Jindal Slams Obama for Talking Climate Change on Katrina Anniversary
“Leave that agenda back in D.C.”
Louisiana Governor and presidential hopeful Bobby Jindal isn’t doing well in the polls (in some cases, he’s at less than 1%,) but that hasn’t stopped him from maintaining a presence both at home, and in key states like Iowa.
Jindal put on his governor hat this week for the 10 year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.
This spot from Fox News reveals why so many people like Bobby Jindal, even if he’s not their first choice for president; he focuses on rebuilding, and community, and segues to politics only in an effort to ask the politicians flying in for the various commemorations to focus on the people, and not on policy. He zeroes in on President Obama, saying that now is not the time to flog climate change.
Jindal has also taken to Twitter to highlight the various ways that Louisiana has seen success during the rebuilding process:
Katrina was a terrible blow, and there is no silver lining, but Louisianians worked hard to change for the better. #Katrina10 (1/3)
— Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) August 26, 2015
The experts who predicted Louisiana would never be the same after Katrina were right—just not in the way they expected. #Katrina10 (2/3)
— Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) August 26, 2015
Today’s ceremony for the opening of UMC New Orleans is a major symbol of that recovery. #Katrina10 (3/3) pic.twitter.com/jZFSQkvbG3
— Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) August 26, 2015
Hurricane Katrina forced us to reimagine NOLA’s failed educational system. We rallied & the results are remarkable. pic.twitter.com/dlMRjqxuWh
— Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) August 27, 2015
Jindal penned a letter to President Obama requesting an agenda-free tribute, but as our president can always be counted upon to capitalize on the presence of a camera, the Governor’s request was ignored:
During his speech in New Orleans Thursday, Obama used the opportunity to discuss what he contends to be a threat from global warming.
“[W]e’re going to see more extreme weather events as the result of climate change — deeper droughts, deadlier wildfires, stronger storms,” the president said. “That’s why, in addition to things like new and better levees, we’ve also been investing in restoring wetlands and other natural systems that are just as critical for storm protection.”
“So we’ve made a lot of progress over the past 10 years.You’ve made a lot of progress. That gives us hope. But it doesn’t allow for complacency. It doesn’t mean we can rest,” Obama added.
In his speech, Obama also told Congress to pass a budget when members return from recess and not force the government to shutdown based on “ideological demands.”
At least Jindal tried—which is more than I can say for the President.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Before other commenters jump in here, I’d like to point out that climate change due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere is real.
Nevertheless, there is no scientific evidence linking Hurricane Katrina to climate change.
While it is very clear that the average global temperature is increasing, this average in degrees C is more of a statistic gathered from careful measurements rather than an experiencable effect. Daily temperatures vary more than the global increase in temperature so far. Furthermore, the effect of the increased global temperature is far from clear so far. There are two possible effects, El Nino like effects, or the opposite La Nina like effects–one of these would produce more hurricanes while the other would produce *fewer* hurricanes. Therefore, Obama’s rhetoric on climate change is just as unscientific as those who deny its existence outright.
Furthermore, left-wing efforts to reduce CO2 emission have had very little effect (on the CO2 emissions, although they could have an effect on the economy). So far, the most effective method of decreasing CO2 emissions has been increased use of natural gas and new hydraulic fracturing technology.
I have found a lot of information about “climate change” and its previous iterations of global warming, global cooling and other such declarations across a multitude of media. One generally accepted premise is that “settled science” is a political and media construct and in no way reflects the attitude of curious scientific minds, (google scientists are surprised to find). I have also found credible sources that indicate the solar cycles, and specifically recent solar cycles, are more in control of the climate on earth and all of the planets in the solar system than the trace amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere.
The computer models that have been used for the last few decades that show the warming have been debunked for a variety of reasons including cherry picked data sets for the time periods shown, historical records of earths gases using ice cores, the alterations of historical temperatures down to indicate current warming and many other reasons.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
Now I am not smart enough to do anything but present one of the climate industry’s giants recent publications, but, I am not so set in my thinking that, like the life cycle being an incredibly complicated, interdependent process, so must our climate. I do not believe that any one scientific speciality has enough knowledge of all of the pieces that make up our climate, much less the relative importance of each interdependent action, to be able to say with any conviction that “this is the effect of this specific substance”. Thus, the premise that the cyclical warming and cooling the earth has experienced since we have learned to determine these changes are caused by CO2 levels is a very big stretch regardless how well it has been marketed.
BZZZZ!!! Wrong answer. You need to be MORE SPECIFIC, otherwise you play into the hands of the global warming lunatics.
Having PERSONALLY conducted Carbon Dioxide research at the Biosphere 2 facility in Oracle, AZ, and run some of the advanced climate models myself, I can tell you with no uncertainty that ~anthropogenic~ Carbon Dioxide introduction into the atmosphere has a less than minuscule effect on global temperature.
I have seen, UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL, that the planet will get along just fine with Carbon Dioxide levels almost 10x today’s levels. The max rating in the Biosphere 2 project was north of 3,600 ppm. We’re barely crossing the 400 ppm mark today and that is historically LOW (regardless of what the climate-change sycophants tell you; they have bad data). Incidentally, Morning Glory will grow at approximately 3x current rates at atmospheric 3,600 CO2 PPM.
Carbon Dioxide ~COULD~ effect global climate change at high enough levels. The very nature of the measurements though currently show that it IS NOT.
I’d like to point out that climate change due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere is real.
Until you define just what you mean by that weasel phrase ‘climate change’, we’ll consider it as real as Hillary’s concern for good government.
I think that would have been obvious if you had bothered to read my comment.
What has been clearly demonstrated is an increase in mean global temperature, which is a direct effect of increased CO2 abundance in the atmosphere. (I’ve included a link to figures showing seasonal variation and multi-year changes in CO2 measured at Mauna Loa.) The greenhouse effect due to CO2 in the atmosphere is necessary to prevent our planet from being the ball of ice it would be without any greenhouse effect. However, increasing the CO2 concentration does (obviously) increase this effect, increasing the *average* temperature of the Earth. It is very well established that average global temperatures have increased by more than half a degree C since 1900 (not easily to feel, but a clear change measured in a variety of independent ways). A large body of work (too much to summarize in a single comment) has demonstrated that the easily observable increase in CO2 concentration is the principal cause of this 0.5 C increase in temperature. That is Global Warming.
To restate my comment above (for people who seem to have trouble with reading comprehension) the climatic effects of this (El Nino or La Nina like effects) are unclear. Meaning that is is uncertain whether this would lead to more hurricanes or fewer hurricanes.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
Mauna Loa is a poor choice to cite regarding CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
IT SITS ON AN ACTIVE VOLCANO. What do you think is pumping out CO2? It is within 50km of Mt. Kilauea and its permanent 3.2 MtCO2pa plume.
Again, the discussion needs to center on ~~anthropogenic~~ claims of carbon creation.
Further, there are a LOT of other factors that go into whether the planet is warming or cooling, such as: suspended water vapor, solar activity, plant growth, algae blooms, dust storms, changes in prevailing wind or air-stream patterns, and the exact wobble of the earth on it’s axis and speed of rotation(which was shifted on axis 17 CM due to the March 11, 2011 earthquake and sped up rotation from the 2004 Indonesia Earthquake approximately 2.76 microseconds).
I can’t decide which I most enjoy on TV, listening to President Obama make a speech, listen to James Carville say anything, or just sit and watch Uncle Joe goose the ladies.
Climate change is real. We are on a warming trend. CO2 concentration is unrelated to this trend. Any experimental scientist who is not explicitly dependent on government grants can tell you this, and also tell you why:
The anthropogenic global warming theory suffers from scale problems. But you don’t have to take my word for it, you can listen to one of the founders of Greenpeace, not incidentally, the one with the scientific credentials. Patrick Moore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpBnJq19R60
This guy knows his stuff. How do I know that? Because I am a chemist by trade. I read. I do simple math. I regularly detect public lies by checking the numbers and reading the underlying documents. I know enough to throw a BS flag when someone tries to find deep meaning in experimental noise.
Meanwhile, the ice cap in Antarctica has not melted, even with the help of an active volcano, and we have seen an unusual period of relative calm since Katrina, not to mention a 15-year pause in global temperature change.
Finally, NASA has only been able to recently claim that each successive year has been hotter than the last by insignificant amounts, and only by recalculating the raw data to meet their expectations. That is, they took the raw data temperatures, and raised them all, to their satisfaction.
One of those things that amuses me in light of the “it’s a green-house gas” flappers like we have here is the observation that, at various points in time, the world has both been very temperate (compared with our time) and had CO2 levels multiples of our current levels.
So. That kind of presents a problem for those who insist that there is a hard, fast linkage between climate and CO2 levels.
Which is one of many…
Sorry, Valerie. We are actually on a cooling trend. The lack of solar activity says so.
As for climate change, I think it is well stated right here in the quoted transcript…
https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/07/epa-climate-change-regs-dont-change-climate/#more
Marc Morano @ClimateDepot
Obama Longest-Serving President Not to See a Major (Cat 3 +) Hurricane Strike The U.S. http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08/28/obama-longest-serving-president-not-to-see-a-major-cat-3-hurricane-strike-the-u-s/ … via @ClimateDepot
11:22 PM – 27 Aug 2015
Obama Longest-Serving President Not to See a Major (Cat 3 +) Hurricane Strike The U.S.
(CNSNews.com) – Barack Obama is the longest-serving president to see no major hurricane strike the U.S. mainland during his time in office, according to records dating back to 1851 from the Nationa…
So.
Heh…!!!
Amy Miller asserts:
“his spot from Fox News reveals why so many people like Bobby Jindal, even if he’s not their first choice for president; he focuses on rebuilding, and community, and segues to politics only in an effort to ask the politicians flying in for the various commemorations to focus on the people, and not on policy. He zeroes in on President Obama, saying that now is not the time to flog climate change.”
Current poll numbers assert:
http://www.bestofneworleans.com/gambit/next-to-nothing/Content?oid=2598599
Truth is, most Louisianians think Jindal has been worse a natural disaster then Katrina. They’d prefer to flog him, not climate change.
“Truth is, most Louisianians think Jindal has been worse a natural disaster then Katrina.”
See, what’s funny is that…
1. you’re too stupid to
a. know that’s a lie
b. and a contradiction in terms
PLUS, if your poll has ANY validity, it is BECAUSE…
in a majority RED state, Jindal is seen as NOT conservative enough.
Which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with Gorebal ClimateThingy. Does it, you lying, trolling sack of shit?
JJ enjoys the abuse.
Jindal is slick and smart. He knew Obama would not be able to resist talking about global warming, an she also knew Obama would ignore any advice from a Republican. So Jindal creates an issue, Obama is suckered in, and Jindal has something to talk about.
Now, I want him to do the same to the GOPE.
Why is it that on this 10th anniversary of Katrina we’re talking about Katrina instead of the long list of other category 5 storms that have ravaged the same area in the past decade?
Oh, that’s right! Because there WEREN’T ANY!
Al Gore’s dire warning that we were going to see these storms increase has turned out to be like every other prediction he’s ever made: utter nonsense.