I will admit that this is not a bad propaganda linkage to attempt, even if it does reek of political desperation. Note that the White House didn't roll out the usual "Islam is not Islamic"/"Christians do the same thing!"/etc. garbage after ISIS shot up most of Paris. It was all they could do to hold down the public's disgust at O's phony war fraud that has let the Islamic State rise to effective world power status.
So instead of continuing to fight that losing battle, why not jiu-jitsu it by portraying his other phony war against "global warming" (in that case, waging genuine economic war against his own country and allies against a fictitious "enemy") as striking a "defiant blow" against the Global Jihad at the same time?
Sure, it's silly; but it's all he's got:
Barack Obama told world leaders that the climate talks that opened Monday in Paris mark a turning point for collective action on global warming and stand as a rejection of the terrorists who struck the French capital a little more than two weeks ago.
The threat posed by climate change is the defining challenge of the century, Obama told the United Nations- sponsored summit organized to reach the first truly global agreement to curb greenhouse gases. Linking the meeting to the battle against [jihad]ism, Obama said a deal on emissions limits would be “an act of defiance” that proves nothing will deter nations from “building the future we want for our children.”
“Here in Paris we can show the world what is possible when we come together, united by a common effort and a common purpose,” Obama said.
I can only imagine the snickering in which al-Baghdadi's boys engage when they hear twaddle like this, if they bother paying attention to it at all. If the "Crusaders" want to lay waste to their own economies on false pagan pretenses, what's that to ISIS, al Qaeda, et al, other than to make their unholy war against the West easier? The only thing these enemies are likely to do with such nonsensical bloviations is to add it to their list of grievances against us and use it as further justification and motivation to wipe us out.
To employ a boxing metaphor, we can't "put up our dukes" if both of our collective hands are too busy strangling ourselves to death.
The president told the assembled dignitaries that no nation was immune from the effects of climate change. He said the U.S., the world’s [second-]biggest economy and its second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, accepted its role for contributing to the problem and shares the responsibility to fix it.
Except we can't "fix it," because "greenhouse gas emissions" are so tiny a factor in global climatology as to be irrelevant. The Euros preceded us down this ridiculous path, making grandiose promises to draconioanly slash their "greenhouse gas" emissions, and have never come anywhere near their targets because - guess what? - it would have been violent-revolution-causing economic suicide to do so. What other compelling definition is there for reductions of average global temperatures by miniscule fractions of a degree at the cost of hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars in costs and forfeited economic output? This Greenapalooza foolishness won't produce results any different from all the pagan "Gaia-"worshpping festivals that came before it. But if it does, there WILL be violent revolution against it. Which animals like Barack Obama and his hosts will doubtless exploit to their own despotic ends.
Don't believe me? Remember our periodic discussions about how environmentalism is, to the general public, a feel-good abstraction of a boutique issue, something with which to bolster our self-esteem - "I recycle, so I'm a good person" (even though recycling wastes more energy than it saves in natural resources, but I digress....), but which is popular in inverse proportion, like most every other leftwingnut scheme, to the degree that it inflicts actual, real-world, kitchen-table costs on us. Keep it in the realm of "jaw-jaw" and we're cool, in other words; start syphoning my wallet to pay for it and then we have a problem.
Which brings us to this CBS News/New York Times poll undoubtedly scheduled and skewed to prop up The One's emerald sortie againt the "climate change" leprechaun:
Two-thirds of Americans think the United States should join a legally binding global climate change agreement, a poll by CBS News and the New York Times released on Monday said.
But the poll, conducted between November 18th and....22nd, showed Americans were divided on what domestic measures the United States should take to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Here we go....again.
Allow me to translate:
The poll showed 63% of Americans favored regulations to cut carbon emissions from power plants, while 31% opposed them.
We recycle, so if we also cut "carbon emissions," we'll be even BETTER people. Yay!
But our electricity bills better not skyrocket.
The public was split on whether the United States should restrict drilling for oil and gas on public lands, with 49% in favor and 45% opposed.
Our gas prices at the pump better not skyrocket.
Far fewer of those polled supported any new taxes on electricity or gasoline use.
Our electricity bills and gas prices at the pump better not go into quantum slipstream drive.
Basically, "Two-thirds of Americans Want Global Climate Deal If They Don't Have To Pay For It". And if they do, then, "100% of Americans Don't Want Global Climate Deal".
And the truth? Even if humanity disappeared off this planet tomorrow....
....it would have precisely zero effect on Earth's climate.
But greenstremists would jizz themselves. If, you know, they were still around in this scenario to do so.
UPDATE: Red China is, according to Red Barry, the global exemplar of "fighting global warming":
Barack Obama on Monday touted close U.S. cooperation with [Red] China on climate change as vital to world efforts to slow [mythical] global warming, even as he acknowledged persistent differences with [Red] China’s [dictator] Xi Jinping over cybersecurity and maritime security.
Huddling with Xi on the sidelines of the Paris climate conference, Obama said nowhere had coordination with Beijing been more critical or fruitful than on climate change. He credited U.S. and Chi[Comm] leadership with leading 180 nations to make their own pledges to curb emissions in the run-up to the Paris talks.
And why wouldn't Xi do so? If the POTUS is ready, willing, and eager to lay waste to what remains of the U.S. economy that Obamanomics hasn't eradicated before now, it all redounds to Beijing's benefit. You know what they say about when your enemy is self-destructing.
By the way, this is a pic of the capital of the country that The One lauds as being such a "leader" in the "fight against global warming":
The capitals of the world’s two most populous nations, [Red] China and India, were blanketed in hazardous, choking smog on Monday as climate change talks began in Paris, where leaders of both countries are among the participants.
[Red] China’s capital Beijing maintained an “orange” pollution alert, the second-highest level, on Monday, closing highways, halting or suspending construction and prompting a warning to residents to stay indoors.
Smart <cough, hack, gag> Power!