Obama, Science and False Conclusions

Posted by courage On August - 30 - 2009
YouTube Preview Image

Finally, I’ve found something I can agree on with the President.  Starting at about 1:36 of the above clip and extending to about 2:03 the President states:

The truth is promoting science isn’t just about providing resources; it’s about protecting free and open inquiry.  Insuring the facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.

It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say- even when it’s inconvenient- especially when it’s inconvenient.  The highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. (emphasis mine)

Mr. President, I have an inconvenient truth you need to hear; there is NO consensus on “global warming” or the replacement your administration inserted since most of the country has experienced an unseasonably cool summer, “climate change.”  Oh wait that term was also tossed aside <climate change>, since just stating that there is climate change is like saying there are four seasons and does not impart the dire consequences you and the rest of the Democrats wish us to believe.  What is that new term that’s being tossed around… ahh yes, “environmental justice.”

How could anyone be against anything having to do with justice?  Heck the end of the Pledge of Allegiance is “.. and justice for all.”  Somehow I don’t think the founding fathers were thinking about the environment at the time, but yippee skippy your administration is all about redefining a concern you have into a catchy phrase, never mind it doesn’t mean anything.  Or does it, hmm..  when you want to enact legislation based on pseudoscience at best and political lies at worst.

Before anyone starts channeling that I’m some environmental terrorist for disbelieving the currently vogue mantra of Al Gore, I am not.  On April 22, 1970 I participated in the First Earth day, although I was nothing but a child.  We actually did something that day, and gasp it wasn’t a protest but an event which brought together individuals (my group was comprised mainly high school age kids, myself and a couple of others being the exception) and off we went on a bus to a local river.  The Little Calumet River was known for its pollution and a dumping ground for anyone with a spare large appliance they wished to dispose of.  The group of us spent the entire day dragging debris, both large and small from the banks of the river.  To this day, when I camp, the area is always left cleaner then when we arrived.  I am an outdoorswoman and appreciate the world around me.

Perhaps that is why I am insulted at the intellectual dishonest I see from environmental justice advocates.  While claiming “indisputable truth,” they ignore the growing chorus of scientists which claim otherwise.

If we were just talking about scientific debate and not real world implications for every American, I’d sit back and let the egg heads go at it… but this debate has the potential to negatively impact each of us.

The President desperately wants this bill, which is modeled on the 2004 Spanish Royal Decree 436/2004 which a recent study showed how it devastated the Spanish economy. Read the study regarding the impact on Spain and what we have to look forward to:


Some quick facts from the study:

  • Every “green job” created in Spain resulted in 2.2 other jobs destroyed
  • Only 10% of created “green jobs” were considered permanent, a majority of these jobs consisted of temporary construction, fabrication and installation of power systems.
  • The U.S. could lose 6.6 to 11 million jobs while it creates 3 million temporary “green jobs.”
  • Spain’s debt has skyrocketed.
  • Spain lost industries as companies moved overseas to escape the high taxation on energy.
  • And the list goes on….

Ahh but wait, there’s more….

  • The government in Spain attempted to mandate and subsidize renewable electricity.
  • Spain spent $753,778 of taxpayer dollars to create each green job.
  • Spain gave $1,319,783 in subsidies to create wind industry jobs.

Now lets hear from the President:

YouTube Preview Image

And now a recap:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket. . . . Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas—you name it—whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money [cost] on to consumers.” – Barack Obama, January, 2008  (emphasis mine)

And back to the science of this whole thing, a 255 page report submitted to the Senate with a final update of March 2009.  Especially interesting, if you are not going to read the entire report, can be found in the brief quotes on pages 3-6, here’s a small sample:


“I am a skeptic.. Global warming has become a new religion.” Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivan Giaever.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into antropogenic global warming.” US Government Scientist, Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken… Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and not based on good science.” Award Winning Physicist, Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making.” Award Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker, Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and the US geological Survey.

In this report, Jack Schmitt was not the sole individual who spoke about this legislation being an attempt by the government to further control the lives of citizens.  Take a few moments and check out this report.

So why is the President pushing this legislation when there is no “consensus” regarding the issue.  Or is this an “inconvenient truth” he just doesn’t want to hear?

For more information on the science of global temperatures read here…


For more information on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and why their information could be considered pseudoscience…


2 Responses to “Obama, Science and False Conclusions”

  1. Diego Méndez says:

    I am afraid that often-cited study is full of methodological errors, starting by using wrong, non-updated data. Let me clarify some points:

    “Every “green job” created in Spain resulted in 2.2 other jobs destroyed.” Not at all; in 2007, before the world economic crisis (which led to subsidies being slashed), Spain never had so many people at work.

    “Only 10% of created “green jobs” were considered permanent, a majority of these jobs consisted of temporary construction, fabrication and installation of power systems.” So designing and manufacturing windmills is considered “temporary”? That’s pretty stupid. I live in Spain, I know lots of people working at that. Manufacturing windmills is no more “temporary” than manufacturing cars, trains or whatever.

    “The U.S. could lose 6.6 to 11 million jobs while it creates 3 million temporary “green jobs.” As I said before, the study misquoted official data. Had they used updated official data, they would have reached a very different conclusion.

    “Spain’s debt has skyrocketed.” What? Spain’s debt was reduced significantly during the green boom, as were taxes. I can see why you would oppose increasing taxes to finance green technology, but the Spanish green boom was financed through existing taxes. (In fact, taxes and debt were reduced during the period).

    “Spain lost industries as companies moved overseas to escape the high taxation on energy.” Not at all.

    “And the list goes on….” Please enlighten me.

    And this was just short-term benefits; let’s see where Spain is in 2 decades, and where the US is.

    courage Reply:


    While you have stated your opinion, you offered NO facts to validate the claims you have made. I have allowed this comment to be published; future comments which do not have academic or other empirical data to support your contentions will not be approved.

    I stand by the empirical data as outlined in the report and have found nothing that would indicate the methodology was flawed. Those interested can view the report in question here: