Obama Targets 'Climate Change Deniers In Congress'

At a Democratic National Committee fundraiser on Wednesday night in San Francisco, President Barack Obama called out climate change-deniers in Congress, and commented that investments in clean energy are crucial to help the economy, national security, and future generations.

Although Obama admitted, “Secret Service doesn’t let me pump gas now,” he still recognizes that high gas prices are seriously affecting Americans. Beyond the economy, this becomes an issue of national security “because we see what’s happening in the Middle East and we understand that a finite resource that is primarily located in a very unstable part of the world is not good for our long-term future.”

Obama said that we must invest in clean energy, mentioning solar and wind power, as well as electric cars. He went on to declare that the U.S. must stop giving $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies -- instead, the money should be put towards clean energy.

“Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s energy. It’s good for our security. It will grow our economy, and it will leave our children with a safer and cleaner planet,” Obama said.

In one of the more note-worthy comments of the event, Obama acknowledged, “There are climate change deniers in Congress and when the economy gets tough, sometimes environmental issues drop from people’s radar screens.” As Talking Points Memo notes, Obama didn't mention that those climate change deniers are all Republicans, and his environmental agenda was hurt by an alliance formed between them and Democrats in fossil fuel-dependent states.

Obama went on to say that despite challenges, the country must make a serious move to clean energy or else “we’re putting our children and our grandchildren at risk.”

In a speech earlier this month, President Obama acknowledge that change would not happen overnight, but that he aims to reduce oil imports by one-third by 2025.

Comments

[Kenz300]

11:10 AM on 05/28/2011

Our economic security and national security depends on our ability to transition to safe, clean alternative energy. The price for oil, coal and nuclear keep going up. Wind and solar prices are dropping. Second generation biofuels made from algae, waste and cellulose can fuel our autos.
We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and stop sending money to countries that want to do us harm.

[mpattymcn]

11:59 AM on 05/25/2011

Obama and other leaders know full well that they control the climate, and all of it's destruction by using HAARP and GEO-ENGINEERING. Please watch "WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE THEY SPRAYING," by Michael Murphy. Please, people, please watch and join in for a GLOBAL PROTEST AT YOUR STATE CAPITAL ON JULY 17TH.

[StephenBP]

07:01 PM on 05/17/2011

Why are the polar ice masses melting faster and faster?

[REMEMBER2050]

02:46 PM on 05/18/2011

It's fascinating, and it would really be interesting as all get out if it weren't such a disaster. Go to http://www.skepticalscience.com and search for "polar," Arctic," and Antarctica" to get you started.

This is a terrific site explaining the science, and it's all based on peer-reviewed and published scientific research you can look at in detail.

The point of the site actually is to refute skeptic arguments. Like click on one in the left column and check out the results. Or search for a skeptic argument, everything from "polar bear population" on down. This site was begun by a young Australian physicist, but you'll see he's been getting contributions from all over the place to compile yet more skeptic arguments and their scientific refutations. It even has free IPhone and droid downloads so you don't have to remember a thing and you can still sound like Jim Hansen.

Now my theory with this site is that every time you see a skeptic argument, you tell the skeptic to go here and find out why they're wrong. And stop posting crap unless they can take it to the next level and refute the science with more peer-reviewed and published science. (I don't think I'm being really pedantic there--but it seems like it's not exactly unreasonable to keep the playing field level.) Sending skeptics here seems entirely logical and clear as a bell to me, but for some reason those skeptics have been completely uncooperative!!

[RTIII]

03:18 PM on 05/18/2011

"but for some reason those skeptics have been completely uncooperat­ive!!”

The uncooperative aren't skeptics, they're deniers.

[gallon]

01:48 PM on 05/22/2011

Good answer. Btw, Stephen's comment was rhetorical, he is fully aware of SS.

[stopgov]

02:54 PM on 05/17/2011

Many scientists are "non-believers," but the lamestream press ignores them, why, funding. I'll bet "the myth believers" will not read the link (not faux news). For years, he was a leading GW scientist in Australia.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238

[gallon]

01:50 PM on 05/22/2011

I'll go with real live working climatologists. Thanks for trying your denier diversion, that was fun.

[stopgov]

08:15 PM on 05/22/2011

Who funds the group you work with? Or is this a university? So you've never seen all the climatologists that question the results or models? I've never seen an environmental model that doesn't over predict the results. In fact I have seen companies put up monitors to verify the models, and the models are not even in the same universe, as far as the results. Of course there are always excuses why the model over predicted it. So why is there global warming on other planets in the solar system? What caused the past ice ages and global warming afterwards? Since you're an expert, maybe you could enlighten me.

[gallon]

10:00 PM on 05/22/2011

98% of real working climatologists are in agreement that AGW is real, no matter how loud and persistent the deniers become.

[MikeWebster]

03:08 AM on 05/23/2011

It would help the David Evan's argument if he actually understood what the hotspot is:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/david_evans_doesnt_know_what_t.php
http://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=696

It would also help your case if the Australian didn't have an ongoing campaign of misinformation on the science of climate change - they are, after all a Murdoch paper:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/07/the_australians_war_on_science.php

That's the first of about 80 posts on "The Australians war on science".

[Broderick Crawford]

02:31 PM on 05/13/2011

Obama Targets "Climate Change Deniers In Congress." And why shouldn't he. He certainly has a vested interest in CCX that he wants to sell to a dumbed down American populace. Never mind that it would mean trillions of dollars to liberal democratic supporters without changing anything or any hope other than to make energy costs skyrocket.

[gallon]

01:51 PM on 05/22/2011

Yes, yes. It is all a vast conspiracy by the libs, according to you.

We notice that you have no science to offer, nor will you ever. The science is established and true. Sorry about that. Maybe try it on a wingnut board and they will buy what you are selling.

[Broderick Crawford]

12:48 PM on 05/27/2011

Even if the science was true nothing the Obama administration is proposing would do anything to counteract what the hysterical left is believing. And when you throw in all of the money taken from the middle class and poor as a result it doesn't make any sense. Obama did say that electricity rates would skyrocket if he got his way. Believe him.

[MikeWebster]

03:11 AM on 05/23/2011

Trillions of dollars? I think your talking about the losses across the entire economy if nothing is done, and the climate continues to warm, unabated.

[Broderick Crawford]

12:57 PM on 05/27/2011

The myth of global warming is based upon computer models that have been rigged to deliver a predetermined outcome. The climate will warm and the climate will cool. Look at historical events such as the ice age. Where were alll the SUV's to warm it up again. They didn't exist so what warmed up the planet. Even if the planet warmed a few degrees there would be no deleterious effects on mankind. Maybe longer growing seasons for plants in northern and southern latitudes. Its just more of the scare tactics of the left to control the populace. Like overpopulation in the 1960's, threats of an mini ice age in the 1970's, and many others that didn't make any difference...

[vetxcl]

04:40 PM on 05/10/2011

It's obvious that any article with the President's name on it is going to be targeted by an army of pro oil and coal opinion shapers.
Here's more information to look at: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/07/oil-and-gas-industry-leads-global-corruption-index-us-more-corrupt-than-qatar/

[vetxcl]

04:36 PM on 05/10/2011

on a related note: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/02/jobs-and-the-cleantech-vc-boom/

[TallThinMan]

09:49 PM on 05/08/2011

As far as Im concerned "Green" is the new Red (as in China)

[MikeWebster]

03:11 AM on 05/23/2011

And that has what to do with the science of climate change? Nothing.

[Bzakey3]

12:56 PM on 05/02/2011

It's a shame that many leading politicians are quite so slow to catch up. What's needed is urgent exploitation of the glut in shale gas, more drilling for oil and more nuclear power. What we need is cheap energy to drive recovery and growth, rather than all this nonsense about creating jobs by subsidising 'green' energy, and postulating about tackling so-called 'climate deniers'.

In Spain every new 'green' job cost the economy 2.2 other jobs. In the UK it's even worse at 3.7 jobs lost for each 'green' one created. The mad dash to be green in some countries has caused untold environmental and economical damage and yet leaders like Obama and Cameron are still at it - it's verging on the bizarre.

Millions of people have been pushed into poverty and starvation because of the fixation on using agricultural land in order to grow crops for biofuels to meet an arbitrary 5-10% inclusion in fuel for vehicles, when it does no good whatsoever. Or the crackpot idea of blighting the countryside with next-to-useless windmills. Or solar 'farms' in Northern latitudes which only receive weak sunlight for large parts of the year.

I reckon these climate cranks should be labelled 'realistic energy policy deniers', or just 'energy deniers', since that's what they seem to be intent on. It's as if they're totally detached from reality and the majority of public sentiment, as well as being ignorant of the huge scam that CAGW has been revealed to be.

[ognyc]

06:12 PM on 05/19/2011

Where to begin...I am going to assume the ability to breathe air or eat food that doesn't cost its weight in gold are not concerns of yours...but even with those assumptions, your assertions are dangerous if you would be able to convince a large enough number of people to agree with you.

1. even if CH4 and/or CO2 are not greenhouse gasses (which they are), the extraction of shale gas will result in the contamination of so much water that it will then become a more scarce resource than water, and we can survive without cars, not so much without water.

2. I'm not sure what the basis for your claims about the economy is, but if we can't drink the water its not going to matter who as has the money since there will be no one to collect and count it...

3. The current price of oil is significantly depressed since it doesn't include the cost of disposal and the environmental impacts of the extraction (even if you stipulate that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening...which it is), so gas should cost ~$8/gal., at which point renewables are competitive.
as
4. Since I would much rather look at wind mills than drink flammable tap water, I think its a bit short sighted to be complaining about windmills being a blight. In addition, those northern climates have other types of renewable energies; Iceland is powered predominantly by geothermal power...

[givemtheirwish]

08:00 AM on 04/28/2011

http://www.yaf.org/videogallery.aspx?id=188

I enjoyed the above video of Ann McElhinney discussing the scam of sustainability to students at St. John's University. Where are you Al???? Still in hiding??????

[Twinings]

11:50 AM on 04/28/2011

I agree it was hilarious. This women has no concept of science or the scientific method. Perhaps she should study some science before deciding the majority of scientists are wrong based on her opinion.

[givemtheirwish]

12:00 PM on 04/28/2011

I know it's simply outrageous that journalists believe they can question the acolytes who prostrate themselves at the altar of AGW, environmentalism et al. Don't they know that the science is settled & no further debate is allowed?????

[MikeWebster]

03:30 AM on 05/23/2011

Just another fundamentalist, trying to pretend their opinion is as valuable as scientific evidence.

A laughable attempt.

[Publicola]

07:24 PM on 04/27/2011

The preeminent science journal Nature observes that there are many science deniers in Congress.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Into Ignorance

Nature

17 March 2011

Vote to overturn an aspect of climate science marks a worrying trend in US Congress.

As Nature went to press, a committee of the US Congress was poised to pass legislation that would overturn a scientific finding on the dangers of global warming. The Republican-sponsored bill is intended to prevent the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, which the agency declared a threat to public welfare in 2009...

That this finding is scientifically sound had no bearing on the decision to push the legislation, and Republicans on the House of Representatives' energy and commerce committee have made clear their disdain for climate science. At a subcommittee hearing on 14 March, anger and distrust were directed at scientists and respected scientific societies. Misinformation was presented as fact, truth was twisted and nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists, let alone learn from them. It has been an embarrassing display, not just for the Republican Party but also for Congress and the US citizens it represents….

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of affairs in a country that has led the world in many scientific arenas for so long.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7338/full/471265b.html

[Publicola]

07:35 PM on 04/27/2011

National Academy of Sciences, 2010
------------------------------------------------------------

What is Known about Climate Change

Science has made enormous progress toward understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf

[Publicola]

07:36 PM on 04/27/2011

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dec 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has reaffirmed the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society.

“The vast preponderance of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities, and the need to take action is urgent,” said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1204climate_statement.shtml

[rccthatsme]

01:11 PM on 04/27/2011

The article, like all on this topic at Huffpost is so entirely biased you must discard it.

"Obama Targets 'Climate Change Deniers In Congress"

No objective news source would start an article by casting one side in a particular light. The "denier" label does just that. When I read hear or on any site, I loook for these descriptive words to flush out the bias.

AGW is not gaiing traction in the world community, in fact, it is losing taction. As the profiteering scammers see trillions slip away they send their lambs to slaughter.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/27/world-opinion-on-global-warming-not-so-hot/

When dats is requested... they refuse.. why is that?

http://climateaudit.org/2011/04/25/cru-refuses-foi-request-for-yamal-climategate-chronology/

Is the IPCC made up of scientist for the ultraistic good of mankind or the good of transferring wealth?

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/25/wwfs-chief-spokesperson-joins-ipcc/

Why the continued use of a failed strategy? IT is the AGW group who is in DENIAL!

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/examination-of-the-climate-change-strategy/

Even the Greens want to stop the fear mongering.. It is not working.

http://algorelied.com/?p=4144

I am all for a sound, rational end to dependence o foreign oil and, given technological advances away from fossil fuels but lies won't pursuade me, nor the public in general... neither will destroying the economy.

[Publicola]

05:36 AM on 04/28/2011

rccthatsme: "No objective news source would start an article by casting one side in a particular light. The 'denier' label does just that."

Spoken like a classic evolution science denier.

Do you think Creationism is a valid scientific theory and should thus be taught in science classrooms alongside evolution, rccthatsme?

Or do you -- like the scientifically-literate and not ideology-blinded amongst us -- agree that Creationism is science denial?

[Twinings]

11:32 AM on 04/28/2011

Talk to some climate experts and then decided if it is all lies. Recent studies have found over 97% of the most published researchers support AGW.

[givemtheirwish]

12:09 AM on 04/27/2011

PART II - Hal Lewis' Resignation Letter....................
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

[jimboy71]

11:45 AM on 04/27/2011

What part of this diatribe is science?

[rccthatsme]

12:58 PM on 04/27/2011

Givne Hal Lewis' pedigree.... all of it. However you can support your diatribe with science, but first your backround to see if your education and professional pursuits equal Dr. Lewis. IF NOT, I will accept the background of the IPCC chair....... choo choo. :)

[MikeWebster]

03:39 AM on 05/23/2011

I don't even know what your talking about. That kind of ludicrous and irrelevent drivel is obviously very amusing to those who are morbidly ignorant, and completely dishonest, but we try and deal with facts, not meaningless and totally incomprehenshible g\arbage like you seem to delight in.

[givemtheirwish]

12:08 AM on 04/27/2011

It never gets tired

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, UCSB
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

[jimboy71]

11:46 AM on 04/27/2011

Do you always quote the Jeremiads of those long past their due date as a means of understanding science?

[givemtheirwish]

11:55 AM on 04/27/2011

Inconvenient Truth #6,452

[Publicola]

07:43 PM on 04/27/2011

The American Physics Society comments on Harold Lewis’ resignatio­­n of his Society membership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 12, 2010

WASHINGTON­­, D.C. — In a recent letter to the American Physical Society (APS) President Curtis A. Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department­­, Harold Lewis, emeritus physics professor at the University of California­­, Santa Barbara, announced that he was resigning his APS membership­­.

In response to numerous accusation­­s in the letter, APS issues the following statement:

There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organizati­­on of more than 48,000 physicists­­, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements­­. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratic­­ally elected governing body – to do so...

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observatio­­ns:

* Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;

* Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contribute­­s to global warming; and

* The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years...

APS judges the science to be quite clear.... In light of the significan­­t settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudosci­­entific fraud.”

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

[Publicola]

07:48 PM on 04/27/2011

The American Physical Society
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultur­al processes.

The evidence is incontrove­rtible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significan­t disruption­s in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technologi­cal options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges government­s, universiti­es, national laboratori­es and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

[Daniel Jackson Freed]

05:53 PM on 04/26/2011

I'm very pleased that President Obama is taking such a strong stance on this issue. A disregard of climate change and continuance of dependence on oil will ultimately lead to a loss of life similar to that seen in geological mass extinctions. There are also rarely mentioned contributing factors such as unchecked human population growth and the eventual obtainment of the UN's dreaded NPG, which unfortunately, has received little attention outside of countries with high population densities like China.

[BlackbirdHighway]

06:36 PM on 04/26/2011

Obama is not taking a strong stance, he is merely saying empty words. The Obama administration just opened up 750 million tons of coal on federal lands, with another 1.2 billion tons planned for next year. If he cared at all about climate change he would not be increasing coal production.

[givemtheirwish]

12:13 AM on 04/27/2011

"he is merely saying empty words" - must be a day of the week with a Y in it...........