Obama said, "Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards. . And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses . we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil." Out of all the moral challenges that exist in the world, from genocide to poverty to abortion to drug abuse, Obama lists global warming as one of the greatest moral issue. This is rather amusing. I have studied the science of global warming and have come to the conclusion, as have thousands of other scientists, that the link between man and global warming is rather weak if even existent. The alarmists want you to believe that man is destroying the planet so that they can control your life. Think about it. What group of people is always crying about one crisis after the other? It is the liberals. They invented the oil crisis of the 80s. We were supposed to run out of oil by the year 2000. Now we have the infrastructure crisis, the education crisis, the housing crisis, the global warming crisis, and on and on. Naturally with every man-made or government made crisis comes a government-imposed solution. The liberals are the primary drivers of these crises. This should not be surprising. After all, they must invent crisis to gain power. The ultimate crisis with the biggest big government solution naturally would be global warming that could destroy humanity and the planet, even though the science just is not there and the exaggeration they use is beyond the pale.
Socialists detest capitalism and most socialists are in the liberal camp. After all, the Democratic Party absorbed the socialist party in the early 1900s. Socialists hate capitalism and therefore they blame oil and fossil fuels, which are the life blood of capitalism, for heating up the planet. They repeat over and over that fossil fuel consumption is destroying the planet even though there is very little evidence. Evidence never got in the way of a committed socialist. After all, the end justifies the means for all committed socialists. The media, which is full of liberals, spreads the lies and the public is deceived.
Fossil fuels are cheap energy. Cheap energy means more opportunity, more modern economies, more products and services for people, and less poverty. Obama's plan means less fossil fuels and more expensive, less dependable energy. The poor people will suffer the most.
Why is it that most crises are created by liberals? Do they love the environment more than conservatives? Of course not. They love government intervention more than conservatives. They love feeling like they are doing good. They care little of the scientific facts and more about their ideology and their need to lead and command. Liberals offer government solutions. They create crises so that they can increase government control. The planet has warmed on the average of 1 degree in the last century. Sure ice is melting in the Arctic, but that is a recent trend. We know very little about the climate. Why would we want to upend the economy and consign even more people to poverty based on a global warming theory that we know very little about? All of these dire predictions are based on computer models of what could happen, even though the computer models are wrong or highly inaccurate. The truth about global warming is that it is a liberal crisis created so that they can insert more government control into our lives. The Earth is full of energy. The liberals refuse to let us use nuclear energy, which is clean and safe and produces little greenhouse gases. They refuse to let us use fossil fuels which are cheap. What are they trying to do? Are they trying to destroy capitalism or solve the energy problem?
WHAT OBAMA SAYS: Obama will reduce oil consumption overall by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels of oil, by 2030.
WHAT IT MEANS: Oil means cheap energy. Fossil fuels mean freedom of movement, being able to fly anywhere whenever you want, being able to drive anywhere you want. If he wants to restrict oil, then the side effect will be to limit freedom of movement. Is that really what we want? Why is it Obama's call to reduce oil consumption? Why can't we as a people decide what kind of energy we want to consume? Liberals and socialists love to tell people what to do, how to live, and what to think and believe.
WHAT OBAMA SAYS: As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct.
WHAT IT MEANS: Hysteria, hysteria, hysteria. Nothing but mass hysteria. One of the best ways to prove a point is to narrow the area of contestation. For example, put your nose against a white wall. If you just look ahead and only focused on that wall, then you could say that all walls are white. Sure glaciers are melting in some parts of the world, but glaciers are also building in other parts of the world. What is wrong with a warming climate? The growing season increases. Colder climates become warmer. Places that couldn't grow food before can grow food now. All the evidence that Obama lists above is just plain foolishness. Where is the evidence that heat waves are related to global warming? What is wrong with species migrating? Don't they migrate already? Why is it so bad that if some species become extinct?
WHAT OBAMA SAYS: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
WHAT IT MEANS: Can you say kill our current economy? How could we ever get 80 percent below our 1990 levels without hurting our economy? Is it really worth hurting people's lives for something that is truly so uncertain? The people that will be hurt the most will be those who don't already have money and wealth. That means for socialists, the ruling elites will not be affected much. The middle and lower classes, those whom liberals always say they want to help, will suffer the most when energy prices climb. But they don't really care. They have never cared. They only wish to see their socialist utopias realized, you know the ones where they tell everyone what to do because they are so wise and intelligent. I think it is important to reduce pollution for pollution sake because we all know too much pollution is a bad thing for people's health. I do not think it important to cripple the economy because of some man-made hysteria called global warming. Think about it. Forty years ago scientists were crying about global cooling. In the 1920s, there was a period of global warming. What caused that? Ice caps must have melted, but no cities were flooded. Climates have been changing for eons. Humans adapt. Reducing pollution because of an uncertain theory of man-made global warming which could destroy the planet is not a viable option. It reasonable to say that man affects the environment. It is complete hysteria to say that man could destroy its planet.
In summary, Obama seeks to destroy our current economy based on fossil fuels and replace it with something called a green economy. What is a green economy? What is a green product? A green economy is an economy with expensive energy that isn't dependable. It is an economy with energy that is rationed. It is an economy with very few rich and many poor. Obama is willing to gamble your economic future on a theory that has not been proven and is not close to being proven. Global warming is the ultimate big government play for control of your life by controlling your consumption of energy.