One gallon of jet fuel burned creates about 19 pounds of C02. A 747 burns about 25,000 pounds of fuel per hour. A round trip from Washington DC to LA would take about 11- 11 1/2 hours. That comes to about 287,000 pounds of fuel. And that results in the production of about 801,911 pounds of CO2.
A 757 burns about 6,000 pounds of jet fuel per hour. A similar round trip to LA would burn about 69,000 pounds of fuel and create about 192,794 pounds of CO2.
Barack Obama and Michelle Obama both traveled to Los Angeles on the same day on separate aircraft for something of grave importance- appearances on talk shows.
Barack Obama flew out to LA and appeared on Jimmy Kimmel.
Michelle Obama took a separate aircraft to LA and appeared on “Ellen.”
When asked about this
White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz told reporters Friday that the president and first lady’s “schedules were not in sync in order to travel together.”
“I’m not even sure they overlapped,” he said when asked if the president and first lady saw each other in southern California Thursday.
In order to pin the cost of his frivolity on the US taxpayer Obama made a cameo appearance at a VA hospital in Phoenix that has been the subject of much attention.
Together they spewed 994,705 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere for completely unserious reasons.
Let’s consider the excuses offered for this excess pollution.
Their schedules were “not in sync.” Never mind the cost- what was so important that Michelle couldn’t change her schedule to avoid pouring a million pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere? Are we to believe that “Ellen” wouldn’t accommodate the schedule of the First Lady? Who’s stupid enough to believe that?
It’s not the first time this has happened either. In 2011 Michelle took a separate aircraft back from Martha’s Vineyard so she could pack in a few more hours of vacation.
The Obama’s are profligate with taxpayer money when it comes to their own personal indulgences and have never shown an interest in having any “skin in the game” as Obama once put it.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJX8bXduLM[/youtube]
No one is going to convince me that they really have a scintilla of interest in the environment either- at least insofar as said concern might inconvenience them in the slightest.
Barack Obama has said that the greatest threat to the future is “climate change.” John Kerry said that not addressing “climate change” would lead to “utter catastrophe.”
Don’t believe it for one second.
994,705 pounds of Obama CO2 pollution. For nothing but ego.
Correction:
An incorrect conversion factor was used in the original post and it has now been corrected. In no way does this change the story- which regards the Obamas’ crass indifference to the environment where it might affect their personal indulgences.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Say Doc, at the risk of being a boor and a grammarian Nazi, I feel compelled to point out this slight deviation in the rules of English “Abusage”: Obama’s indicates singular possessive; Obamas’ indicates plural possessive. Since you are referring to both Obamas, the correct form would be plural possessive. Of course, it is best if I point out the mistake; not everyone will be friendly while pointing out the error.
Abusage comes from a book title of one of my favorite grammarians, Eric Partridge. I think it is, “Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English”.
Point taken
Either they are not convinced of AGW and don’t, therefore, give it much consideration, or they believe their appearance on an-ass-kissing talk show is more important than the world. Either way, this adds more fuel to the rumors of problems within the Obama marriage; they don’t seem to make much of an effort to travel to the same location together.
As to their new-found free-spending attitudes, I have looked for and never found any evidence of the Obama’s ever traveling as a family to Hawaii for a holiday. Can anyone find such evidence, because it looks like they only thought of Hawaii as a Christmas vacation spot after someone else started writing the checks?
@Bill: air fare for ordinary flights to Hawaii is really not very expensive I probably there were other reasons that dictated choice of vacation spots for a family wigh 2 young children
Climate change truthers like the 9/11 truthers before them choose to believe based on things other than science
If you hate Obama you are simply not allowed to believe in AGW
@Bill: you do realize that whenever any POTUS travels his accommodations must be approved by the Secret Service ?
They don’t allow Holiday Inn stays it Motel 6
Always attack the messenger if you can’t attack the message
We must be a blessed country, to have celebrities in the White House. The only country in the world to be so blessed.
Our elitist image is polished for the rest of the world by the frivolities of the first couple; let the peasants of the world seethe in rage, while our first couple worries about the Third World, in sanctimonious piety; between golf games and TV shows, we are rich enough to have celebrities in the White House.
Their Carbon snowshoe tracks are minimized if the rest of us drive electric shoe boxes and live in card board boxes; we have celebrities in the White House. It is only a moral equivalency to ask everyone to make do with less if it allows our elites to live a life of unfettered luxury; after all, we have celebrities in the White House.
When the Obamas’ do (which is not often) publish their menus for dinners you might notice their lack of concern for the environment there, too.
Real Kobe beef is from Japan.
Lobster is from off Maine.
Some of their shellfish is from the Gulf area waters.
Note also how they have high meat and fat menu items (tons of desserts, pies, especially) which are all the opposite of how they want US to eat!
Here’s what they ate in front of their FASTING Indian Prime Minister.
Here’s an Easter Egg Roll Lunch Menu.
@John:
No, actually if you realize there has been no warming in over 18 years and NONE of the dire predictions made by AGW supporters come to pass, you are not allowed to believe in AGW.
In other words, people with intelligence do not believe in AGW.
It’s probably anyone’s guess what the hell this means.
Really? Is this supposed to explain why Michelle and Barack use separate aircraft for so many needless trips, at tremendous taxpayer expense? I don’t think so.
You people just don’t get it. Al Gore does the same thing flying around to his lectures about how the oceans are going to drown us all. When you are engaged in saving the world, you are entitled to behave in this manner. Think of it as “Special Dispensation”. The good you are doing is so great that your minor carbon offenses are forgiven.
Or, we could go with the real reason behind this behavior: the agenda is killing Capitalism, not saving the planet from CO2, which is also known as what keeps plants alive.
Let’s see, . . . narcissism, consistent lying, hypocrisy, greed, entitlement, stoking racism fires, and unconditional worship from the “end-justifies-the-means” crowd — this is what represents America to the world and rules America with an iron pen.
Brilliant PR, and the perfect con.
https://www.conklindd.com/t-Articlesco2emissionscausesandcosts.aspx
Dr. John, your math is off. You start with gallons: 1 gal burned produces 19 lb of CO2. You then estimate 287K *pounds* of fuel for the flight, and multiply by 19. Incorrect.
6.7 lb of jet fuel (1 gal) burns to approx 21 lb of CO2, 3.1 lb CO2 / lb jet fuel.
287K lb jet fuel burns to about 890K lb CO2, not 5.4 million. Either way, it is a lot of CO2, making no difference of any significance because global warming is so slight.
@John: DF, they’re not talking about ‘cost’, they’re talking about the POTUS being responsible for tons of CO2 being dumped into the air while claiming to be concerned about it.
@Andrew_M_Garland:
Yes Andrew it is off and I have been meaning to address it. In no way does it change the point of the story. The Obamas are the prototypical ‘do as I say’ hypocrite liberals. Thanks for the tip.
@John:
Not very expensive? BOS-OGG starts at $1500 R/T.
@John: John, would you interpret this sentence into English?
@Redteam: It’s a deeper message that requires study and a Liberal imagination. In other words, you sit there until someone tells you what it means; then you jump up and tell everyone about your latest epiphany.
@Skookum:Love it Sir Grammarian.lol
Your take on global warming would be appreciated. Do you feel it a total hoax and all these scientists are in on the scam?
Rich, my grandmother retired as a children’s librarian and I loved spending a day going through the many treasures at “her” library. She was an 80 pound grammarian Nazi.
I should have listened more closely to her instructions and rules; for I am certain, she is responsible for my bizarre love affair with the English language and its correct usage.
I have scientific training; some of you might find that hard to believe, but like the fighting dog that collapses to the floor to give his opponent a momentary feeling of victory, only to jump up and surprise his opponent with a death grip on the heart or the throat, I too might surprise a few people.
I am always skeptical of science that is politically motivated and dependent of government grants for survival. The East Anglia chaos was a moment of shame for all serious people of science and to ignore it is to deny corruption.
Whenever I engage a man of science on a discussion about climate, I ask for his views on the causes and cessations of previous eras of cold and warming.
The giant meteor strikes have been eviscerated many times, but the dates and facts had better coincide or someone is blowing smoke to advance a political agenda, and that isn’t science. Science doesn’t operate on a consensus of scientists from unrelated fields with no data, especially data that seems to be flawed.
Personally, I say, if the science is real, prove it, don’t try to baffle me with bullshit from an astronomer or a nutritionist acting like rubes at a carnival. Show me the proof, like your first day in chemistry lab; otherwise, we might as well listen to a New York cabbie tell us about the battery in his hack and how it died this winter.
I love science and read material from several different disciplines; it would be easy for me to write a line to support the issue from either side, but that’s not really science.
Rich, I had the opportunity to think about y previous response and I thought about the grammar text books I have. They are masters in their field and I enjoy rereading each one every few years. Now, you would think a guy would have a good grasp of each author’s style, technique, and theory, but after each reading, I gain additional insight to that author’s theory of grammar.
Mathematics is fairly finite and English grammar is generally thought to be finite as well; however, the possibilities are endless and the finer points become strategy to be debated and argued. We are talking about English grammar: the concept of climate will be a million times more complex, and when personal style is tolerated in English Theory, there is no margin of personal or vanity variation or tolerance in science.
In other words, science doesn’t need promotion, but using Al Gore as a representative authority is self-defeating.
@Skookum:I certainly agree Al Gore’s endorsement of AGW should hold little weight. On the other hand it should not be reason to believe AGW does not exist–politics should hold no sway in such an important debate.
To believe all these scientists that endorse it are “on the take” goes beyond even my cynical .and generally untrusting nature.BTW–RECORD HEAT here in San Clemente–I’m not complaining.
OFF TOPIC Irish 70=1 to win NCAA Tourney 3/17 Happy ST PATRICKS DAY TO ALL
.
To Rich Wheeler,
Government scientists find there is money in global warming alarmism, and ostracism for opposing that view. This weeds out the opponents quite well.
Also, CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is the new reason to have One World run by socialists, because otherwise “we are all going to die”, even if it is 1000 years in the future.
The paper below by Lindzen presents the reasoned case why global warming exists, but is not threatening.
IPCC Lead Author Says Climate Models Are Failing
6/24/13 – Heartland by James M. Taylor
=== ===
[edited] Hans von Storch is a lead author of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He told German newspaper Der Spiegel that climate models are having a difficult time replicating the lack of global warming during the past 15 years.
“If the lack of warming continues, in five years at the latest we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in any modeled scenario.
=== ===
Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
( http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm )
He presented the paper “Global Warming: How to approach the science” (PDF 58 pages)
At the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate Seminar
Sponsored by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
In Westminster, London, 22nd February 2012
( http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf )
This is a careful, scholarly, clear, and readable presentation of claims and data. Global warming is not a hoax, but catastrophic, damaging global warming is a hoax not supported by evidence. This paper deserves wide distribution and reference.
Prof. Lindzen explains that a doubling of carbon dioxide by 2050 would be expected to increase average world temperature by about 1 degree C (1.8 deg F). The alarmists pose that natural processes will multiply this warming to 3 deg C. Current data seems to give a multiplier of .5, giving .5 deg C of warming by 2050 (.9 deg F).
A major argument against an explosive, self-multiplying warming is that we are here to talk about it. If the Earth’s climate had a multiplier, rather than a brake, then prior much warmer and much colder periods would have spiraled to either a freezing or boiling extreme. Venus would be an example. Earth has been stable for 3 billion years.
@rich wheeler:
It doesn’t. It’s all politics and a huge source of income from the government.
Rich the way you ask the question should be your first clue.
If ‘global warming’ is a fact, wouldn’t it be just that, a ‘fact’? Why does someone have to ‘believe’ in global warming. If it’s a fact, wouldn’t you only have to look at the actual numbers? If you look at the temp in San Clemente one day and it is 68 and then the next day it is 87, would it matter what your ‘opinion’ on whether it is warmer on the 87 degree day or not? Wouldn’t it be a fact? Why is there a debate. Show us the temps for the last 100 years and if it is truly warmer today than it was 100 years ago, wouldn’t that fact answer the question? Why would anyone have to ‘ask’?
Note: I’m talking about ‘temperatures’ not the reconstructed fake numbers that algore’s people try to sell to the gullible with an agenda.
@rich wheeler:
ND will not win the NCAA tourney.
@Redteam: I certainly don’t expect N.D. to win. They are in Kentucky’s Region.
BTW–LSU lucky to be in—no chance of winning
@rich wheeler: They got in the best bracket (for them) in that if they win 1st game then they play Villanova (assuming they win their first game). Villanova hasn’t gotten out of first round in last two years. But I don’t expect LSU to win tournament either.
@Redteam:They are slight dog to Wolfpack. Nova a # 1 seed and should advance to elite 8 at least. Kentucky should win it all.
@rich wheeler: woulda, coulda, shoulda, gotten out of first round last two years, but?
@rich wheeler: Rich, do you know any scientists. I know quite a few. They represent many varied fields and they have a vast knowledge of interesting scientific facts; however, their work often entails the collection of data from mundane tasks like subjecting thousands of little birds to exposure to different chemicals over periods of months and years or analyzing the DNA for clues into predicting the incidence of health problems among certain blood types. These scientists analyze the minutiae of millions of bits of information, made possible by the machine in front of you. Do their opinions on Climate Change carry more weight than the opinion of your local weather man? They are scientists and when two or more agree on something, they apparently have a consensus; unfortunately, a consensus of opinion isn’t science. A consensus of opinion is laughable. Now, tell me about the opinions of all those scientists.
@Skookum: I don’t know any scientists.
You, a very intelligent jarhead, know quite a few..
I think we agree the scientific community has varied beliiefs about AGW,
I believe you’ve said you could make an intelligent argument for either side..
I thought you said you were not a betting man.
Why would you RISK betting on this when we see the consequences if you are wrong?
@Rich+Wheeler:
They’ve been wrong for 50 years. What are the consequences so far? water levels have not risen. People aren’t dying for lack of food due to droughts. Why would you risk betting on algore? what’s the risks if he’s wrong? Why does he still live in huge mansions using tremendous amounts of energy to heat and cool? Why does he still travel by private jets? Is he ‘worried’?
If there is such a ‘thing’ why isn’t there any proof?
@Redteam No offense RT BUT :I’m sure Skooks will provide a more thoughtful and reasoned response.
BTW I’d say odds are now 3-2 that Webb WILL challenge HRC. for nom.
@Rich+Wheeler: you going with the 3 or the 2?
He already has, you just didn’t like his answer and are still trying to finesse’ Skooks can’t offer you any ‘proof’ of ‘global warming’, there isn’t any. He has told you that.
@Rich+Wheeler:
If all his ex wives vote against him, he’s sunk..
@Redteam: Both ex’s will vote for him as often as possible.
Trump looking to get in. The more the merrier for the upcoming Repub. Primary, otherwise known as America’s favorite circular firing squad. For entertainment, right there with March Madness.
Just curious Do you understand what 3-2 odds means? If those are true Vegas odds and 1 bet $100 that Webb gets in– what’s my return on principle if he in fact runs. Pretty simple.
@Rich+Wheeler:
is that ‘both’ your exes? he has a helluva lot more than ‘both’.
It’s good you’re ‘entertained’ by politics. Too bad people don’t take the presidency seriously anymore, I will agree Obama has pretty well turned it into a ‘clownship’.
@Redteam: Webb wives–one current 2 ex’s (as in both for the verbally challenged)
I’ve always found politics entertaining–why take any of these pols too seriously–are you that foolish?
@Rich+Wheeler:
I read your stuff, don’t I?
Oh, ok you’d rather just put it at ‘several’ wives. I’m sure that once you get into those numbers it doesn’t matter any more. You expect him to be ‘faithful’ to his country while going thru several wives?
@<a href="
Interesting that Reagan only PREZ in last 90 years married more than once..
@Rich+Wheeler: What are the consequences of believing in this boondoggle, taxing and penalizing the economy to death, causing rampant unemployment and disaster?
@Bill: Boondogle?? Your opinion certainly not shared by many scientists.
I see this as a reactionaries/evangelical loonies vs environmentalists.
If ever forced–WHICH I’M NOT—I’d side with the greenies.
@Rich+Wheeler: ‘climate change’, yes, it did not rain here yesterday, it did rain here today. That is certainly a climate change. it has nothing to do with algores self serving fraud. Reagan wan’t married to several different wives as Webb has been.
@Rich+Wheeler:
Science is not determined by ‘consensus’, it’s determined by facts and the ‘fact’ that there are no facts that support ‘global warming’ is good enough for me.
Your supposed choosing to side with fruitcakes is nothing new.
@Redteam: The fact you’d side with reactionary bible thumpers over those who protect the environment is certainly no surprise.
It’s your choice to live with the swamp folk of loooeasyanna.
@Rich+Wheeler: Actually, my “opinion” IS shared by many scientists and climatologists; that’s why I have my “opinion”. That and the FACT that warmists back up their claims with lies and suppressed data along with the fact that AGW predictions fail to materialize.
@Rich+Wheeler:
what are they thumping about and what am I on their side about. I don’t keep up with them, but apparently you do.
I guess you’ve got me there. who do you know that is protecting the envir? algore who has a 50 room mansion and flies exclusively by private jet or Obama’s crew that sends one plane per family member to california? I’m sure you keep up with the list as put out by the bible thumpers.
@Bill:
They don’t actually back up their claims. They just throw s4it on the wall and let Rich’s crew lap it up. They can’t actually back up global warming because there is no corraborating evidence.
@Bill: Yeah sure. Your scientists tell the truth and their scientists are all lying.
Do you realize how stupid that sounds Bill.
@Rich+Wheeler:
So, I guess you are saying that there are 2 sides to the discussion. There aren’t. There is only the truth and others. Since you nor anyone else can ‘prove’ global warming, guess which side you’re on.