Tag Archives: climate change

Obama Says Climate Change Contributes Terrorism…But What About THIS?

Barack Obama has definitively stated that he is of the opinion that climate change contributes to terrorism. But thus far, what the president has failed to address is whether the cause and effect relationship between climate change and terrorism works both ways

And who better to marry the topics of terrorism and weather than the one who implied he had the Messianic ability to “slow the rising oceans” and “heal the planet?”

In the wake of the COP21 the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, one can’t help but wonder why the president didn’t address the carbon footprint that results from ISIS incinerating humans beings for sport.

In fact, while the president was in France blaming terrorism on global warming, jihadists were in Syria hanging people upside down on spits and roasting them like pigs.

Here the president was center stage at an international climate change conference in a city that, after being attacked by ISIS, has barely buried their dead. That’s why; Paris was a fitting place for Obama to explore whether ISIS burning people alive in metal cages pollutes the air.

Before jumping headlong into the subject of human bonfires, the president could have begun by examining more benign topics such as exploding metal implants and hot ash, both of which are spectator safety concerns affecting curious bystanders at public executions.

Granted, when broaching the subject of environmentally friendly killings, even crucifixion and beheading can get a little tricky.

For example, who would have thought that there’s an ecological downside to beheading dozens of people on a beach? Clearly, ISIS is unaware that once the blood starts flowing, pristine oceans are polluted with human blood that contains concentrations of environmentally hazardous chemicals.

That’s why, because blood kills wildlife, and makes the ocean unhealthy for swimming in full burqua; it’s always a bad idea to spill rivers of blood on a beach.

Nonetheless, right before discussing how cremating Christians in a furnace with properly ventilated flue benefits the environment; the president could have said that, as a group, terrorists really could be ecologically savvier and a little more green-minded.

For example, because it takes a couple of hours to turn a 150-pound person, made up of 65% water, into a pile of ash, in the future, ISIS should really look for more efficient ways of disposing of Shia spies and Jordanian pilots.

Another point ISIS is probably unaware of is that when you place an adult male into a cage with the intent to burn him alive, after the flame licks its way up the gasoline trail, and after the victim is fully engulfed in flames, the compounds that are present quickly decompose and calcify.

For that reason the president had a moral obligation to explore the topic of crematory science.

If America’s green president surmises that ISIS is even remotely concerned about leaving a carbon footprint, short of granting them carbon credits, his duty was to apprise the terror group that after a person is fully ignited, and the gut wrenching screams start to wan, air quality is quickly compromised by human cremains blowing into the atmosphere.

According to a faculty research source at the University of Virginia: “Both the fumes expelled during cremation and the mineralized remains of the skeleton … are possible sources of toxic waste.” Not to mention the carbon footprint produced by the noxious ash that results when a dyed flame-resistant orange jump suit goes up in flames.

Looking back, Obama squandered an opportunity to convey in a dispassionate, non-judgmental manner, details about some of the more offensive contaminants that are spewed into the atmosphere when human flesh is exposed to extreme heat.

For instance, whenever a body is burning, things like lead, lithium, and arsenic all waft into the air. In turn, the residue from charred flesh ends up leaving a footprint larger than the late Jihadi John’s lace-up boot on the back of a person he’s about to behead.

By not broaching the subject of gaseous emissions that form during cremation, Obama missed an opening to scare ISIS green.

Unfortunately, the president is no longer in Paris. Therefore, his chance to warn the Islamic state about some of the more troublesome secretions that come from incinerated corpses, such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride gas, hydrogen fluoride, and mercury, has vanished like dissipating vapor.

Barack also muffed the chance to fulfill his prophetic calling to “heal the planet.”

Instead of talking about how contaminants from barbequed bodies react with volatile acids to form, please God no, carcinogenic polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), the president chose instead to dine on a menu “fit for a king” at L’Ambroisie’s.

By failing to give equal time to how extremist ideology impacts climate change, and by not presenting a contrasting view, the ecologically-sensitive guy whose flight to France expended enough fuel to gas up 72 cars for a year, wasted an opening to “level the eco-friendly playing field.”

In the end, when the smoke clears and the toxic dust settles, it’s likely that Barack Obama will continue to blame climate deniers for worldwide jihad, and secretly applaud anyone, including ISIS, for helping curtail air pollution by eliminating humans who exhale CO2.

Is Obama Arming Iran for a Secret Reason?

obama-iran1 Originally posted at American Thinker

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008 the general consensus was that the new president was brilliant — with nothing but hearsay to back up the claim. The Obama myth was that America’s 44th president was the “smartest man in the room,” a brainiac too “intelligent for Republicans to understand.”

Then, as weeks turned into months and months into almost two terms, Obama’s questionable decisions, obvious lack of economic prowess, faux healthcare expertise, and total lack of foreign policy and national security know-how called into question whether the Obama-is-a-genius assertion might have been a bit hasty.

Nothing the president has done or continues to do seems to make much sense. If anything, the only consistent success Barack Obama has had is managing to make worse everything he’s attempted to fix.

But then again, according to his apologists, for people of average brainpower the president’s blueprint for remedying unemployment, calming turmoil in the Middle East, and soothing racial unrest may just be too conceptually complex for mere mortals to grasp.

For instance, this Earth Day, in an effort to instruct Americans on the deteriorating condition of the environment, Obama’s superior intellect convinced him it was wise to burn 9,000 gallons of jet fuel flying aboard Air Force One to the 1.5 million-acre Everglades National Park in Florida to talk about climate change.

The president spoke directly to a crowd that included community leaders, Park Service employees, and tree-hugging sycophants, all of whom had gathered to hear what world citizen Barack Obama had to say about the future of the planet.

Thankfully, with swampland as his backdrop, the president did successfully avoid being eaten alive by high-jumping alligators looking for high-powered delicacies for lunch.

Meanwhile, sounding as if he were referring to his magical self and not the Everglades, Obama said, “You can see what makes this unique landscape so magical.”

“Climate change is threatening this treasure and the communities that depend on it,” said the treasured one, “and if we don’t act, there may not be an Everglades as we know it.”

The “as we know it” warning was a bit odd coming from a guy who is single-handedly destabilizing the world’s precarious nuclear balance. Obama, who is all but placing a nuclear bomb into the hands of a terrorist state, probably should be less concerned about the Everglades and more concerned about the disappearance of Israel “as we know it.”

But he’s not.

Instead he’s focusing on the pressing issue of climate change and global warming. And while the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is terrifying to some, based on his previously established level of intellectual acumen, there may actually be a method to what appears to be another example of Obama’s madness.

Surely the president is well aware that U.S. government computer models predict that even a small nuclear war anywhere on the planet could trigger “unprecedented” global cooling. With global warming the culprit, cooling, however it’s accomplished, would provide a quick fix for the guy in need of a boost in the polls.

Sure, a small-scale nuclear war would cause global cooling, further reduction of the ozone layer, and harmful ultraviolet radiation. That, in turn, would usher in death, disease, and drought due to things like lack of rainfall.

But ultimately mass starvation and plague could deliver positive results, particularly for the growing problem of overpopulation. Then, in due time, as millions die off, the president’s credibility would be greatly improved among organizations concerned with controlling world population, like the U.N., and his legacy as a transformative leader would be secured.

If Iran lobbed a nuke at Israel, smoky, dusty, ashy high-carbon clouds would block the warmth of the sun. That, coupled with radioactive fallout, would usher in a “nuclear winter” capable of instantly stopping the destructive heating trend Obama so passionately believes is wreaking havoc in places like the Florida Everglades.

But most importantly, thanks to superb forethought and unprecedented planning, global warming would cease, and global cooling would commence.

Either way, for many — including the entire nation of Israel — the perplexing question for a long time has been: why is a U.S. president helping the Iranians acquire an atomic bomb? The thought of it didn’t seem to make much sense.

But now, the idea of a small-scale nuclear war being environmentally friendly could actually be a stroke of genius.

On Earth Day, at the edge of the swamplands, the motivation behind the former president of the Harvard Law Review negotiating with the Ayatollah may be falling into place. Could it be that Barack Obama’s long-term goal is to help Iran acquire the nukes necessary to finally put an end to global warming?

If it is, at least for him, it could be a win/win!

By shifting America’s attention from Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb to helping Americans accept the much loftier goal of a small nuclear blast to remedy global warming, Barack Obama can cure the climate crisis and officially reclaim his reputation as America’s brainiest president.


 

For those who don’t get it…

Screen Shot 2015-04-30 at 7.19.29 AM

Science Boxes in Barbara Boxer

Originally posted at American Thinker

Regardless of what one thinks about climate change and whether the theory is plausible or not, Barbara Boxer, with her 100% pro-choice voting record, talking about anything ‘endangering humankind’ is the height of self-deluded deception. During a press conference on Capitol Hill, Barbara said the following: “The message I have for climate deniers is this: you are endangering humankind. It is time for climate deniers to face reality, because the body of evidence is overwhelming and the world’s leading scientists agree.”

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA), referring to a scientific ‘body of evidence’ to attest to the reality of climate change, is about as authentic a stance as atheist/evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins quoting Scripture to support his belief in the theory of evolution.

In 1993, 12 years after a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins, science buff Barbara Boxer assumed office.  According to a prominent physician who attended the hearing at that time, there was not “even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation.”

Testimony supporting life included statements from Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris,  “discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome,” who testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee that “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being…each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

The official Senate report on the testimony surrounding Senate Bill 158, the ‘Human Life Bill,’ summarized the issue this way: “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”

Maybe some of those same scientists would agree to sit down with Ms. Boxer and pick apart her statement as it relates to planetary global warming, only this time comparing it to aborting human beings residing within the womb.

Barbara Boxer chided those who reject the claims of global warming alarmists, saying that they “cling to a tiny minority view…wishing that climate change will go away.” Boxer argues that it’s “not a policy — it is a fantasy.” Yet, couldn’t that same logic be applied to the “fantasy” that Barbara Boxer and the pro-choice community cling to which, contrary to science, maintains that unborn children are not human beings?

Defender of both the environment and the destruction of embryos, Ms. Boxer continued in defense of climate change by telling skeptics that “Problems do not go away by pretending they do not exist. And the longer that the vocal minority insists on keeping their heads in the sand, the more it endangers billions of people around the globe and threatens to dramatically and negatively reshape the world as we know it.”

If Barbara Boxer is so concerned about the authority of science, maybe she should heed the words of the late Ashley Montague, geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, who believed that “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.” Perhaps Dr. Montague could have explained to the woman fretting about “endangering mankind” that babies “do not go away” either, especially “by pretending they do not exist.”

Senator Boxer criticizes climate science cynics, alleging they are standing in the way of significant progress toward lowering greenhouse gas emissions both domestically and internationally. That means global defender Barbara Boxer should also understand that if Americans silently stand by while millions continue to exercise the right to choose, and the longer the majority of Americans insist on “keeping their heads in the sand,” the more endangered billions of unborn children around the globe will be.

Whether Boxer agrees with science or not, more than greenhouse gas, abortion has “dramatically and negatively [reshaped] the world as we know it,” both physically and morally. However, it is probable that Barbara Boxer opposes the view that blames abortion on demand on human irresponsibility and immorality, but does agree with scientists who believe that climate change results primarily from human activity.

Concerned about saving the planet, and despite scientific evidence which maintains that life begins at conception, Boxer has voted “No” on banning partial-birth abortions; “No” on restricting UN funding for population control policies; “No” on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions; “No” on criminal penalty for harming an unborn fetus during other crimes; and “No” on virtually every piece of legislation that protects human life in the womb.

Professing concern for scientific evidence, Barbara Boxer also “dismissed a series of hacked emails that…[some claim]…show climate scientists hiding data [and] raise questions about global warming.” Boxer maintains that the emails “were thoroughly studied, reviewed, investigated, and … found not to undermine the consensus on climate change in any way.”

Unable to attend the international climate change talks in South Africa, Boxer addressed the group gathered in Durban by way of a video message. The three-term senator urged negotiators to make “significant progress” on an agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, and did so as strongly as she opposed Republican opponent Carly Fiorina at the 2010 California Senate debate. In the first debate, Boxer argued that “If [Fiorina’s] views prevailed, women and doctors would be criminals, they would go to jail. Women would die, like they did before Roe v. Wade.”

Thus far, dilation-and-curettage/cap-and-trade advocate Barbara has not yet shared whether or not her concern for technical exactness as it pertains to ‘endangering humankind’ extends to being as 100% sure that a fetus is not a human as she is 100% in support of abortion.

If Barbara Boxer is calling upon science as the basis to promote legislation that protects the environment, shouldn’t that same devotion to scientific proof extend to all policy, even if it debunks liberal myths such as: a fetus is not a human being? If preventing the destruction of humankind is truly her goal, it’s incumbent upon the esteemed senator from California to place science before ideology and renounce her support for abortion and her radical belief that a living breathing entity is not a full-fledged human being, deserving of human rights, until after it is born.

Micheline Mathews-Roth MD of Harvard University Medical School once said “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

If scientific data is supposedly the key to Ms. Boxer’s support for policy that addresses greenhouse gases, then the words of Dr. Matthews-Roth should compel her, at least on the issue of life, to finally agree with Rick Santorum.

%d bloggers like this: