Many Progressives and Warmists (who are primarily one and the same) were thrilled by the mention of “climate change”, an unscientific term for an unscientific crowd. As Grist notes
His second inaugural address was strong in its embrace of progressive values — gay rights, addressing poverty, opposing gun violence, stopping voting restrictions.
Plus saying we shouldn’t insult other people with different values right before insulting people with different values.
We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. 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 path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries — we must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure — our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.
Interesting. Obligations. Like increasing the national debt by well over 6 trillion in 4 years? Spending beyond belief, polarizing the country, starting the country down the path to national healthcare, which the majority are against.
The mention of “overwhelming judgement of science” is cute. Too bad for the Warmists that consensus is not science. And Obama’s sustainable power push was a miserable failure of political payback. Preserving our planet? It’ll still be here, just like it was through much of history when the temperatures were much warmer. Then there’s the mention of God. Cute.
James Delingpole fisks the comment, starting with the part that goes “We will respond…”
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.
He continues on, discussing what he calls “Obama’s declaration of war on reality”.
Amy Ridenour points out that the “deny” part is simply an insult aimed at those who do not buy into hotcoldwetdry. Considering that the 2nd inauguration had a massive “carbon footprint”, she’s right. And Obama supporters left trash everywhere, including planet killing water bottles.
Let’s end this by heading back to Grist
Two different messages at two not-very-different moments. Which fight we see, only time will tell — and could hinge on who shows up for the fight.
Philip Bump is referring to what Obama said in November, which was about not bothering with “climate change”. Even Warmists aren’t buying what Obama is selling.