We need scientific fact-checkers on the facts and statistics that Obama
pulled out of his rear shared during his “weekly address” about forcing power plants to reduce carbon emissions. Below, in bold type, are some of the “facts” and “scientific” claims he shared, with my comments in brackets:
Earlier this month, hundreds of scientists declared that climate change is no longer a distant threat – it “has moved firmly into the present.” [Show me a scientist who does not believe that the climate has constantly changed from the beginning of the world. Change is a reality; the causes are what remain in dispute.]
In fact, every four minutes, another American home or business goes solar. [Obama knows this how? At a rate of 131,400 changes per year, how long until everybody in the U.S. is “solar”? About 1000 years for households?]
We’re wasting less energy, too. [That’s okay. Obama’s policies will ensure that we pay more for less. In fact, he promised that his policies will make our energy costs “necessarily skyrocket.”]
This strategy [previous government regulations on gas mileage and energy-efficient appliances] has created jobs, grown our economy, and helped make America more energy independent than we’ve been in decades – all while holding our carbon emissions to levels not seen in about 20 years. It’s a good start. But for the sake of our children, we have to do more. [It’s as if he’s forgotten that the numerous “green energy” stimulus projects were abject failures and wastes of taxpayer money. Note the use of NLP. Storytelling. Building emotions. It’s only “common sense.” We “have to” do this for the “children”. As for these new standards creating jobs, the Chamber of Commerce disagrees. Obama’s proposed standards will also bankrupt coal companies and throw even more people out of work than his policies already have. This is another promise Obama made long ago–to bankrupt energy companies that don’t knuckle under.]
This week, we’re unveiling these proposed guidelines, which will cut down on the carbon pollution, smog, and soot that threaten the health of the most vulnerable Americans, including children and the elderly. In just the first year that these standards go into effect, up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks will be avoided – and those numbers will go up from there. [And he knows this how? Carbon dioxide does not cause asthma attacks. Carbon dioxide does not cause heart attacks. The precision of his numbers is fascinating, but he uses the weasel words “up to.” Again with the children, but now he adds the elderly. Who amongst us is against children and the elderly?]
These standards were created in an open and transparent way, with input from the business community. [Why do I suspect that this is the very type of statement that defines the Obama Rule, which is: If Obama forcefully says it’s so, then it’s not so. If he forcefully says it’s not so, then it is so.]
Now, special interests and their allies in Congress will claim that these guidelines will kill jobs and crush the economy. Let’s face it, that’s what they always say. [Hmm. Could it be that they “always say” this because it’s true and history has proved it true, especially during these two Obama administrations?]
When we restricted cancer-causing chemicals in plastics and leaded fuel in our cars, American chemists came up with better substitutes. [Actually, Obama said that American “catmists” came up with better chemicals, at 4:55 in this video. That’s an American catmist, hard at work, at the top of the post.]
[T]he American auto industry retooled, and today, they’re selling the best cars in the world. [That’s why GM has so many recalls. His “best cars in the world” statistic appears to be false, but that’s okay; it’s the narrative that counts.]
In America, we don’t have to choose between the health of our economy and the health of our children. [That’s exactly right. We don’t. Obama is giving us another logical fallacy, a false dilemma; his speech is full of logical fallacies. Carbon dioxide is not ruining the “health of our children.” The reality is, however, that Obama’s proposed standards are designed to ruin the “health” of the U.S. economy; and he’s using “the health of our children” and “climate change” as his excuses.]
The old rules may say we can’t protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time … [They do? He just got done telling us that in the past we’ve done exactly that!]
I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that’s beyond fixing. [Again with the children and a false premise. And he just told us there’s nothing that American ingenuity can’t accomplish! If we can destroy a planet, surely we can fix it. Nevertheless, Obama prefers to condemn “our children” to a future of “skyrocketing” energy costs, no jobs, and government dependency, if not a demeaning and depressing life in a Borg-like collective. Look up Agenda 21, if you don’t already know about it.]
There’s hope, however, because these new standards don’t go in effect for another year, after public comment (and after the mid-term elections, of course).
If nothing else, this “major” speech will get Bergdahl and the VA scandal off the front pages for a while.
Update 06/03/2014: Another amazing statistic from Obama. “Up to” 6500 fewer deaths per year and 180,000 fewer school absences under the new EPA rules! Imagine that.