Posted on 01/23/2013 6:57:41 AM PST by Rummyfan
When George W Bush declared war on an abstract noun – "Terror" – he was widely and inevitably mocked by the left for his foolishness. Not to be outdone, Barack Obama has used his second inaugural address to declare war on an even more nebulous threat to the security of the world: reality, itself.
Here's how he put it in his inaugural address: (H/T Theo Spleenventer; Bishop Hill)
We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.
The first sentence is a blatant untruth. Concerted global action so far to deal with the threat of climate change has resulted in: higher energy prices; more deaths from fuel poverty; more intrusive regulation; the destruction of rainforests and the squandering of agricultural land on biofuels; higher food prices; famine and food riots – as a result partly of the drive for biofuels; the entrenchment of corporatism and rent-seeking to the detriment of free markets; the ravaging of the countryside with ugly solar farms and even uglier wind turbines; the deaths of millions of birds and bats; the great recession. How any of this has in any way benefited either our children (who are going to find it far harder to find a job) or future generations is a complete mystery.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
Spot on! The #1 threat to our kids is debt, debt, and more debt. Beyond an all consuming hatred of Christian principles that is.
How would one ever sanely respond to “the threat of climate change”? There is NO true science which has gotten far enough to make anything more than WAG’s about how human activity would change the climate, beyond things so egregious that they would fill the sky with light obscuring matter. Study the matter more? Sure, and it can never hurt to learn more and more. But it seems that most grants are purposed at honing a particular political axe.
The unspoken idea is that we’re supposed to accept the liberal theology on global warming, and not ask questions such as you have posed.
So, if you are liberal, you accept global warming without question.
I would like to ask these people questions, such as : hasn’t earth seen warming and cooling cycles throughout time? Haven’t we been in a warming cycle since the end of the last ice age? Chicago was buried under a mile of ice at one time. How did the ice age end, since we know stone age man didn’t have coal fired power plants?
He only appears to be winning because even he isn’t real.
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.