.

Even without a big push on climate change, Obama has the support of environmentalists. Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said Obama "has done a substantial amount in his three years to fight the climate crisis." Romney, he said, "is taking his lead from fossil fuel companies and does not even acknowledge there is a climate problem."

Romney and Obama's welfare wars
No end in sight for campaigns' negative focus
Rove: Romney "close to a decision" on VP

Romney has been accused of changing positions on the issue to curry favor with the most conservative Republicans, many of whom deny that climate change exists. As governor of the liberal-leaning state of Massachusetts, Romney imposed restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions on power plants in the state. But as a presidential candidate, he has said the "idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us." He acknowledges that the globe is warming, but says "we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet."

Early in his administration, Obama was more bullish on tackling climate change. He pushed through tough new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks and promoted alternative energy.

But the first years of Obama's presidency were dominated by the political fight over his plan to overhaul the country's health care system. Obama managed to pass health care over intense Republican objections while Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. But after Republicans - fueled by the conservative tea party movement's anti-government, small-tax message - seized control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 elections, the president's legislative agenda has been blocked.

The United States is now more politically riven and gripped in partisanship than at any time in recent history. Legislation on a deeply controversial issue like curbing greenhouse gases stands no chance of passage in Congress at a time when Republicans are accusing Obama of reckless spending and burdening businesses with unnecessary regulations.

Obama was bitten badly when Solyndra, a solar energy firm that received a $500 million federal loan guarantee, went bankrupt and left taxpayers with the bill. Republicans painted Obama's drive for alternative energy as a waste of time and money in an economy that was struggling to pull out of the worst downturn since the Great Depression.

Obama hasn't totally ignored climate change on the campaign trail. As recently as this week he was promoting a drive to expedite seven solar and wind energy projects in the American West. His interior secretary, Ken Salazar, said Tuesday that the administration had in the past three years "approved more utility-scale renewable energy projects on public lands than in the past two decades combined."

But there is little chance that the few undecided American voters who will decide the razor-close election will cast their ballots based on the candidates' position on climate change.

James Riddlesperger, a political scientist who studies the juncture of science and politics at Texas Christian University, said the political lines are already drawn.

"Everybody already knows where the parties, the candidates stand on global warming," he said. "What is done about it awaits the outcome of this election."

[louiville2_2]

Occupy get's punk'd with another barage of BS from parinoid alarmists during an election year

This from IPCC AR5 clearly shows that nothing we see now is either extreme or out of normal in fact things can be MUCH worse then they are now.

The AR5 Zero Order Draft section on droughts and floods stated:

"5.5.2.4 Megadroughts and Floods
Drought and floods are recurring extreme climate events. There is ample historical evidence for their past important physical, economic, social and political consequences (Buckley et al., 2010; Buntgen et al., 2011; Graham et al.; Zhang et al., 2008). Evidence from tree rings, historical documents, stalagmites, lake
sediments, peatlands, etc, indicates that severe megadroughts (by modern standards droughts of unusually long duration that typically exceed those observed in the instrumental records; (Woodhouse and Overpeck, 1998; Stahle et al., 2000; Cook et al., 2010)) are a recurrent feature in many regions including North America, east and south Asia, Europe, Africa and India ((Cook, 2007; Herweijer, 2007; Zhang, 2008; Zheng, 2006; Buckley, 2010; Buckley, 2010; Cook, 2010; Helama, 2009; Russell, 2007; Buntgen, 2010; Esper, 2007; Sinha, 2007; Shanahan, 2009; Neukom, 2010; Pfister, 2006; Touchan, 2008; Touchan, 2010; Pauling, 2007; Verschuren, 2000; Christie, 2009; Berkelhammer, 2010; Nicault et al., 2008)).

The occurrence and spatial extent of past megadroughts may be clustered over time following regime changes. There is evidence for more severe droughts during the LIA in South Asia, eastern Northwest China, and Southeast Asia, west Africa and parts of Europe ((Buckley, 2010; Sinha, 2007; Shao, 2010; Zheng, 2006; Zhang, 2008; Sinha, 2007; Sinha, 2007; Helama, 2009; Buntgen, 2011; Pauling, 2007; Cook, 2010 ; Russell, 2007; Shanahan, 2009)) compared to the predating MCA and the last century. In contrast, drought extent in North America, northern and central Europe, and East Africa were significantly greater during 900-1300 than during the LIA and the last century ((Cook, 2007; Cook, 2010; Herweijer, 2007; Helama, 2009; Luoto, 2010; Russell, 2007; Verschuren, 2000; Stager, 2005)). Proxy information indicate, that intervals of severe drought in western Africa lasting for periods ranging from decades to centuries are characteristic of the monsoon and are linked to natural variations in Atlantic temperatures ((Shanahan et al., 2009); see also Sections 5.5.2.1 and 5.6.2). Proxy reconstructions and model experiments suggest that variability in the tropical Pacific might partly account for the occurrence of megadroughts in North America with related teleconnections in all continents (Seager et al., 2008). A strengthening of the zonal SST gradient in the tropical Pacific via an enhancement of La Nina state and possibly warming of the Indian Ocean during periods of the MCA may have contributed to arid conditions in North America (Graham et al.; Seager et al., 2008), contrasting with wetter conditions in Asia (Graham et al., 2007). During the MCA, positive NAO conditions (see Section 5.5.5.3) and AMO phases may have favored wetter winter conditions in NW Europe and arid in NW Africa ((Graham, 2007; Esper, 2007; Touchan, 2008; Touchan, 2010)). El Nino phases seem to have been more prominent during the LIA than the MCA, in coincidence with monsoon weakening Section 5.5.2.1) and drought occurrence in Asia (Buckley et al., 2010; Cook et al., 2010a),

...
Overall, multiple studies suggest that current drought and flood regimes are not unusual within the context of last 1000 years ((e.g., Cook et al., 2010; Seager et al., 2008; Graham et al., 2010))."

[louiville2_2]

Hey occupy are ALL the greenhouses on the planet in the employ of "big oil" like you told me before??? Cuz that's some funny stuff.

Also are you still in denial that we need CO2 to survive, that without it we would all die??? Have you finally looked at the "carbon cycle"???

[occupy_cbs]

raptor-022: "Or maybe, louisville, you missed this from your MET linked story":

"CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to 'come roaring back'. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz22OZUH0xD




Thanks raptor-022, for proving that louie doesn't bother to read HIS LINKS that HE PROVIDES, past one sentence that agrees with his ultra-conservative ideology and religious denialist B.S. LOL!

He will continue to post crap from anthony's WUWT denier BLOG site, and has now begun using yet another non-scientific BLOG called 'Power Line' -- an American political publication -- as well as tell us all that CO2 is a plant food, and that no level is too high because warming is good, and that drought, flooding and MegaFIRES are not "that bad". LOL!

[occupy_cbs]

Ouch! July in U.S. Was Hottest Ever in History Books

More than half of the country experienced "moderate to exceptional" drought conditions at the end of July, the hottest month ever recorded. And the impact of this hot weather has been felt across the nation as crops shrivel and wildfires rage out of control.

And even less a surprise: The U.S. this year keeps setting records for weather extremes, based on the precise calculations that include drought, heavy rainfall, unusual temperatures, and storms.

Three of the nation's five hottest months on record have been recent Julys: This year, 2011 and 2006.

Last month also was 3.3 degrees warmer than the 20th century average for July.


http://www.usnews.com/science/news/articles/2012/08/08/ouch-july-in-us-was-hottest-ever-in-history-books

[occupy_cbs]

The first seven months of 2012 were the warmest on record for the nation. And August 2011 through July this year was the warmest 12-month period on record, just beating out the July 2011-June 2012 time period.

But it's not just the heat that's noteworthy. NOAA has a measurement called the U.S. Climate Extreme Index which dates to 1900 and follows several indicators of unusually high and low temperatures, severe drought, downpours, and tropical storms and hurricanes. NOAA calculates the index as a percentage, which mostly reflects how much of the nation experience extremes. In July, the index was 37 percent, a record that beat the old mark for July last year. The average is 20 percent.

For the first seven months of the year, the extreme index was 46 percent, beating the old record from 1934. This year's extreme index was heavily driven by high temperatures both day and night, which is unusual.

The record in July isn't such a big deal, but the fact that the first seven months of the year are the hottest on record is much more impressive from a climate standpoint, and highlights the fact that there is more than just natural variability playing a role: Global warming from human activities has reared its head in a way that can only be a major warning for the future.

[occupy_cbs]

RollotheNorman:
Hmmmm..Powerline, a pseudo-science snake oil dispensary...

Now I'm no climatologist, but somebody's articles have appeared in National Review, The Weekly Standard, and the American Enterprise Institute doesn't exactly inspire my confidence in their scientific objectivity, especially given the NOAA and most of the world's other climatologist's disagree and given the general refusal to believe the scientific community by a faction of RepubliCON community. And on a personal note, you are a dick-head louiville2_2.




Hilarious, that louie and the other deniers have now begun using yet another non-scientific BLOG called 'Power Line' -- an American political publication, providing news and commentary from a right-wing point-of-view, written by three lawyers who attended Dartmouth College together, and are fellows at the Claremont Institute conservative stink tank.

What next?? LOL!

[occupy_cbs]

Appears that louie and his evangelical deniers have some strange beliefs in their religious sect worshiping carbon dioxide as a powerful "plant food".


WHAT WE BELIEVE

1. We believe Earth and its ecosystems -- created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence -- are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

2. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.

3. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.

4. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

[louiville2_2]

Occupy get's punk'd with another barage of BS from parinoid alarmists during an election year

This from IPCC AR5 clearly shows that nothing we see now is either extreme or out of normal in fact things can be MUCH worse then they are now.

The AR5 Zero Order Draft section on droughts and floods stated:

"5.5.2.4 Megadroughts and Floods
Drought and floods are recurring extreme climate events. There is ample historical evidence for their past important physical, economic, social and political consequences (Buckley et al., 2010; Buntgen et al., 2011; Graham et al.; Zhang et al., 2008). Evidence from tree rings, historical documents, stalagmites, lake
sediments, peatlands, etc, indicates that severe megadroughts (by modern standards droughts of unusually long duration that typically exceed those observed in the instrumental records; (Woodhouse and Overpeck, 1998; Stahle et al., 2000; Cook et al., 2010)) are a recurrent feature in many regions including North America, east and south Asia, Europe, Africa and India ((Cook, 2007; Herweijer, 2007; Zhang, 2008; Zheng, 2006; Buckley, 2010; Buckley, 2010; Cook, 2010; Helama, 2009; Russell, 2007; Buntgen, 2010; Esper, 2007; Sinha, 2007; Shanahan, 2009; Neukom, 2010; Pfister, 2006; Touchan, 2008; Touchan, 2010; Pauling, 2007; Verschuren, 2000; Christie, 2009; Berkelhammer, 2010; Nicault et al., 2008)).

The occurrence and spatial extent of past megadroughts may be clustered over time following regime changes. There is evidence for more severe droughts during the LIA in South Asia, eastern Northwest China, and Southeast Asia, west Africa and parts of Europe ((Buckley, 2010; Sinha, 2007; Shao, 2010; Zheng, 2006; Zhang, 2008; Sinha, 2007; Sinha, 2007; Helama, 2009; Buntgen, 2011; Pauling, 2007; Cook, 2010 ; Russell, 2007; Shanahan, 2009)) compared to the predating MCA and the last century. In contrast, drought extent in North America, northern and central Europe, and East Africa were significantly greater during 900-1300 than during the LIA and the last century ((Cook, 2007; Cook, 2010; Herweijer, 2007; Helama, 2009; Luoto, 2010; Russell, 2007; Verschuren, 2000; Stager, 2005)). Proxy information indicate, that intervals of severe drought in western Africa lasting for periods ranging from decades to centuries are characteristic of the monsoon and are linked to natural variations in Atlantic temperatures ((Shanahan et al., 2009); see also Sections 5.5.2.1 and 5.6.2). Proxy reconstructions and model experiments suggest that variability in the tropical Pacific might partly account for the occurrence of megadroughts in North America with related teleconnections in all continents (Seager et al., 2008). A strengthening of the zonal SST gradient in the tropical Pacific via an enhancement of La Nina state and possibly warming of the Indian Ocean during periods of the MCA may have contributed to arid conditions in North America (Graham et al.; Seager et al., 2008), contrasting with wetter conditions in Asia (Graham et al., 2007). During the MCA, positive NAO conditions (see Section 5.5.5.3) and AMO phases may have favored wetter winter conditions in NW Europe and arid in NW Africa ((Graham, 2007; Esper, 2007; Touchan, 2008; Touchan, 2010)). El Nino phases seem to have been more prominent during the LIA than the MCA, in coincidence with monsoon weakening Section 5.5.2.1) and drought occurrence in Asia (Buckley et al., 2010; Cook et al., 2010a),

...
Overall, multiple studies suggest that current drought and flood regimes are not unusual within the context of last 1000 years ((e.g., Cook et al., 2010; Seager et al., 2008; Graham et al., 2010))."

[occupy_cbs]

Better yet, is this list of "what these evangelicals deny," as their religious movement against Climate Change marches forward:

1. We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth's climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

2. We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.

3. We deny that carbon dioxide -- essential to all plant growth -- is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.

4. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

-----

Personally, this is exactly the ideology of louie the denier, no matter how much he is in denial about the religious denial, since he actually believes that CO2 is just a "trace gas" that cannot cause any problems, and that more of it will benefit plant life, without causing any detrimental problems! LOL!

[dragontek-2009]

If the public only really knew the deep trouble we are in with the climate- it would be a huge campaign issue. We are now on track for 'Disastrous climate change'-and its beginning now-

in the end climate change will top every issue this country has ever faced. In the end their will be plenty of blame to go around; the monied special interests, 99% of the republican party defacto- many others- the Main Stream Media- the Fossil Fuel interests-

the generation's to come will pay a huge price- and even those today 60 and under will have a heavy burden,

[lstrut123]

The excuse for bankrolling the renewable energy industry, saving the planet, has evaporated. Global temperature hasn't increased since the 1990s, even though CO2 has continued to increase. The discrepancy is consistent with a seldom spoken fact: 95% of the CO2 put into the atmosphere is put in by nature:

http://drtimball.com/2012/ipcc-control-calculations-of-annual-human-co2-production-for-political-agenda/

through processes that are unfazed by humans, let alone government bureaucracy.

[ge556]

"95% of the CO2 put into the atmosphere is put in by nature"
==

It's the increase that humans are causing that's the problem. It was balanced before, and now it's not.
The globally warmest years are, in increasing order: 1998, 2005, 2010. And 2012 will probably be a new record.

Every year since 2000 has been warmer than every year on record before 2000, except 1998.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#globalTemp

[RollotheNorman]

You know the farmers in the Midwest lose all their crops this year, and maybe for several more years, they might begin to take notice of which party was stonewalling the global warming conversation for the last 20 years with fanatical anti-science. After raising crops of dust and weeks for several years, could be big blocks of the RepubliCON base might just defect. Of course it's the Democratic Party that will have to ride to the rescue, a national scale sea-water desalinization effort and associated national irrigation piping effort would be a useful addition to all the infrastructure work the nation already needs.

[RollotheNorman]

...crops of dust and weeds...

[louiville2_2]

"...crops of dust and weeds..." that's what rolls around between your ears.

FYI you don't even know enough to know when you have been punked during and election year.

""The damage to the credibility of my profession is huge"

That's the takeaway line from meteorologist Cliff Mass on his Cliff Mass Weather Blog today, delivering a savage beatdown on the latest global warming scaremongering from NASA's egregious James Hansen about recent summer heat waves: "It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small." Mass thinks this is a mass of hot air." http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/the-damage-to-the-credibility-of-my-profession-is-huge.php