May 30, 2013

3 Pinocchios to John Kerry for asserting that the U.S. is "below the Kyoto levels" on emissions.

WaPo's Fact Checker Glenn Kessler finds "significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions." But look at what the problem is:
While Kerry noted in his comments that more needs to be done on climate change, his inaccurate recounting of U.S. performance on the Kyoto emissions targets leaves the wrong impression. Low natural gas prices and the economic downtown — not specific policies — have been the prime factors in the emissions reductions, especially for carbon dioxide.
There were supposed to be specific policies clamping down on the offenders, not a big recession that the government was (supposedly) trying to avoid/reverse.

Isn't it sad that in all of our suffering through economic malaise, we failed to rejoice and soothe ourselves with the knowledge that we were restricting the production of greenhouse gases? That was not the kind of suffering that the environmentalists had hoped for, and to proclaim the recession a good thing would not have played well in the political arena.

But how different would the environmentalists' specific policies have been? If we'd voluntarily submitted to specific policies, we could have prided ourselves in our virtue. To have inadvertently reached the same result doesn't feel the same.

But the climate change problem isn't about our virtue and our feelings. Is it?

73 comments:

AllenS said...

3 Pinocchios for John Kerry. One for each of his 3 Purple Hearts.

Mogget said...

LOL, pretty much everything is about our virtues and moral intuition. See Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind.

AprilApple said...

Is there a breathalyzer test for democrat lies and bullshit?

TML said...

Please. It's always about the piety and virtue of the Bien Pensant class. Who cares if anything actually works.

Gahrie said...

Climate change is about seizing control of political power and using it to impliment Leftist ideology.

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger AllenS said...

3 Pinocchios for John Kerry. One for each of his 3 Purple Hearts.

5/30/13, 8:06 AM
LOL!

Fritz said...

AprilApple said...

Is there a breathalyzer test for democrat lies and bullshit?


Why bother; just look to see if their mouth is open.

jacksonjay said...


I heard that oil production doubled (or something) under the leadership of Saint Barry!

cubanbob said...

3 Pinocchios for John Kerry. One for each of his 3 Purple Hearts."

Thread winner. By the way which will occur first: Obama releasing his college transcripts or Lurch releasing his discharge form?

TML said...

It's like these idiot school admins who want us to believe they're so very, very, very discerning, wise and forward thinking with their policies that suspend 5-year old kids for bringing a tiny plastic toy GI Joe "assault rifle" to school. These people are all idiots. It doesn;t matter what the policy is in reality, what matters is the impression it leaves in the minds of the fretting, moaning, twitching moron class.

jacksonjay said...


What AllenS and cubanbob said!

traditionalguy said...

The award should be 3 Disney Fantasyland badges for spending our Secretary of States' time talking about a non existent effect of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas that has nothing at all to do with climate, and could not be stopped by destroying our way of life even if it did.

The Drill SGT said...

Dem success is all about feeling good and nothing about objective results. e.g. 7 rounds in 15 round magazines, except of Cops, retired cops and friends of cops (Dick Gregory)



Mitchell the Bat said...

Some people give themselves a good feeling by yelling at their TV set.

It makes them feel virtuous or something.

The con is giving other people permission to do likewise.

bpm4532 said...

For democrats it's all about feelings and misplaced virtue. Besides, they believe in so much stuff that just isn't true. How can liberalism not be a religion?

bpm4532 said...

everything gets rationalized as the result of their religion.

n.n said...

Unless China, India, etc. are required to follow the same emission reductions schemes, then the "environmentalists" and other opportunists (including Kerry) also deserve "3 Pinocchios". The "green" energy sector deserves "3 Pinocchios" as energy production of any and every form is consumptive and disruptive from recovery to reclamation.

An out-of-sight and out-of-mind polices (e.g. not in my backyard) is not "green" other than through naive perception. A diminished quality of life is not positive progress. People with a myopic vision or without solutions should not be permitted to lead.

Politically-correct windmill industry gets a pass on killing Eagles

I wonder if the AP is creating leverage to preserve its privileged position and or prevent further exploitation.

In any case, regardless of the numbers, we know that disruption of the environment and destruction of life does occur, and should be part of the conversation. The "green" marketing effort is designed to distort perception of reality for political, economic, and social profit. It is counterproductive to defining viable energy policies.

Jay said...

But the climate change problem isn't about our virtue and our feelings. Is it?

Considering there is no "climate change problem" well, no.

Astro said...

"the economic downtown"

The way economics have been under Obama, he must mean like downtown Detroit.

ricpic said...

The greenhouse gases global warming connection is UNPROVEN. It's also unprovable in that it's a SCAM.

AllenS said...

I have two of Kerry's bullshit DD214 forms. The first one that I could get ahold of was made up when he thought being anti-veteran was a good idea. He's so fucking stupid that he didn't realize that his DD214 should have been a DD214N because he was in the Navy.

On that form, his only award was his National Defense Service Medal which everyone receives in basic training. Interestingly enough it states: (NOT RECEIVED).

Then, his second one is when he decided to report for duty.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

From the linked article:

Twice this month, in two continents, Kerry has left a misleading impression about U.S. progress in meeting its international commitments on climate change.

The US has no international commitments on climate change. The US only commits to something when the Senate ratifies a treaty, which in this case, it didn't.

I give Kessler 3 Pinocchios for this misstatement.

The Drill SGT said...

The fact checker takes the makes an interesting statement:

Moreover, in the treaty, the United States itself made a commitment to essentially achieve a 7 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2012

The Commitment was by State and Gore, not the United States. The Senate never was on board. 0-95.

Astro said...

Seems like a complete waste of time to analyze Kerry's speech that makes non-relevant comments with regard to a non-applicable set of accords that deal with the non-issue of CO2 production.

Scott M said...

It's okay to have 3 Pinocchios on a the requirements of a treaty that was 1) bullshit from the start and 2) never ratified.

Scott M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AprilApple said...

Fritz- Indeed. Though, it would be nice to have an official scientific method for collecting the Pinocchio gas that emits from their pie holes.

Henry said...

I think Kessler is right that Kerry is wrong on asserting 1997 levels instead of 1990 levels.

That is in fact what Kessler focuses on in most of his article. The passage that Althouse quotes is a bizarre non-sequitur. Kessler has already established that Kerry's playing fast and loose with facts. Why does he decide to go opining?

The sad truth is that modern prosperity is driven by cheap energy. Any energy policy that makes energy more expensive (green jobs!) is going to undermine economic growth. (*)

Poor growth is a feature of Kyoto, not a bug.

(*) This is not to say that we should ignore externalities of the energy economy, just that we have to be honest about cost impacts as well as environmental impacts.

jacksonjay said...


Hey Drill SGT,

The cop in Ft. Worth only needed 6 rounds to take-down the 72 year old geezer! Apparently cop had been trained well, 6 rounds in the chest!

El Pollo Raylan said...

I believe my Parable of the Gas" is applicable here, with its underlying message to the faithful that a cooling economy is the one true pathway to economic equality and parity.

AprilApple said...

"Speaking off the cuff — or with false precision — is a dangerous business for a secretary of state. Twice this month, in two continents, Kerry has left a misleading impression about U.S. progress in meeting its international commitments on climate change. We’d almost make this Four Pinocchios, but he did get the part about Waxman-Markey right, even though it’s not much to brag about."

False precision.

X said...

I give John Kerry 4 Benedict Arnolds.

madAsHell said...

Look!!! Squirrel!!!

cubanbob said...

I give John Kerry 4 Benedict Arnolds."

X you are being rather stingy in your handing out of awards.
Paris. Winter soldier. DD 214. Tax evasion. Fake medals. He earned seven Benedict's by my calculation at the minimum.

Calypso Facto said...

Isn't it sad that in all of our suffering through economic malaise, we failed to rejoice and soothe ourselves with the knowledge that we were restricting the production of greenhouse gases?

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill

edutcher said...

The further along we go, the more it looks as if we really ducked a bullet as far as Lurch replacing Dubya.

Is there anybody who hasn't made a fool of him?

Anybody?

Bueller?

Thank you, Madame, for not voting for this slug.

cassandra lite said...

Isn't that how liberals judge people, by their motivations instead of their actions?

EMD said...

I'm not sure I have a problem with Kerry lying to the "international community."

SteveR said...

Kyoto was obviously a success, while it has not lowered greenhouse gas emissions, the global temperature has not risen in 15 years.

AReasonableMan said...

Althouse...
not a big recession that the government was (supposedly) trying to avoid/reverse.


This is a cowardly construct from our host. If she has some evidence that the Obama team were not doing their level best to dig us out of the biggest recession since the great depression she should put up or shut up. It would be good if she chose to compare and contrast with the catastrophic effects of the Bush administration's policies on the economy.

Note also that the recession was already well and truly underway before Obama took office.

dreams said...

This is what I think of fact checkers.

"There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false, though some people still pretend there is truth in them. As the Lichter study demonstrates, it's not so much fact checkers that are needed as it is fact checkers to check the facts being checked."

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans?s_cid=rss:peter-roff:study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

Michael K said...

One Pinocchio for Kessler.

"Moreover, in the treaty, the United States itself made a commitment to essentially achieve a 7 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2012."

The US made no commitment because the treaty was not ratified.

Maybe another Pinocchio for not reading the Constitution.

Of course it is 100 years old and stuff.

X said...

It would be good if she chose to compare and contrast with the catastrophic effects of the Bush administration's policies on the economy.

which would most people choose? the bush economy or the obama economy? I predict ARM's answer to be unreasonable.

El Pollo Raylan said...

ARM twists: This is a cowardly construct from our host. If she has some evidence that the Obama team were not doing their level best to dig us out of the biggest recession since the great depression she should put up or shut up. It would be good if she chose to compare and contrast with the catastrophic effects of the Bush administration's policies on the economy.

The Obama administration's policy of embracing and even lauding higher energy prices (Chu on that) is a good example of deliberate damage done to a weakened economy. Fortunately, the policy was overruled by economic interests.

edutcher said...

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

not a big recession that the government was (supposedly) trying to avoid/reverse.

This is a cowardly construct from our host. If she has some evidence that the Obama team were not doing their level best to dig us out of the biggest recession since the great depression she should put up or shut up.


Stimulus.

ObamaTax.

QE I II III.

11 million on Social Security Disability.

1 in 7 on food stamps.

Worst workforce participation since Carter.

It would be good if she chose to compare and contrast with the catastrophic effects of the Bush administration's policies on the economy.

Yeah, they tried to end subprime mortgages while Little Zero was the Friend of Angelo's Happy Handmaiden.

X said...

hey ARM, why did Obama put the Queen of Subprime in charge of the Commerce Dept?

John said...

Isn't this just more of the same BS in the vein of Ruth Marcus the other day?

That is: Whether we reduce emissions or not is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that our feelings about it be appropriate.

John Henry

X said...

Note also that the recession was already well and truly underway before Obama took office.

this is true. the recession started when it became clear a marxist would be the democrat nominee. the obama depression came after he took office.

edutcher said...

Somebody tell Troll Choom is just doing the only thing that he knows how to do - Da Chicago Way.

John said...

From the article:

Speaking off the cuff — or with false precision — is a dangerous business for a secretary of state.

If I were editor I would have changed that to "Speaking is a dangerous business for John Kerry." Every time he opens his mouth he makes an ass of himself.

But what I wanted to address is the use of the word "precision" here.

This reporter, a graduate of some of our finest [koff, koff] schools doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word. I think what he means is "accuracy"

One can be precise without being accurate and vice versa.

If I say that it is almost 11:00AM right now, that is accurate but imprecise. If I say that it is 10:26:13.2 that is very precise but not at all accurate. (Current time as I type being 10:52)

Just one of those little things that bugs the crap out of me. Like chalk on a blackboard.

John Henry

Bruce Hayden said...

ARM twists: This is a cowardly construct from our host. If she has some evidence that the Obama team were not doing their level best to dig us out of the biggest recession since the great depression she should put up or shut up. It would be good if she chose to compare and contrast with the catastrophic effects of the Bush administration's policies on the economy.

El Pollo points to energy policies, but I would also add the "Stimulus", ObamaCare, and five years of trillion dollar deficits.

But, maybe ARM is too tied to the notion that as long as their motives were pure, or, at least not too egregiouslly bad, then no matter how forseeable the negative effects of their actions, they were still exonerated here.

Pretty much all of the "green" stuff put into the "stimulus" package most likely adversely affected the economy, with the give aways to political cronies some of the more egregious. Money was being siphoned off into their pockets that should have been left in the economy for the recovery. The technologies and were never economical, and technological feasibility was never an issue in who got what monies. So, no surprise that hundreds of billions were diverted from the recovery to pay for environmental wet dreams and to pad the pockets of cronies.

I think that the only positive thing that can be said about ObamaCare is that the Dems behind it, notably Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, were likely convinced that the economy would somehow, despite their best efforts to the contrary, would have recovered by the time that ObamaCare really hit the economy, and hence, maybe, its delayed implementation. After all, the only time in somewhat recent history when the economy had not promptly recovered was the last time they tried massive pseudo-Keynesian stimulus - throughout the 1930s. Every other recovery was fairly quick, at least in comparison with this one.

Seeing Red said...

Barry's been pivoting to job since 2007, Drudge had a great leader about that before the election, took all of his quotes.

Seeing Red said...

Hmmm, maybe Pelosi & Reid shouldn't have raised the minimum wage in 2007? LOLOLOL I wonder if that helped the recession?

Larry J said...

AReasonableMan said...
Althouse...
not a big recession that the government was (supposedly) trying to avoid/reverse.

This is a cowardly construct from our host. If she has some evidence that the Obama team were not doing their level best to dig us out of the biggest recession since the great depression she should put up or shut up.


Not the host but I'll put up some evidence:

1. Increasing taxes during a recession.
2. Massively increasing the regulatory burden on business, especially small business.
3. Adding trillions of dollars to the national debt with little to nothing to show for it but enriched cronies and bankrupt "green" energy companies.
4. ObamaCare is going to cost far more than promised. It will deliver less than promised. It will make it harder to create new jobs. How is that improving the economy except for the thousands of new IRS bureaucrats hired to shove this shit-sandwich down our throats?

It's reasonable to ask the converse: If Obama were hellbent on destroying the nation's economy, what would he do differently than what he's already done?

Bruce Hayden said...

What I find interesting here is that the NYT so blithely assumes that CO2 causes "climate change" is true, and incorporates that into their narrative w/o any thought on their part, ignoring that Keyoto was designed to address supposed "global waring", which turned out not to be happening. So, they jump with the same supposed cause from one supposed harm to another, with the second one having even weaker scientific support than the first one. What is "climate change" any way?

Calypso Facto said...

Just one of those little things that bugs the crap out of me. Like chalk on a blackboard.

CHALK on a blackboard irritates you, John Henry??? Or was that perhaps another illustration of an inaccurate statement or imprecise speech?!?

AllenS said...

What is "climate change" any way?

Well, where I live, it's windier today than yesterday.

Unknown said...

It's reasonable to ask the converse: If Obama were hellbent on destroying the nation's economy, what would he do differently than what he's already done?

Implement a Value Added Tax. Nationwide tax on real estate. Declare Card Check by executive order.

Paul Zrimsek said...

"global waring", which turned out not to be happening

You'll change your tune about global Waring once the rising waters engulf Hamilton Beach.

Big Mike said...

So if we implemented the policies, and they didn't work, that would still be preferable to increasing the use of clean-burning natural gas through lower prices, which self-evidently has worked?

If liberals write code for Microsoft that would explain a lot about Windows.

Just sayin'

Big Mike said...

So if we implemented the policies, and they didn't work, that would still be preferable to increasing the use of clean-burning natural gas through lower prices, which self-evidently has worked?

If liberals write code for Microsoft that would explain a lot about Windows.

Just sayin'

Marty said...

But economic retrenchment is precisely the outcome of the Green weenies' programs. Why aren't they screaming "mission accomplished"? It's their fantasy twofer!

John said...

CHALK on a blackboard irritates you, John Henry??? Or was that perhaps another illustration of an inaccurate statement or imprecise speech?!?

Actually it has been a while since I have seen or used chalk on a blackboard. But yes, it does irritate me. It is hard to read which is irritating. The residual chalk after erasing but still ghosting through the new stuff also irritate me.

The dust released from chalk on a blackboard also irritates me. I suppose that the pedant might say that this is inaccurate since at that point the chalk dust is not actually on the blackboard.

The sound of chalk screeching on a blackboard also irritates me.

In general, blackboards and everything associated with them irritate me.

OTOH, if blackboards were all that annoyed me, I would be a lucky, lucky, man.

John Henry

jacksonjay said...

Hey X,

Did you see the chart where Penny Pritzker had been to the White House more than any Cabinet members?

edutcher said...

She was advising Choom on the house she was building for him in HI when everybody thought he was losing last year.

elkh1 said...

Gahrie said...
Climate change is about seizing control of political power and using it to impliment Leftist ideology, ...

and make a quick buck by those who cannot compete in the market place, e.g. that Indian railroad engineer turned climate expert overseeing billions of UN-Climate whatever budget, the unemployed politician Al Gore makes a billion with his bullshits, Penn's(?) Mann lies for his professorship.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...
It would be good if she chose to compare and contrast with the catastrophic effects of the Bush administration's policies on the economy.


Of course if the grand prize were $40,000,000 you couldn't name, using facts, a single policy Bush pursued or enacted that had "catastrophic effects" on the US economy.

You're a blathering idiot.

Michael said...

The Washington Post should have, with Kerry, declared victory. That is the kind of "science" that makes sense these days when the facts don't seem to support the hoped for outcomes. Better to nip the problem in the bud by declaring it solved and leave it to the "scientists" to prove it is no. Prove it this time.

X said...

Hey X,

Did you see the chart where Penny Pritzker had been to the White House more than any Cabinet members?


as far as I can tell, her only expertise is at running banks into the ground while getting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. she is exactly the type OWS was whinging about. her nomination is pure corruption.

Synova said...

"That was not the kind of suffering that the environmentalists had hoped for,"

Exactly.

"But the climate change problem isn't about our virtue and our feelings. Is it?"

It very much is.

If a person looks at what is prioritized related to climate change it's clear that the most important elements are doctrinal. Efficacy comes a far second if it is considered at all.

Bill Gates has a TED talk on his nuclear program where he explains at the end that if you've got cheap nuclear power you don't have to convince people that global warming is a problem because everyone wants cheap, abundant power.

The system he promotes uses existing nuclear waste for fuel and consumes, IIRC, better than 90% of it. Even if it produced no power at all that would seem to be a good thing... and yet the whole program seems to be a long slog uphill because it just doesn't MATTER.

Nuclear is bad. It doesn't matter that it's the perfect non-CO2 power source. It doesn't matter that "skeptics" and "deniers" would get behind nuclear power. It doesn't matter that greenies are plugging their expensive electric cars into coal power.

Abundant, cheap nuclear power doesn't involve the right kind of suffering, or even any suffering at all.

Abundant, cheap nuclear power doesn't involve conversion to the Truth, repentance or confession.

You talk to these people, to the OMG KEYSTONE! people, and it's like talking to that kid back in third grade that just says "I know you are, what am I". I've been told that we can generate enough power by pumping water to great heights and letting gravity create electricity. I've been told that new batteries solve all wind and solar problems... or they WILL... and I think that we don't have enough highly toxic trace elements in the world to make enough batteries to keep New York lit over night.

But it doesn't matter because they all really are that unserious.

Crunchy Frog said...

Politically-correct windmill industry gets a pass on killing Eagles

I thought Don Henley did that?

Dante said...

The primary source of C02 reductions to 1995 levels is from natural gas, and that from fracking.

CA could lead in clamping down C02 reductions by fracking right here, but it's considered the wrong answer. While methane puts out only half the C02 per kwh, it's not the blessed approach.

Steve Koch said...

Getting back to traditional environmentalism topics, zero flush toilets (humanure!) and gray water reuse can potentially eliminate the need for a septic tank system if you are located somewhere off the grid. I was told by a real estate agent in a beautiful part of the country where I am buying a house that some lefty planning boards (i.e. people that give out or deny the permits necessary to do building) are against zero flush toilets and gray water reuse cuz it facilitates development. By refusing septic tank permits, they could stop development on those lots. With zero flush toilets and gray water reuse, no septic tank is necessary. So, rather than figure out a new reason to reject development in environmentally precious areas, some planning boards are fighting zero flush toilets and gray water reuse.