Yet another over-the-top Obama speech, by the One who will calm the oceans....
Hyperbole doesnt begin to describe this speech's idiocy, which reaches Al Gore-ean levels....
"Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm."
Earlier in his remarks, Obama said the "overwhelming judgement of science, of chemistry, of physics, and millions of measurements" put "to rest" questions about pollution affecting the environment.
"The planet is warming. Human activity is contributing to it," Obama said.
"We know that the costs of these events can be measured in lost lives and lost livelihoods."
He noted that rising tide levels in New York increased the impact of Hurricane Sandy, while record temperatures killed crops and increased food prices in the Midwest.
The effort is to scare the low information voters and the public for more tax money to scam for green energy for Obama crony capitalist pals.
A big problem for the president and others in the global warming choir is that even many of the most faithful voices in that choir are dropping out and starting to sing another tune. The British journal The Economist, one of the most revered opinion bellwethers of the chattering classes, has for years been a leading purveyor of the Al Gore-IPCC end-of-the-world fright peddling, when it comes to global warming. However, in a major about-face on June 20, “Climate change: A cooling consensus,” The Economist takes writers at the New Republic and the Washington Post to task for admitting that the global warming projections predicted by the computer models have failed, while at the same time trying to spin the results in such as way as to maintain the urgency for enacting drastic (and very costly) climate policies.
“… the public has been systematically deceived.” — The Economist
The Economist sums it up:
The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal. [Emphasis in original.]
Yes, the phony “consensus” is falling apart. In fact, as we have shown repeatedly (see links below) the claim of “scientific consensus” regarding global warming has been false from the start. Now this fraud is being acknowledged by some of the very news organs and opinionators that have previously propagated the “consensus” line. And we agree, in this case, with The Economist, that this is “a very big deal.” Perhaps someone in the White House brain trust should apprise the president of this development before he channels Al Gore at Georgetown." TOO LATE!