Written by Marc Morano
Marc Morano of Climate Depot Nails President Obama's policy Through Washington Post Article as the Post Blames the President for the failure of the global warming movement...may cost the planet dearly
Climate Depot Credited With Helping To Stop Obama From Enacting Climate Legislation
The Washington Post's Andrew Freedman of paper's "The Capital Weather Gang", has written a thorough commentary on why he believes the man-made global warming movement is failing politically and scientifically to convince the public and lawmakers of the seriousness of the issue. Freedman appears to lay the fault directly at the feet of President Obama, writing that Obama's "mistakes may cost the planet dearly." Freedman also cites Climate Depot (and the Heartland Institute) as having made a huge impact in shaping lawmakers and the public's skeptical view of the latest climate science.
Freedman wrote in a September 1, 2009 Washington Post essay that the "influence of groups such as CFACT's Climate Depot is only enhanced by White House's low profile on climate science thus far." Freedman lamented that Climate Depot has this impact "despite a lack of evidence to back up the claims of diminishing scientific concern."
Freedman's essay, titled "Obama Needs to Give a Climate Speech - ASAP," notes that President Obama "needs to do [speak out] soon, before the debate slips farther away from him, and more years of inaction pass by." Freedman asserts that the "increasing climate change skepticism among the public is troubling" and that Obama has "neglected to use his bully pulpit to hammer a climate science message." Freedman frets that President Obama must give a big global warming speech "before the debate slips farther away from him, and more years of inaction pass by."
Climate Depot Responds - 'Delay' is Essential
The reality is -- contrary to Freedman's assertions -- "delay" is essential so that politicians and the public can continue to absorb the latest scientific developments casting considerable doubt on the climate claims of UN and other fear promoters. The more educated people are, the more skeptical they become. The public gets it and now even Democratic lawmakers in Washington are having their moment of global warming policy clarity. Now is the time for a sober reexamination of man-made global warming claims. It is not the time to support a "scientifically meaningless" climate bill.
In the spirit of presenting the evidence. encouraging debate and serving as the critically needed ombudsman of the Fourth Estate, Climate Depot has reprinted almost in full Freedman's commentary and conducted a point-by-point rebuttal. Freedman of the Washington Post is invited to respond to this Climate Depot Editorial and his comments will be published.
Climate Depot's Point By Point Analysis
Washington Post's Andrew Freedman: At this point in their presidency, which president -- George W. Bush or Barack Obama -- had made three climate science speeches or statements, including one lengthy speech, while the other had barely addressed it at all? If you picked former President Bush, you are correct. Are you surprised? Although Mr. Obama came into office pledging to chart a new course on climate science and policy, he has largely pitched climate change legislation on "clean energy" and "green jobs" grounds, and has not addressed the scientific reasoning behind his desire to enact new climate policies. This is a mistake that may cost the planet dearly, in addition to any political ramifications for the president.
Climate Depot Response: Freedman is correct about President Obama being similar to former President Bush. At Climate Depot, headlines frequently refer to President Obama as "George W. Obama." Obama has taken a very similar stance as Bush when it comes to the UN by demanding China and India participate and he has acted as a "delayer" when it comes to climate policy. But President Obama has repeatedly made many silly and embarrassing climate claims: President Obama made the completely scientifically indefensible claim that the Waxman-Markey climate bill would stop global temperature increases of up to 5 degrees! Obama said on June 25, "A long-term benefit is we're leaving a planet to our children that isn't four or five degrees hotter." How can the President of the U.S. can be so misinformed and full of such hubris that he somehow believes he can sign a bill that acts as a thermostat for Earth's temperature? Is the Washington Post's Freedman sure he really wants Obama to give a full speech on climate? At the G8 summit in Italy in July 2009, Obama and other G8 Leaders embraced "climate astrology" by pledging to control Earth's thermostat to more than a 2 degree C rise. Obama's Commerce Secretary Gary Locke was caught playing a climate mobster on July 17, 2009, warning Americans they needed to 'to pay' or face Mother Nature's wrath -- Pay up or face "floods, droughts and rising sea levels.' In June, Obama's Energy Sec. Chu, in true "climate astrology" fashion, claimed he knows "what the future will be 100 years from now" based on climate models. Obama seems so imbued with his ability to control climate that during the 2008 presidential campaign he prognosticated his presidency would be "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." (For latest scientific data refuting sea level rise fears see here. Once again, does the Washington Post really want Obama giving a full speech on this issue?