Despite All The Snow, Barack Obama’s Sick Obsession With Climate Change Rages On

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

Climate Change - Public DomainDespite a “tidal wave” of snow that could potentially dump three feet of the white stuff on New York City, Barack Obama continues to insist that global warming is the “greatest threat” that humanity is facing.  And in his second term he is making the fight against climate change one of his top priorities.  In recent months he has cemented climate change deals with China and India, and he has implemented quite a number of government policy changes that did not require the approval of Congress.  He also made it a point to discuss the “threat to future generations” that climate change poses in his State of the Union address.  For Obama, what was once a political goal is now being transformed into something akin to a religious crusade.  But could it be possible that “the leader of the free world” is completely wrong about all of this?


No scientist denies that the climate of this planet has always been changing and that it always will be changing.

The level to which human activity influences this change is where there is disagreement.

Yes, certain human activities produce carbon dioxide.  But the amount of carbon dioxide produced by human activity is an extremely small fraction of the overall total.  Even if all human activity on the entire planet could be suddenly eliminated, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would still be about the same.

And scientists tell us that there were times in the past when levels of carbon dioxide on our planet were far, far higher than they are today.  So much, much higher levels of carbon dioxide would not destroy our world.  In fact, scientists tell us that life on Earth greatly thrived when there was much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Many scientists actually believe that our environment is starving for more carbon dioxide.  It is what plants “breathe”, and when there are high levels of carbon dioxide plant life flourishes.

If there was no carbon dioxide, it would be impossible for plants to grow, we would rapidly run out of food and life on this planet would cease to exist.

But in public schools in America today, our children are being taught that carbon dioxide is evil.  They are being told that it is a dangerous pollutant and that it is bad for the environment and that we must eliminate as much of it as possible.

Sadly, our children are never taught that the number one driver of “climate change” by far is actually the giant ball of fire that our planet revolves around.  It is called “the Sun”, and the impact that changes in the Sun have on our climate absolutely dwarfs anything that humanity is doing.

And in recent years our Sun has started to behave very erratically.  This is the real “climate change” crisis that people should be talking about.  Personally, I believe that tremendous changes to our climate are coming because of what is happening to the Sun.  But because this reality does not fit with the narrative that our politicians are pushing, it is ignored.  Instead, they want to blame “climate change” on human activity so that they can regulate and manage that activity.

It is all about convincing all of us to give them even more control over our lives.

Since virtually everything that we do could potentially “affect the climate” in some way, it gives control freak politicians the perfect excuse to micromanage society.

So that is why politicians like Obama are constantly hyping the “catastrophic” threats posed by climate change.

Just consider the language that Obama used during his State of the Union address

In his address he baldly told his overwhelmingly climate skeptic opponents that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”, adding that he would not let them “endanger the health of our children by turning back the clock on our efforts” And he mocked a current fashion among Republican politicians to prefix declarations of disbelief in climate change by announcing that they are, of course, not scientists.

“Well I’m not a scientist, either” he told them. “But you know what – I know a lot of really good scientists at Nasa and NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and at our universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate and that, if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heatwaves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict and hunger around the world.”

Wow, that sounds really, really bad.

If I was someone that didn’t know any better, I would be pretty freaked out hearing something like that.

But the truth is that these global warming alarmists have been making these kinds of ridiculous pronouncements for years.

For example, last year about this time the New York Times ran an article entitled “The End of Snow“.

Considering the amount of snow that New York City is currently buried under, I can guarantee you that the New York Times will not be publishing a similar article this year.

But nothing can seem to stop the more hysterical leaders of this movement.  Just recently, Al Gore and the former president of Mexico called for the nations of the world to spend 90 trillion dollars to “ban cars” and make their cities “more climate friendly”…

Former Vice President Al Gore and former Mexican President Felipe Calderon are pushing for $90 trillion in spending to ban cars from every major city in the world and make them more dense.

Gore and Calderon presented a report from the Global Commission on the Economy & Climate (GCEC) and argued that fighting global warming will require making cities more compact and wholly reliant on public transit. This is the only way to make sure urban areas don’t contribute to global warming, the two politicians argued.

Calderon and Gore argued that $90 trillion is going to be spent anyways in the coming decades upgrading cities around the world. They argue that it should be spent on making cities more climate friendly.

That is one reason why this theory is so dangerous.

These radicals want us to spend unthinkable amounts of money and to totally restructure the way that society works in order to try to prevent our climate from changing.

But no matter what anyone does, our climate is going to dramatically change anyway.

Climate change has been happening for all of recorded history, and it is going to continue to happen no matter what our politicians do.

So it would be nice if politicians like Obama would give up their sick obsession with “climate change” and focus on the multitude of extremely dangerous threats that we are actually facing, but unfortunately that is not likely to happen any time soon.


  • This article is dangerous nonsense. He states “the amount of carbon dioxide produced by human activity is an
    extremely small” when CO2 levels have increased from 200ppm before industrialisation and double that today. He states “scientists tell us that there were times in the past when levels
    of carbon dioxide on our planet were far, far higher than they are
    today” when ice core samples tell us that the maximum C02 levels in earlier hot periods seldome exceeded 270ppm. This denial hogwash endangers us all through lies. The truth is that we ARE in danger and we HAVE TO DO something serions about it.

    • jb

      Proof? Maybe your statement is radically more dangerous.

      • If you cant go to the original scientific papers, just check out the readings for the composition of C02 in the air over the part 200 years and those of the polar ice cores that describe the compositin of the atmosphere over the past 800,000 years. Its all there., you only have to google it.

        • Undecider

          The original scientific info shows no warming. What papers were you talking about? The ones next to the stack showing the WTC towers coming down as a result of office fires and burnt off jet fuel?

    • grey

      Another vote for proof please.

    • Undecider

      CO2 of earth is 0.0036% of the atmosphere. What’s the percent of CO2 on Mars and what’s the temperature there?

    • Robert (qslv)

      Wrong. CO2 in the end of the cretaceous period averaged 660 ppm and average temperatures were only 4 deg c warmer than today. Vegetation, reptiles and mammals thrived. Do your homework

  • Kim

    I have always believed that you cannot dump literally tons and tons of hydrocarbon emissions into the environment without some consequence.

    • JasonD

      I agree!

    • n. hiker

      Yes, there’s a bunch of before & after pics that show how much the glaciers melted in the past few decades, but all photos from the northern hemisphere. Not sure if the southern hemisphere is warming up also. (or it could also be magnetics, etc)

      Of course the elite don’t actually care about warming, just watch “Who Killed the Electric Car.”

      • Robert (qslv)

        Those photos are from 5-10 years ago, and the current photos (2014) show that the Arctic ice cap has returned.

    • Undecider

      You can “believe” anything you want. Funny how the geo-engineers get a pass every time. It’s much easier to go after your neighbor who’s running his lawnmower.

  • Jobe

    I’m usually on board with you but this time I disagree. We are getting more and more blizzard-like winters as the years pass on because there is more and more moisture accumulation in the atmosphere due to global warming.

    If you don’t respect nature, don’t expect nature to respect you.

    And blaming it solely on cow flatulence is udder nonsense. :P

    • Shamael

      If there is more moisture accumulation in the atmosphere, it is due to the improving cutting of treees in the tropical regions.

      Rain forests have there name for that reason. Rainforests retain the moisture under there foilage, they provide the soil of those regions with moisture and keep it wet under there shade.

      The globe is a ball that rotates with somewhat around 1900 km/h at the equator, and it is a fact that the friction in the nuclear structure causes heat in that region and makes that zone a hot zone. In the North and South the friction is lower, and the higher you go, the colder and dryer it gets.

      If you cut in large amount forests in the tropical regions, the heat will enter the soil and set free moisture that will end in the upper layers of the atmosphere and cause improved rainfalls, and the abundant flooding catastrophes we encounter in those regions prove this.

      So, what can we do to fight global warming and avoid those catastrophes. The answer is simple, “stop cutting rainforests for financial reasons, be that wood business or oil palms. Replant all those forests and bring them back to there previous state.

      The planet is a living being that regulates itself, and if a large belt of tropical rainforests exist around those regions, it is to avoid desertification, and they are not there to make us idiots go there and remove them for what ever the reason is.

      If we do, we also have to suffer the consequences, and here there is no money we pay for CO2 certificates or other taxes that will change this. All what those taxes do is make some people rich, like Al Gore that is a fine example of this kind of gangster games that consist in telling lies and make you pay for nuts. AL means GOD, and the game that this invisible thing plays since 2000 years and longer is exactly the same, a cardhouse of lies that make a few paople very rich and turn all the others in a bunch of paying fools.

      • Kyle

        Duh huh!

    • Robert (qslv)

      That would make more rain, not snow.

    • Kyle

      That’s because the cow flatulence group is a false flag to make all global warming believers look like fools. It seems to work on the Neo Con group.

  • Seen2013

    “These radicals want us to spend unthinkable amounts of money and to
    totally restructure the way that society works in order to try to
    prevent our climate from changing.”

    1). I had to double-check the name of the documentary originally aired in 2009, but people should watch Earth 2100: The Final Century of Civilization.
    In summary by memory, it is a hypothetical by man-made climate proponents made if man-made climate change at the time man-made global warming was not radically addressed.
    I didn’t watch the whole youtube version just enough to double-check my memory’s accuracy. The hypothetical includes pandemics, and Geo-Engineering known as chemtrails in select alternative media in the video designed to reflect sunlight to attempt mitigating man-made global warming.
    Just search Earth 2100: The Final Century of Civilization in search and youtube. There is the 1+ hour documentary on YouTube. This originally aired in 2009.

    2). It’s about control. It’s was never about anything else…
    First, the asserted scientific dictatorship is ruled by Neo-Malthusians. This is the bedrock of population control, living standards promoted in sustainable development, and today’s term designer babies. They are also intricate to the transhumanist movement.
    Second, the Tiny House movement isn’t a fringe movement. It’s promoted in a similar fashion Zeitgeist promoted Fresno’s Venus Project. Anything more than 300 sq ft is estimated above 80K, and the designs are merely innovations of the makeshift shelters in Third World Nations like per say Bangladesh. Remember, the standards is between 200-300 Sq ft housing, and singles have first dibs on aid. This is consistent to the observation the proposed tax credits specifically incentively discourages traditional family structure meaning balancing income with family values.
    Cap and Trade is specifically designed to start taxing carbon footprints necessary to house and heat/cool shelters larger than 300 sq ft.
    Note, if you have more people inside a household, your carbon footprint on those models go up; therefore, you cap is lower than those with fewer people. The design is further declining the replenishment rate, which anyone who knows about extinctions should not be enthusiastic with that as it constitutes genetic loss of diversity period. Might as well come from the human self extinction movement.
    Third, General Electric and other key energy produces for heat or cold are already waived from EPA regulations meaning the regulations beyond those who are favored through globalization as in foreign owned companies operating within the country by NAFTA and CAFTA and soon to be TTP and TTIP are not held by the same regulatory policies by such as the EPA. The public-private partnership of government-energy production are already set. The only thing lacking is the merger period.
    This follows the study edited by Paul Ehrlich if I recall correctly.

    Same old bull just a different era.

  • Ghung

    The title, especially the “despite all the snow” part is rather amusing considering that the day after the New Englnd storm, many locations in the southern Mid West hit all time highs for the date. Delusional linear ‘thinkers’ tend to ignore inconvenient truths like this.

    • Undecider

      Those inconvenient seasons. Why did it even snow at all?

  • Tatiana Covington

    Turned out there wasn’t all that much snow, either.

    • Robert (qslv)

      6 Feet in Boston, lol. Still digging out. If you can’t justify your obsession with facts, just lie, like our sociopathic Liar In Chief who worships the father of lies.

  • zero

    said the same group that denied smoking causes cancer

  • Guest 2050

    Climate change is real, this article is very short sighted and dangerously misguided. It’s like putting your head in the sand and hoping the problem will just go away. Climate change deniers are only deniers because they know that the only way to stop climate change is to change our lifestyle but a lot of people are no going to sacrifice their pollutive lifestyle because in the long run this is going to help mother nature and the fate of the human race, why change your way of life when you will probably be dead anyway when the world becomes warmer and millions of people will suffer. The USA will be one of the countries in the world to suffer the most from climate change, the country has all natural disasters you can possibly think of, how sad that the USA is digging it’s own grave.

    • Undecider

      Yes, climate change is real. Thanks to the Earth wobble, we even typically get four seasons. Unless you live near the equator. Let’s ask, what is the weather supposed to be like? What’s the benchmark? What temperature is it supposed to be on any given day? Who dictates the standard? Corporations? Governments? So called academics (who are paid by both)?

      Let’s also ask, what do you know of geo-engineering? You’re blaming the regular joe. How about when governments openly discussing modifying the weather and climate for corporate, political and military objectives? When they do that, is it still your next door neighbor’s fault when it rains or is hot and you don’t like it?

  • Skeptic

    Just because your stomach is full it doesn’t mean there is no hunger in the world… wake up… earth is bigger than freakin NYC…

  • Piglet

    [But could it be possible that “the leader of the free world” is completely wrong about all of this?] I’ve never liked this phrase. If a foreign leader is in charge of your country (as well as many others), you do not live in the “free world.” You live under the domination of a foreign government. Americans will claim this country is blessed by God, Americans leaders are “exceptional” (oh yeah, they’re “exceptional” alright!), etc., but the fact remains that people who live under foreign domination, benevolent or not, are not free.

  • Kyle

    What snow? Here in the west coast all the mountains have at best 20 percent snowpack. The Sierras where I used to live have been in a red drought status most of the time except briefly during the warm heavy rain events.

    The warm heavy rain brought temporary relief but the snow pack gives us drinking water in the summer time. Without it many farms are going to give up and be taken over by Chinese Firms like a lot of the toll bridges are.