Obama: Follow the science

WtD has a post on Obama, renewed hopes and Obama saying he will “follow the science”. This is construed at being new hope for environmental issues.

Obama made the same claim in his first term. Some results:

  1. Obama* kept the morning after pill a prescription for girls under 17 in spite of science saying the pill was safe at any age and should not require a prescription.
  2. Obama refused to go along with the EPA plan for stricter ground level ozone levels. (The EPA says the science supports this.)
  3. Allowed forest supervisors to “ignore the science” when making decisions.
  4. Would not endorse cap and trade
  5. The EPA refused to protect against nitrous oxide and sulfur oxide, in spite of claims the science shows there is a problem.
  6. Supports wind and solar in spite of the lack of scientific evidence these are workable energy options
  7. In a “reverse” complaint, Obama is being urged to ignore the science and ban fracking
  8. Allowed the EPA to mandate use of cellulosic biofuel, in spite of the fact there are no commercial suppliers (A small amount was exported in entirety to Brazil last year)

Looking at the Obama record, the “follow the science statement” is just rhetoric. Words without action. There really seems to be no reason for hope. Not to mention “follow the science” is obviously a meaningless statement with so many versions of the “correct” science out there. Just typical Obama.

*Obama equals Obama and/or Congress and the cabinet

The 350.org protesting in DC reportedly has monetary ties to the Rockefellers, rather than being “grassroots”. Interesting funding source?

(If you want verification, type 350.org Shuman Rockefeller into the Google search box)

16 comments on “Obama: Follow the science

  1. Lazarus says:

    You are asking me to try and find evidence to support your case? You haven’t really got the hang of this debate thing have you?

    Cap and Trade is a market driven trading scheme. It has NOTHING to do with science. If it is mentioned in either of the references you give it will be in that context. I would be stunned if it is even mentioned at all in the scientific section of any IPCC report, that is Working Group 1 FYI.

    Isn’t it time you stopped flogging this dead horse?

  2. Reply to Lazarus: I do not provide “peer-reviewed” anything. It only encourages the false belief that peer-review replaces data.

  3. Reply to John: As long as they have.

  4. Lazarus says:

    Don’t be obtuse. There is NO scientific research suggesting ‘Cap and Trade’ needs to be implemented and certainly no scientific consensus on the subject.

  5. Lazarus says:

    How is not endorsing cap and trade ignoring science?

    • Lazarus says:

      Sorry posted too early. Science does not say wind and solar are not practicable. both are used all over the world and are in some cases the best commercial alternative especially in developing countries. You are mixing up scale and engineering with science. I can imagine your great grand father saying something similar about those new horseless carriages as he mucked out his stable.

      Where is the science that says fracking is not any more damaging than any other forms of energy? How large is this body of evidence and is there a scientific consensus on the matter?

      • Some include economics in science. If you disagree, ignore that point.

        Wind and solar do not work in this country or basically any developed country, unless you count padding the wallets of those receiving the subsidies. People use it because they don’t have a better alternative. My great-grandfather did not muck out stables.
        You’re nitpicking again.

        The EPA says fracking is okay, though they are trying desperately to find some way to ban it anyway. The body of evidence is huge–we have been fracking since the mid-1900s. I could care less about consensus.

  6. The comment by Obama was on WtD (Watching the Deniers) blog and the idea presented that Obama might actually help with CAGW since he made this promise. I was listing when he ignored science after making the exact same claim in his first term. Thus, I am doubting that he will behave differently this term and the blog’s cautious optimism is unfounded.

    You would have to ask WtD what this has to do with anything. I am watching those who watch the deniers and this is what the blog was addressing. Perhaps the blogger can explain his post.

    The science says wind and solar are not practical on a commercial level and may never be. Science says fracking is not anymore environmentally damaging than any other form of energy, not as much as some. Wind turbines do as much or more damage environmentally as fracking, but don’t keep the lights on 24/7. Thus, not useful.

  7. Lazarus says:

    What a lame list. And this was posted on another blog?

    1. What has this got to do with following the science? It is a political / ethical decision. Next you will be saying that smoking should be banned as it is bad for people at any age and people with genetic defects should be culled or sterilised in case unhealthy genes are passed on and blame Obama for not doing this!

    3. Ignoring what science?

    4. What on earth has that got to do with science?

    6. Lack of scientific evidence? The science shows wind and solar generate energy.

    7. What do you think the science says about allowing fracking?

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s