If liberals are so afraid of climate change and rising waters then why are shore areas the most densely populated areas in the country? Then why rebuild New Orleans after Katrina – a city which resides at -10 feet elevation? Then why rebuild the New Jersey shore after Sandy? These areas have been hit with hard storms in the past and it will happen again in the future.
As for the claim that last year was the warmest ever in the contiguous United States does not really mean much because climate change is a global phenomenon – not a US one. This is especially true in terms of stating 12 of the warmest years in the US have come in the past 15 years. This means very little especially if global temperatures are normal – in fact, this refutes climate change claims. I remember getting summer heat waves of 100 degree heat lasting for weeks in the 1970s in New Jersey. My point is that 100 degree heat waves have happened and can happen in most areas around the country.
And finally what “progress” has been made on climate change? Liberals measure climate change by CO2. After all, Obama’s climate change plan makes the following statements: “The Obama Administration is putting in place tough new rules to cut carbon pollution – just like we have for other toxins like mercury and arsenic.” And: “To accomplish these goals, President Obama is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Environmental Protection Agency to work expeditiously to complete carbon pollution standards for both new and existing power plants. This work will build on the successful first-term effort to develop greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for cars and trucks.” According to the NOAA CO2 levels in the atmosphere have passed another milestone – 400ppm. In fact, CO2 levels go up a few points every year and they never retreat. If that is case, and global temperatures are related to CO2, then global temperatures should rise each year and not retreat if they are directly related (this is not the case). I remember when liberals proclaimed the earth was going to end once CO2 levels reached 300ppm. Interestingly, the area of the planet that should be mostly affected by CO2 induced climate change should be areas closest to the equator. Why? Because the earth’s gravitational pull is strongest at the equator. For the same reason barometric pressures (oxygen levels) are higher at the equator then so should CO2 levels. Yes, it is true, equator climates are generally warmer but that has more to do with distance and angle to the sun. In fact, there is no data to suggest that temperatures, weather, storms, and climates are changing for the worse at the equator.
Obama and liberal plans on climate change are to “curb” and to “cut” carbon emissions. If liberals are right and climate change is being exasperated by CO2 then Obama’s plan will not work because it does not “stop” and or “reduce” carbon emissions already in our atmosphere. The liberal plan is spend trillions to merely put off a cataclysmic climate change event that will end life on earth. This is exactly how liberals attack any problem – they use tons of money for a temporary fix. What if I told you there is a way to stop and reduce CO2 without taxing corporations and individuals to disturb the economy. In fact, there is a way do this without interfering in the livelihoods of American citizens one bit. Americans can continue to use fossil fuels without any worries of its impact on the earth. Carbon scrubbers proposed by Klaus Lackner and David Keith (see links below) could solve the problem: