Once again, the Obama political regime spares no opportunity to use a crisis for its political mileage.
In an interview with PBS’s Jim Lehrer yesterday, which focused mainly on the humanitarian and political dimensions of the Pakistan floods, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke made the spontaneous claim that Pakistan’s floods and Russia’s fires were caused by global warming. Here’s a quote from the transcript:
So, I need to underscore that, today, we’re doing what we’re doing for Pakistan out of pure humanitarian need. There’s one other point I would like to make which is extremely important, and it was made today by both the foreign minister, Qureshi, and Dr. Rajiv Shah, the head of AID, USAID, at the Asia Society Conference this morning of NGOs.
They both said that this was a manifestation of global warming, that the melt off the Himalayan glaciers they both thought it was possibly linked to the fires outside Moscow. And Dr. Shah said very clearly that he thinks the world should expect more of this kind of event.
I know that sounds almost like a science fiction movie, but I think it’s worth your viewers recognizing that we’re at the we’re we may be in the process of seeing a dangerous new trend. I’m not sure about that. Our focus tonight is emergency rescue and relief, but I thought that’s important to mention.
So what’s wrong with that? Why does he consider it “important to mention”?
First, these claims are made without any scientific backing whatsoever. Secondly, the IPCC claim that the Himalayan glaciers are rapidly melting has been proved to be absolutely fraudulent bunk. The IPCC admitted that error and apologized for including it in its reports. Holbrooke repeats the fallacy with a straight face. As to the Russian fires, that’s just plain fear mongering. Either he’s ignorant of the facts or he believes that those listening to the interview are ignorant fools. More charitably, he’s probably just saturated with the inane chatter of the Washington crowd to which he belongs.
More important is the fact that he volunteers a “global warming” cause for these catastrophes. This is proof of the Obama administration’s fixation on passing climate legislation such as Cap and Trade and defending the EPA’s new “carbon dioxide as a pollutant” regulations regardless of the truth, regardless of the science, regardless of devastating economic consequences. What’s the benefit then? It’s obvious that this gives government direct control over major sectors of the U.S. economy. Now who could be against that?