FOXNews.com - The Second Coming of Jimmy Carter

Obama’s first speech to the nation from the Oval Office sounded a lot like Carter’s famous “malaise” speech July 15, 1979, that all but defined the end of his presidency.

Only, Obama sounded out to lunch more than a year earlier than Carter. Both wanted to intervene in the energy crisis. Both wanted to rally a divided America. Neither was up to the task.

See if you can guess which one said the following:

“In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof.” Or: “I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence.”

Same issue, same bogus fantasy about “energy independence.”

“I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle.” Or: “Tonight I’d like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward.”

Same claim to military analogies, same fight for conservation.

[San Diego: Record cold]

I thought we needed an extra blanket night before last. Three spots around the county set daily records for low temperature Thursday. Campo got down to 33, shattering the previous mark for June 17 set in 1973 by four degrees. El Cajon's low was 52, two degrees below the record set in 1995; and the Ramona Airport dipped to 41, besting the record low set in 1974 by three degrees.

Being green will not get us out of the red - Telegraph

...Still in place, however, is a £200 million loan to Nissan (£20 million from our Government, the rest from the European Investment Bank), to enable its Sunderland plant to build thousands of Leaf electric cars, which will only be able to drive 100 miles before they need recharging – with electricity from CO2-emitting fossil fuels.

Exclusive: EPA View on Greenhouse Gases - A Load of Hot Air? » Publications » Family Security Matters

Because it is now reasonably clear that disastrous AGW is not in the offing, why doesn’t it make sense to abandon the emotional, financial, and political aspects of AGW, let the CO2 go, live with the elevated CO2 levels since they are nontoxic and the effect on temperature is negligible, concentrate on even more effective sequestration of the known stack gas and tailpipe toxins and endangerments to air and water quality, and leave the energy economy alone while we systematically use it to develop cheap. reliable alternate energy sources to supplant future depletion of fossil fuels?  [Via Climate Realists]