A Flat Earther's Response to Obama's Climate Speech

By Elmer Beauregard

Almost exactly 25 years after James Hansen first introduced the concept of global warming to Congress (before that the globe was supposedly cooling) Obama gave his Climate speech at Georgetown University and like his predecessor Obama took advantage of the not so unusually warm weather.

In 1988 James Hansen turned off the air conditioning and opened the windows in congress on a hot day in D.C. to make his point. Obama held his press conference outside in the direct sunlight on a 93º degree day and the first thing Obama does is comment on how hot it is and takes off his suit jacket. Then during the rest of his speech he kept wiping sweat off his face. I think this was supposed to be some sort of an attempt at subliminal messaging but I think it just came off as sophomoric, he seemed to be making light of a very important issue.

Next, Obama makes what I think is a pretty critical error, he screws up a talking point. Obama said "Ninety-seven percent of scientists" believe in global warming, when the talking point is supposed to be 97 percent of "climate" scientists believe in global warming. Obama forgot to say "Climate" scientist, there is a big difference.

"Climate" scientists are scientists who get paid to study global warming and 97% of them do believe in global warming but that is like saying 97% of PETA members are vegetarian, no big surprise. But if you open it up to all scientists like Meteorologists and geologists the numbers flip where 96% of scientists DON'T believe in global warming.

Another faux pas that Obama makes is when he is telling us how America is doing such a good job on reducing our CO2 emissions and that "our carbon emissions are roughly back to where they were 20 years ago." then seconds later pledges "to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions by about 17 percent from their 2005 levels by the end of this decade" well, we've already achieved that.

About 17% of 2005 levels is basically where we are today and where we were 20 years ago, we've almost already achieved his goal. So why does Obama even need to introduce carbon taxes at this point?

Then there's the "Flat Earth Society" statement, instead of debating intelligently with the other side, he just insults us and says the debate is over. I may not be a member of the "Flat Earth Society" but I am a member of the "Flat Chart Society". If you look at this chart you will see that there has been no warming for 15 years. I can see why he doesn't want to debate us.

Which brings me to the Keystone Pipeline.

Obama said he wouldn’t approve the Keystone pipeline unless it “does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution”. Let’s try applying some simple logic to that statement.

There are three ways to deliver crude oil: rail, tanker or pipeline, pipelines by far deliver oil with the least amount of “carbon pollution”. Regardless of how the oil is delivered and who buys it, Canada is going to produce it. If we don’t buy it they will deliver it by rail to the west coast put it on tankers then ship it to China, who will deliver it by rail to their refineries which have little to no environmental regulations.

With or without the pipeline the U.S. will still have a shortage and need to import oil from somewhere else, probably the middle east via tanker to our ports then deliver it by rail to our refineries.

If Obama did approve the Keystone pipeline we could reduce the shipping of oil all over the world and we wouldn’t have to import as much from the Middle East. This would reduce the possibility of tankers sinking and causing oil slicks plus it would reduce the emissions the ships and railroads produce.

So the obvious conclusion is the pipeline would not exacerbate the problem but reduce the problem. Of course there actually is no problem when it comes to CO2 emissions but that’s another subject.