Obama Calls Out Climate Deniers

April 21st, 2011 at 11:27 am | 11 Comments |

| Print

The Hill reports:

President Obama called out Capitol Hill’s “climate change deniers” Wednesday night at a Democratic fundraiser in California.

Obama, speaking at a San Francisco event for donors, called rising gasoline prices an economic drain on drivers and said curbing oil reliance is a “national security imperative.”

“And then there’s the environmental aspect of it. There are climate change deniers in Congress and when the economy gets tough, sometimes environmental issues drop from people’s radar screens,” Obama continued, speaking at the home of Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff.

“But I don’t think there’s any doubt that unless we are able to move forward in a serious way on clean energy, that we’re putting our children and our grandchildren at risk,” Obama added.

Obama also talked climate during his appearance at Facebook’s Palo Alto headquarters earlier in the day, listing it among the challenges facing the nation.

“Internationally, we’re seeing the sorts of changes that we haven’t seen in a generation.  We’ve got certain challenges like energy and climate change that no one nation can solve but we’re going to have to solve together,” Obama said. “And we don’t yet have all the institutions that are in place in order to do that.”

Climate change has been on and off the menu in Obama’s remarks on energy this year, and some environmentalists want a more robust White House stance on the issue.

Recent Posts by FrumForum News

11 Comments so far ↓

  • Smargalicious

    Barry Soetoro, please be quiet. Adults are talking.

  • Carney

    If getting off oil is a national security imperative, why keep diverting political momentum to get off oil into an irrelevant crusade against coal?

    In the 2008 campaign, Obama explicitly and specifically promised, in writing, to seek a mandate that all new gasoline cars be flex fueled. He has ignored it ever since. That promise was available until very recently on his campaign website; now yanked.

    And he could have DONE it by now. McCain promised the same thing in the campaign (if the auto companies didn’t make flex fuel a standard feature on their own, which they haven’t). The Open Fuel Standards Act, stalled in the last 2 Congresses due to presidential neglect, attracted not merely bipartisan but broad, cross-ideological support including from hardcore conservatives. Outside activists and voices such as Frank Gaffney (Fox News) and Cliff May (National Review) are ready to help sell it to the right, or at least split the right to enable passage.

    It’s the one crucial step, the Gordian knot-cutter, the logjam smasher, the ONE simple indispensable step we need to take. And year after year it gets ignored, and year after year millions more new cars roll out of factories and off loading docks than our unnecessarily locked in to only being able to run on petroleum derived fuel, when adding alcohol fuel compatibility would cost carmakers only $130 per new vehicle at the factory.

    For more see EnergyVictory dot net, SetAmericaFree dot org, or Zubrin’s talk to Google employees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLRuGUPkyh4

  • Arms Merchant

    Well, one way to answer your opposition is to call them names like “deniers” (“The science is settled!!”). Certainly saves the bother of having to make a cogent argument.

    So I guess the headline should really read “Obama name-calls instead of making case.”

    BTW, if he’s so worried about “our children and grandchildren,” he might try refraining from submitting budgets with trillion-and-a half-dollar deficits.

  • ProfNickD

    If the global warmists are absolutely sure of their position, then why do they need to lie about the data?:


    It’s like cheating at poker when you’re holding four kings.

    • nwahs

      If you get past the religious aspect of the *man made* global warming crowd, the science is without a doubt, wanting , and in some cases fraud.

      When I grew up the doom sayers were predicting an ice age.

    • dmnolan

      “Booker has also argued in support of intelligent design, claiming that supporters of the theory of evolution “rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions.’”
      Expert testimony. Who, again, is resting their case on blind faith?

  • dmnolan

    Biblical Inerrancy. It’s a winning energy policy. I go with Sen. Inhofe because of his scientific cred.
    And because he didn’t wreck his airplane, unlike that other jackass from Arizona.

  • nwahs

    No one can deny climate change. No one is denying climate change. If there is one constant in regard to climate, its the fact, IT CHANGES.

    People are rightfully skeptical man is the culprit. The climate of this earth has been changing for billions of years, and man didn’t exist for 99.999999…% of that time

  • cce

    Lung cancer existed before cigarettes. Therefore, smoking doesn’t cause cancer.

  • Ruminant

    When I grew up the doom sayers were predicting an ice age.
    Sure, but what does that have to do with the scientific consensus on global warming? A few climate researchers did investigate the possibility of “global cooling” in the 1970s, but they were in the minority, and they all ultimately concluded that the brief cooling trend they had observed would not continue. “Global cooling” was never anything more than the short-lived hypothesis of a small minority of climate scientists. “Global warming”, on the other hand, is the theory that is accepted by every reputable scientific organization in the world.

    People are rightfully skeptical man is the culprit. The climate of this earth has been changing for billions of years, and man didn’t exist for 99.999999…% of that time
    If the theory of global warming/climate change was simply “the Earth has been getting hotter, therefore we must be the cause”, then your “point” would be valid. But of course the theory behind climate change isn’t that simple, and your strawman argument is just a dishonest attempt to misinform people who don’t know any better.

    While we are bringing up dishonest and discredited talking points to challenge global warming, let me add my personal favorite: Why should we trust these scientist to predict what the Earth’s temperature will be 100 years from now, when they can’t even predict tomorrow’s weather?!