Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Launches New Global Warming Video as Phony "Consensus" Crumbles
The New American ^ | 24 June 2013 | William F. Jasper

Posted on 06/24/2013 8:01:49 PM PDT by VitacoreVision



President Obama's new climate change video to promote his policy speech at Georgetown University, clashes with the exposure of the false "scientific consensus" in The Economist and other media organs.

Obama Launches New Global Warming Video as Phony "Consensus" Crumbles

The New American
24 June 2013

President Obama's White House website recently unveiled a one-and-a-half-minute video, "Addressing the threat of Climate Change," in which he underscores his commitment to enact energy policies that he says will help stem the damage to the planet that, supposedly, is being caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other green house gases (GHGs).

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 criticizes Nate Cohn at The New Republic and Brad Plumer at the Washington Post for clinging to support for policies that promise plenty of pain while offering no gain, especially since they acknowledge that time and reality have proven the predicted warming scenarios to have been false. The Economist piece notes:

Mr Cohn does his best to affirm that the urgent necessity of acting to retard warming has not abated, as does Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, as does this newspaper. But there's no way around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases. The reality is that the already meager prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.

Of course, the media and its selected "scientific" voices have indeed been crying wolf. And, The Economist points out, the supposed "scientific consensus" that has been touted as dogma for the past decade-plus has been shown to be a hollow and systematically deceptive façade:

As a rule, climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn't. This isn't a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus. Mr Cohn eventually gets around to admitting that "In the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn't look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth's climate system, or uttering the word 'uncertainty' with striking regularity."

The Economist article then drops a couple bombshells that echo charges that The New American has been making for nearly two decades concerning the global warming. The Economist states:

If this is true, then the public has been systematically deceived. As it has been presented to the public, the scientific consensus extended precisely to that which is now seems to be in question: the sensitivity of global temperature to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Indeed, if the consensus had been only that greenhouse gases have some warming effect, there would have been no obvious policy implications at all. [Emphasis in original.]

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.

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.

Related articles:

Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked

Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books

Climate “Consensus” Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report

Climate-change Computer Models Fail Again — and Again, and Again


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: barackobama; benghazi; climatechange; fastandfurious; globalwarming; impeachnow; irs; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 06/24/2013 8:01:49 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

Inconvenient truth ~ 66 degrees and raining in Sacramento.


2 posted on 06/24/2013 8:05:22 PM PDT by TauntedTiger (Keep away from the fence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

It is warm to hot here today and will be very cold in a few months. That’s climate change I can believe.


3 posted on 06/24/2013 8:05:27 PM PDT by Bronzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision
Leading from behind again! What a towering fount of intelligence./s

vaudine

4 posted on 06/24/2013 8:06:01 PM PDT by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

nobama is a day late and a dollar short with his warming fear mongering.


5 posted on 06/24/2013 8:07:59 PM PDT by upchuck (To the faceless, jack-booted government bureaucrat who just scanned this post: SCREW YOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

The “gas” is from the BS that flows from that clowns pie hole.


6 posted on 06/24/2013 8:10:23 PM PDT by dadgum (Overjoyed to be the Pariah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dadgum

The (p)resident of the newnited states should be crumbling too.


7 posted on 06/24/2013 8:25:53 PM PDT by rktman (Inergalactic background checks? King hussein you're first up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Well, now that all that low-level scandal stuff has been dealt with, he can go on to bigger, more important issues...

Another poster had it down cold: Hey, look at the squirrel!


8 posted on 06/24/2013 8:27:06 PM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

When a man can look you in the eye and lie about any given subject, it seems safe to assume that he is lying about every thing.


9 posted on 06/24/2013 8:27:44 PM PDT by Baynative (Lord, keep one hand on my shoulder and the other over my mouth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

[[President new climate change video to promote his policy speech at Georgetown University, clashes with the exposure of the false “scientific consensus” in The Economist and other media organs.]]

the GOP could effectively counter this IF they had a spine by making hteir own video and going in right behind him and showing hte REAL truth abotu hte leis connected to ‘man-caused’ cliamte change- but nope- the GOP are spineless-


10 posted on 06/24/2013 8:28:55 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

I was happy to see The Economist finally get real about this. Until a couple of years or so ago, I used to recommend The Economist to FReepers, as being generally well researched and objective. Then, they hopped on the global-warming bus, and spewed so much propaganda about it, that I stopped reading it myself. They may win me back as a reader — though only for the free subscription this time.


11 posted on 06/24/2013 8:29:55 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

Global Warming is as big a fraud as Affirmative Action.

Pray for America to Wake Up


12 posted on 06/24/2013 8:30:45 PM PDT by bray (Stop tolerating beheading!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

President You Didn’t Build That is miles past desperate for distractions.


13 posted on 06/24/2013 8:33:51 PM PDT by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

The ‘Great Leap Forward’....to hell.


14 posted on 06/24/2013 8:34:44 PM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear (Great vid by ShorelineMike! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOZjJk6nbD4&feature=plcp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

“nobama is a day late and a dollar short with his warming fear mongering.”

By the time he figures this out, it will be cooling again.


15 posted on 06/24/2013 8:42:23 PM PDT by chooseascreennamepat (Either)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

“Global warming” or “climate change” has never been about science: it’s been about control, specifically the leftist’s insatiable desire to control people. All you have to know about the left is that there is nothing that cannot be used as leverage over others.

“It’s about protecting children!”
“It’s about saving the planet!”
“It’s about equal rights!”
“It’s about social justice!”

The left will say anything, do anything, tell you anything if they believe it will allow them to control you.

Leftism is a dangerous cult (like Scientology), and leftists are little more than brainwashed cultists. Theirs is a fanatical set of religious beliefs (which is why they gravitate to other cultists, like Muslims).

And Obama plays them all for the fools that they are. He is their “Pied Piper” and patron saint all in one.


16 posted on 06/24/2013 8:58:01 PM PDT by Stingray (Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

I keep thinking about where we would right now be if the leaked emails and other revelations of this fraud ‘science’ were able to be kept hidden from view as planned. I believe the ruling class would have surely gotten away with this VLST (Very Large Scale Theft). Now even European members are beginning to question the need for these carbon credit trading schemes. I suspect the US public opinion in general is beginning to shift, or at least has peaked. For so long this scheme cooked up by crooks was viewed as scientific fact by most LIVs.

We need more scientists who do represent the majority to step up and speak out. But they know from where their bread is buttered. They may well still get away with this, in which case all energy costs will ‘necessarily skyrocket’. But I do think it will be less easy than say three years ago to get a bill through Congress. I certainly hope I am right. But lately, I trust no one to be looking out for American’s interest, and what the EPA can and will do without Congress. I am just hoping that the more the truth is told, as in the TE article, the tidal wave of blind support for this nonsense will have subsided.

When will people learn that ANTHING the UN is selling is likely out right fraud, and never any good for this country.


17 posted on 06/24/2013 9:17:58 PM PDT by ri4dc (Cut your cable. You'll need the extra dough later on. 'This war is lost!' The worst is yet to come.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

Obama and the climate fanatics don’t care about the weather, or whether or not they are right or wrong scientifically. They care about policies and social engineering, about controlling the masses and the economy, about the enrichment of themselves and the elite. Science be damned. It’s all politics.


18 posted on 06/24/2013 9:25:18 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

He’s on the wrong side of this issue-—Who do you believe what he says or your own lying racist eyes.


19 posted on 06/24/2013 9:27:14 PM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade
Maybe Obama can issue an EO to stop the decline in the Sun's magnetic field....he is King of the Universe and all....

...something like a Cosmic King Canute.....

(PhysOrg.com) -- Sunspot formation is triggered by a magnetic field, which scientists say is steadily declining. They predict that by 2016 there may be no remaining sunspots, and the sun may stay spotless for several decades. The last time the sunspots disappeared altogether was in the 17th and 18th century, and coincided with a lengthy cool period on the planet known as the Little Ice Age.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news203746768.html#jCp

20 posted on 06/24/2013 9:59:54 PM PDT by spokeshave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson