Polls: Obama changed America for worse

Barack Obama promised change in 2008. In 2012, it seems that many Americans are realizing that change is not always positive. Change can be for the better or for worse.

Unfortunately for voters, while he was campaigning, Barack Obama did not get into many specifics on how he would change America. His slogan, “Change we can believe in,” left people to fill in the blanks for themselves. For many voters, that seems to have led to a giant case of buyer’s remorse.

According to a new poll commissioned by The Hill, a political news site, 66 percent of likely voters agree that Barack Obama has kept his promise of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” The bad news for Obama is that 56 percent of those polled believe that Obama’s changes have been negative. Only 35 percent believe that Obama has had a positive impact on the country.

This is easy to understand when you consider some of the changes that Obama has wrought. He changed the unemployment rate from 7.8 percent in January 2009 to 8.2 percent today according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This change was the result of spending spree that changed the federal debt from $10.6 trillion in January 2009 to $15.8 trillion today according to Treasury Direct. When stymied by Congress, he changed the constitutional requirement that Congress make the laws by having agencies of the executive branch circumvent Congress and unilaterally enact new legislation. In launching a war in Libya, Obama changed from the traditional policy notifying Congress and seeking approval when going to war. Most notably, President Obama became the first president to change taxes from a source of revenue to a means of forcing American citizens to buy a private product. Obamacare also represented a change from his promise of no individual mandate and lower premiums according to CBS News.

The numbers in the Hill poll are similar to Rasmussen’s Right Direction or Wrong Track poll. In the most recent sampling, Rasmussen found that 62 percent believed the country was on the wrong track. Thirty-two percent disagreed. These polls are troubling for a president who is five months away from re-election and reflect a deep discontent with the president’s job performance even though his personal approval rating is higher.

Obama’s promise can seen as a promise kept, but Americans seem to have learned that not all change is for the better and that things can get worse. Perhaps this fall voters will seek more specifics from candidates and be less willing to accept generalities. Let the voter beware.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/poll-obama-changed-country-for-worse

Whatever Happened To Global Warming?

"...for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)."
-UK Telegraph

Recently, the question of whether the US should face higher standards of environmentalism and carbon reductions than the rest of the world has been raised. Politicians have suggested massive increases in gasoline taxes, the introduction of carbon taxes, and draconian restrictions on carbon emissions.
Ironically, as I sit at my computer, my home state of Georgia is undergoing the second snowstorm of the week. In a state, which has, over the last few years, received almost zero snowfall, this is certainly big news.

When I was growing up in Georgia in the 1970s and 1980s, Georgia typically got about two or three snows each winter. These snows would get us out of school for a couple of days (since Georgia has virtually no road clearing equipment) and would stay on the ground for several days. Over the past several years, when Georgia had snowfall, it came only once or twice a year and, if it accumulated at all, would be usually be gone by lunchtime. When I examined this anecdotal data from my own life, I was hard pressed to argue with global warming activists, at least on a local scale.

The news of flattening global temperatures comes at the same time that many parts of the United States are experiencing record winter storms and, coincidentally, at the time of the two major winter storms that swept Georgia. If I didn't doubt before, I certainly would now.

Global warming has always been a rather theoretical. It is based on short data trends and computer models. Even the data on which the short trends are based is suspect. Most automated weather stations that climate data are based on have serious quality problems (see surfacestations.org). As a professional pilot, I can tell you that we take the information that we get from automated weather stations with a large dose of salt.

Assuming that the global warming activists are right, the problem is a world problem, not just an American one. In 2006, China surpassed the United States in carbon dioxide emissions, and combined, the two nations make up less than half of the total. Developing nations make up an even larger share of other forms of pollution. It is clear that the problem is not the United States alone and the solution cannot focus solely on the United States.

Additionally, there is a lack of scientific evidence to show that carbon dioxide is responsible for warming the earth at all. Data indicates that there is indeed a correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide, but not the one that you would expect. In the past, temperature increased first, then carbon dioxide increased several hundred years later. If temperature changed first, then carbon dioxide cannot be responsible for the change.

It seems that the recent information would indicate that it would at least be a good idea to wait and see if which trend continues before we make major changes in an attempt to prevent global warming. If it does, we should look at alternative explanations for warming, such as changes in solar radiation. Temperatures of other planets are also increasing, but their warming definitely cannot be attributed to earthly carbon emissions.

Let's not ban carbon based fuels or initiate massive taxes on carbon until we find out for sure what kind of problem we are facing. Our economy is based on carbon fuels and such legislation would almost certainly slow the economy to a recession. This would be especially tragic if the destruction of the economy did nothing to solve the warming problem. A safer approach would be to begin a change to alternative energy sources, such as cheap, reliable nuclear power, as we continue to research global warming.

Granted, the climate is changing, but how is it changing? The new data questions whether the earth is still warming. Even environmentalists are speaking less of “global warming” and more of “climate change.” The climate is always changing, however. There have been numerous ice ages and warm periods throughout recorded history.

Might we be better off by focusing on adapting to climate change rather than preventing it? Previous warm periods, such as the Medieval Warm Period around AD 1000, were a boon to mankind. Warm temperatures and increased carbon dioxide were so helpful to agriculture that the Vikings were even able to cultivate now frigid areas of Greenland. Warm temperatures might even mean less energy use for heating, which would also save money for individual families.

Environmental issues are a global concern. Regardless of whether carbon is at fault for global warming, global initiatives should be taken to reduce pollution. These initiatives should focus on developing nations as well as nations that are already industrialized, such as the United States. We should be careful not to take curative steps that would be worse than the climate change disease.

Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml= /opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/74352.html
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth

The inconvenient truth is that Al Gore's movie is way off base. The film has lost enough of its credibility that a British court recently ruled that it cannot be shown in schools without a disclaimer detailing its political bias.

The most damning scientific flaw in Gore's movie is his claim that of a link between global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. There is a link, but, unfortunately for Gore's believers, it is not as he suggests. In truth, increased carbon dioxide levels come about 800 years after increases in temperature. If the temperature changes first, then how can CO2 be the cause of the temperature change?

In fact, carbon dioxide isn't even the most prevalent greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Water vapor actually causes from 36-70% of the earth's greenhouse effect.

Gore's claims that the earth is hotter than ever before also do not bear scrutiny. Environmentalists have cited NASA data that showed that 1998 was the warmest year on record, but that was recently revealed to be untrue. Steven McIntyre, of the Climateaudit blog, determined that NASA's algorithm used to determine the hottest year had been corrupted by the Y2K bug. NASA corrected their figures (without a press release of any kind) and 1934 is now officially the hottest year on record. Five of the ten hottest years are now known to be before WWII.

Further giving lie to Gore's claims is the Medieval Warm Period. The Medieval Warm Period occurred from AD 800-1300. In this era, the glaciers shrank enough that the Vikings were able cultivate parts of Greenland. Parts of North America suffered severe droughts. Radiocarbon dating from the Sargasso Sea showed sea temperatures 1 degree celsius warmer than today. Alaska has been through three separate warm periods in the last two thousand years.
Following the Medieval Warm Period, the world entered the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the Sargasso Sea was about 1 degree celsius cooler than today. This ice age lasted until the middle of the 19th century when the world entered a warming cycle, which we are still in today.
Gore also ignores the scientific advances of the last fifty years. Certainly there are more cars and factories operating today than in past decades, but today's technology makes them burn more cleanly than the fewer cars of old.

If man made carbon dioxide emissions are not causing the earth's warming, then what is? The answer may be the sun. A 2001 article in Nature describes the relationship between the sun and the ratio of oxygen-18 to the more common oxygen-16 molecule. Over a period of 3000 years, the authors of the study found a direct correlation between the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth's atmosphere and the earth's temperature (http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issu e.asp?year=2007&month=08). It would seem that the sun is responsible for the cyclical heating and cooling of the earth's climate.

When considering climate change, ask yourself several questions. Based on what we can see locally, the earth is getting warmer, but is it a true global change? Data from surfacestations.org casts doubts on data from improperly located automated weather stations. Stations located in urban areas may falsely report higher than actual temperatures.

If so, is the warming caused by man? As stated earlier, carbon dioxide cannot cause temperature change because carbon dioxide levels change 800 years after the temperature.

If so, is it reversible? Even if global warming were caused by man, it is highly unlikely that the whole world would agree to the draconian cuts on CO2 emissions that Gore and the environmentalists want. The US is not the problem. China and other developing countries have lax environmental standards and are set to pass the US in CO2 emissions in the next few years.

Is global warming bad? The earth is constantly changing. Warm periods in our history have typically been prosperous due to longer growing seasons for crops and require less energy for heating homes. Some areas would benefit and some would not. Even the UN report on climate change does not support the more hysterical environmental claims of catastrophe. Even if all of the ice caps melted, for instance, sea levels would rise less than two feet. Rising seas would not flood all low lying areas as Gore and company claim.

Finally, if the environmentalists are so concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, then why don't they support nuclear power? The French have proved that nuclear power can be a safe, clean, cheap source of electricity. Why not promote its use worldwide as an alternative to carbon based sources of energy?

The jury is still out, but the science used by the environmentalists is seriously in question. It is always a good idea care for the environment, but not at the cost of destroying our economy.