In case you hadn’t already guessed, the “overwhelming judgment” statistic used by President Obama is misleading
Last week President Obama gave his “Climate Change” speech. After the speech I posted about his punt on Keystone XL. However, one thing has been bothering me since the speech: where did the President get his information to back up these words:
So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science — of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements — has put all that to rest. Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest. They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.
Really? 97% of scientists agree the climate change debate is over? Where did the President get such an overwhelmingly high statistic; one that also happens to back up his assertions. The Independent Institute helps to clear this mystery up. Here is what Mary Theroux had to say on the The Beacon blog:
Or the March 2012 study, showing that a mere 32.6% of 11,994 academic, peer-reviewed articles over the past 10 years endorse the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), with 66.4% stating no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejecting AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
Yet in a clever twist of the statistics, the study was used to “prove” a 97% “consensus” on AGW. Here’s how it was done:
Taking out the 66.4% of studies that stated “no position” on AGW, the pro-AGW activists summed the 32.6% of the papers endorsing AGW, the 0.7% rejecting, and the 0.3% uncertain to narrow the set down to 4,000 papers. Of those 4,000 papers, 97% said that recent warming is mostly man made
Ahh, that explains it. The “statistic” touted by President Obama is not 97% of scientific research done on the subject. Rather this statistic has removed any scientific research that did not “take a stance”. So by removing the studies that focus purely on scientific method, the study cited by President Obama is able to concentrate on science research that was “out to prove” climate change. The study quoted by President Obama is interesting, but it definitely does not prove what he is stating it is. Actually if anything the President has discredited his whole Climate Change speech by relying upon this easily debunked statistic.
Going forward this lack of credibility must be brought into the “debate” started by President Obama as he proceeds with his Climate Change Action Plan. No matter how anyone feels about the ‘climate change’ debate one thing should be agreed upon: Using executive orders to implement a climate change agenda based upon junk science is definitely not in the best interest for the United States economy at this time.
Today I watched President Obama’s Climate Change speech (and live tweeted via @sodakliberty). Overall the speech is exactly what I expected: The President feels that anyone not on his side is part of the flat-earth society. One portion of the speech many were looking forward to was his remarks on Keystone XL. I don’t think anyone was happy with his non-answer. He said very little about the Keystone XL project.
Here is the meat of what Obama had to say on Keystone:
Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest. Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.
Both sides of the Keystone project have been wondering what the Obama administration will do. This non-answer from the President means both sides have act as if they will be blind-sided by the Obama administration in the future. Notice how the President actually failed to say how much carbon emission would be considered “good enough” for the Keystone XL project to go ahead. He left his statement on KXL vague enough to decide at any time if the project should or shouldn’t go ahead. This non-stance is likely going to cause a lot of backlash towards the White House from all sides of the issue.
Other than the Keystone XL non-stance there was very little of surprise in the speech. Here are some highlights (or low-lights if you will) I took away from this speech:
- President Obama believes higher food prices are caused by climate change. I guess he forgot that federal regulations and subsidies are artificially inflating food prices on many goods.
- President Obama wants to use less “dirty energy”. Every time he said “dirty energy” I pictured Beula Balbricker from the Porky’s movies saying “you filthy little pervert!”
- President Obama has no clue that the EPA has lost almost as much credibility as he has.
- President Obama acknowledges good steps taken by States and cities to enact sensible climate policy. However he still feels it must all be controlled by bureaucrats in DC.
- President Obama says there is “a fundamental lack of faith in American business and ingenuity.” Maybe he should hold up a mirror when making such statements.
- The President gave a hat-tip to Walmart? Are Democrats allowed to talk nicely about the evil Walmart?
- President Obama proudly stated the US is drilling more oil now than it ever has.
- While asking Congress to stop subsidising big oil companies Obama started to laugh.
- President Obama stated the federal government will continue to consume less energy. I have a solution for that Mr Obama: Reduce the overall size of government and you will reduce the energy used by the government.
- Towards the end of the speech Obama said he wants to “partner with the private sector” for solutions. Too bad his idea of “partnership” means regulations.
- And finally, Obama wants to stop developing countries from dirty development. He apparently thinks it is the job of the US to act as a stern parent towards these countries?
Overall I don’t think anyone would have come out of this speech feeling happy (unless they are a blind follower of Obama). There was too much about the Presidents speech that left people on all sides of the climate change debate wondering where the executive branch actually falls. My guess is his climate change plan will be used to create random and haphazard regulations to further depress the economy. Perhaps this is the “change” he promised during his campaign to be elected.