There Is Reason to Be Optimistic

Here is the short film shown to world leaders at the United Nations Climate Summit in New York, called What's Possible, and its sequel, A World of Solutions; both are really well-made. You can watch them here, or visit the source.

"The process of changing the Earth back into a place that will support us is well under way. Progress is being made, and there is reason to be optimistic."

If CEO of Wayne Enterprises, President Beck, and God all say it's so, who am I to argue? ;)

Leonardo DiCaprio's UN Address

"None of this is rhetoric, and none of it is hysteria. It is fact. The scientific community knows it. Industry knows it. Governments know it. Even the United States military knows it. The Chief of the US Navy's Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, recently said that climate change is our single greatest security threat."

Being an on-air meteorologist is no guarantee of climate change acumen, certainly, but what does it say about your meteorological credentials when a Hollywood actor has a greater command of the science and therefore understands the urgency of the situation better than you?

Then again, Watts can't even distinguish between what an author has a fictional character in a work of parody say...

"Stepping back from the forest non issue, there is another aspect of the NY climate conference spin which I find disturbing – the continuous emphasis on the need for 'widespread collaboration' and 'unprecedented cooperation.' Every time I see a reference to how everyone has to allegedly strive to sacrifice their own interests, and work together for a common eco-goal, to save the world, I remember something the famous author Terry Pratchett once said;

"'Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions.'"

...and the forest conservationism and eco-collaboration and cooperation goals he campaigns for in real life.

I ask this in all honesty and sincerity. Is there one climate change denier out there with any grey matter left between the ears? We can obviously scratch Anthony Watts off the list.

Well, 2 out of 3 Ain't Bad, Mr. President

Unless your spaceship just landed on Earth 5 minutes ago, you're probably aware that President Barak Obama has had a very busy week. Well, I'm sure as president all your weeks are quite hectic, but this one perhaps especially so. If nothing else, he's been exceptionally active at the UN. He's made several speeches about issues with potential and confirmed global impacts and consequences. Let's see how they've been received, shall we?

It seems no one disagreed vehemently with what you had to say about the urgent need to deal with the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, so you get a check mark here for overall public approval, Mr. President.



And your call to confront ISIL in Iraq did not upset many apple carts, so we'll check off another one of your messages at the UN as having met with widespread agreement.



Moving right along, you gave a speech about the immediate and future dangers of climate change, and — uh oh...



All these people below had little to say about your other speeches, Mr. President...nope, hardly a peep...and, yet, look at the shitstorm of infantile ignorance your climate change talk provoked from them.

• After an exhaustive search, one guy supposedly from your side of the political aisle was found to disagree with you. Wow, that's a crushing blow, huh? And he wears a bow tie, so you should probably just concede defeat now.
• Fox News is jumping for joy that it can nitpick some of your numbers, thereby avoiding the larger message.
• It's sensible to boycott the summit entirely, apparently, because some really idiotic deniers think climate change won't affect the poor negatively.
• Chip Knappenberger and the Cato Institute don't care what you say, or how ignorant of statistics it makes them look, 1998 is still their favorite year ever. To paraphrase Luther Ingram...
  
  

  "If loving you, 1998, is wrong, I don't wanna be right!"

• The tin foil hats at the Heartland Institute have their members believing action on climate change is "a giant wealth transfer scheme from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries." Figure that one the fuck out.
• Some couldn't even be bothered to listen to your speech, so they just repeated the same stupid crap you went out of your way to explain was no longer an acceptable excuse/response.
• And last but far from least, for one really demented denier, your speech proved some strange point about masturbation. I wish I was making this one up.

So, there you go, Mr. President. Even though what you said in all three instances was equally justified, due to abject science illiteracy on the part of climate change deniers, you can't win 'em all. Sooner or later common sense runs out of welcome with complete idiots.

Are You Deniers Seriously This Featherheaded?

Yesterday, at the 2014 UN Climate Summit, President Barack Obama acknowledged the political inertia in nearly every country around the world, including America, impeding urgently-needed, meaningful action on climate change.

From his speech (emphasis mine):

"So the climate is changing faster than our efforts to address it. The alarm bells keep ringing. Our citizens keep marching. We cannot pretend we do not hear them. We have to answer the call...But we can only succeed in combating climate change, if we are joined in this effort by every nation, developed and developing alike. Nobody gets a pass...Nobody can stand on the sidelines on this issue...If we can look beyond the swarm of current events, and some of the economic challenges, and political challenges involved; if we place the air that our children will breathe, and the food that they will eat, and the hopes and dreams of all posterity above our own short-term interests, we may not be too late for them."

Here is the video of the talk he gave.



So, again, just to review, one of the president's main points here is that worldwide legislative lethargy, which he recognizes and readily admits still exists, can no longer be used as an excuse. He explained quite plainly and simply that we are already seeing the severe consequences of our inaction, and things will only get worse if we proceed with a business-as-usual mentality.

Not a difficult message to understand, I wouldn't think. I mean, at the very least you'd expect opposing viewpoints to not throw the ignorant, shortsighted reluctance of politicians to act on the issue, which he went to pained ends to address and eliminate as an acceptable, viable response, right back in his face, right? Right?!

Yeah, not so much.



Jaezuz.

Fooking.

H.

Cheeeeeroist.

On a skipping vinyl turntable.

Can you deniers possibly be this bloody stupid? He told you political challenges are no longer—

Wait a second, Americans for Prosperity. My bad. I apologize. I just now realized there was no way for you to know he addressed your retort about Congress being a bunch of uncooperative morons, or for you to have any knowledge of what he said at all, because you couldn't even be bothered to stick around and absorb the president's speech. Instead, you released your "response" beforehand, so you could, I guess, go play golf or something.

The fuck is that? You can't even make this demented shit up.

Do-Nothing Congress Wets Diapers over Update to Impotent Climate Treaty

By now, you've probably heard that Obama is allegedly planning to circumvent the Constitution, American rule of law, Congress, the White Council, S.H.I.E.L.D., the Justice League, the United Federation of Planets, the Empire, Mt. Olympus, the Illuminati, God, and maybe even Jonathan Goldsmith just so he can, get this, do something...ANYTHING...however pathetically ineffectual about climate change in Paris in 2015.

He's also apparently trying to unseat one rather notorious Al. Al Gore, you say? Pah, small potatoes. With this unprecedented power-grab, Obama's aiming to take the crown of international crime and infamy from the corpse of none other than Al Capone himself.

Dun.

Dun.

Duuuuuunnnnnnnnn!!!!

Mitch McConnell, leader of the rebel resistance, warns...

"Unfortunately, this would be just another of many examples of the Obama administration's tendency to abide by laws it likes and to disregard laws it doesn't — and to ignore the elected representatives of the people when they don’t agree. Whether it's releasing terrorists from Guantanamo, hurting the economy and jobs with their unilateral EPA regulations, 'recess' appointments or Obamacare, this troubling approach does serious damage to the rule of law."

And James Inhofe, fearing for the lives of Bothans everywhere, declares...

"The Senate will not ratify a treaty that binds the United States to a regulatory body at the United Nations, and we will continue to fight the President’s economy crushing domestic greenhouse gas regulations. U.S. economic competitiveness is hanging in the balance, and additional U.S. restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions will only hurt the United States as other nations like Australia scrap their unsuccessful green dream policies."

See, only problem is, despite the rumors of his newly-discovered, universe-destroying, Sith Lord powers, Obama is not seeking a legally-binding agreement all on his own and lonesome, mostly because he can't do that without a treaty-ratifying, 67-vote threshold in the Senate.

So let's all just take a deep, soothing breath, close our eyes, find our happy place, let the Chicken Little panic subside, exhale, and see if we can figure out what it is he's really gonna try to do.



And, voilà, here's a decent explanation.

Under the "hybrid" climate approach, countries would not be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies. But they would make voluntary pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Progress on those pledges could be tracked and measured in an international system; countries that fall behind would be singled out, Obama’s climate negotiators told the New York Times.

This "naming and shaming" component is similar to the "trade policy review" mechanism used by the World Trade Organization, Joshua Meltzer, a fellow in global economy and development at the Brookings Institution, explained. In the WTO, each country’s trade policy is reviewed by the leadership and other member countries, and policies considered unfair or illegal can be challenged. "No government likes to be held up in front of the world as not meeting any of its commitments," he said.

Whether the Obama strategy can work -- and how well -- hinges on a handful of factors that have yet to be finalized. "The legal form of the treaty … is not the only thing that matters, in terms of effectiveness," Keohane said. "It’s the more boring and technical infrastructure stuff that really counts." That includes developing an accounting system to measure, review and verify emissions reductions, as well as providing incentives for governments to participate and comply with voluntary targets.

There ya have it. Very few legally-binding repercussions of any kind if countries fail to meet their stated emission-lowering goals. No crushing embargoes, no politicians sent to international court and jail, no trampling of American laws and sovereignty, no jackbooted thugs with blue helmets showing up, none of that. Just a review and an announcement of reduction target results, and incentives to meet them.

Of course, the futility of this milk-and-water agreement won't prevent denier politicians running around, hair on fire, wailing away that the president is trying to accomplish something meaningful behind their backs with it (like traction on the greatest threat we face would be a bad thing), and making grandstanding, menacing challenges along the lines of... "The more you tighten your grip, Lord Obama, the more congressional districts that will slip through your fingers!"