Lies my President told me

Climate exaggeration and prevarication bring horrid policies and massive wealth redistribution

“Under my plan, if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period. Nothing changes, except your health insurance costs will go down.”

It was just a couple of renegade IRS agents in Cincinnati.

benghaziBenghazi was a spontaneous protest that got out of control in direct response to an inflammatory video posted on the internet.

During September 2012, our rebounding economy created an astonishing 873,000 jobs. And on and on.

If we have learned anything about President Obama and his administration, it is that they are compulsive, practiced prevaricators – determined to advance their agenda of “fundamentally transforming” America and imposing greater government control over our lives, living standards and pursuit of happiness. When caught, they dissemble, say they were “not informed directly,” issue false apologies, or fire back with “What difference, at this point, does it make anyway?!?”

Keep all this in mind when the President and other Washington politicos bring up “dangerous manmade global warming,” insist that we slash fossil fuel use, and tell us we need to give poor countries billions of dollars a year to compensate them for “losses and damages” they incurred due to warming we caused.

When they claim “97% of scientists say the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it,” remember: This is based on 75 of 77 “climate scientists” who were selected from a 2010 survey (that went to 10,257 scientists).  Another 700 climate scientists,31,000 American scientists, and 48% of US meteorologists say there is no evidence that humans are causing dangerous warming or climate change.

Moreover, “contributing to” is meaningless. Is it a 1%, 5%, 20% or 90% contribution? Is it local or global?

Do scientists know enough to separate human factors from the numerous, powerful, interrelated solar, cosmic, oceanic, terrestrial, and other forces that have repeatedly caused minor to major climate changes, climate cycles, and weather events throughout human and geologic history? At this point, they do not.

When the President says “carbon pollution in our atmosphere has increased dramatically,” remember: It’s not “carbon” (soot) – it’s carbon dioxide. It’s not “pollution” – it’s the plant-fertilizing gas that makes all life on Earth possible. Increased “dramatically” means rising from 330 ppm (0.030% of the atmosphere) in 1975, when scientists were concerned about global cooling, to about 400 ppm (0.040%) today.

(Oxygen represents 21% of atmospheric gases (210,000 ppm). Argon is 0.93% (9,300 ppm). About 90% of the “greenhouse effect” is from water vapor. And roughly 95% of the annual addition to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is from volcanoes, subsea vents, and other natural sources.)

Over the past 16 years, while CO2 levels continued to increase “dramatically,” average planetary temperatures did not budge. The eight years since a Category 3 hurricane made landfall in the United States is the longest such period since 1900 or even the 1860s. Even with the recent Midwestern and East Coast twisters, U.S. tornado frequency remains close to a record low. Is that due to CO2 emissions?

There is one point on which the President is correct. In 2008 he said,“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow.” cfactwarmingbillboardAnd indeed, they are now rising at a mere seven inches per century.

All of this should fascinate the scholar and climate realist that lurks inside each of us. But what should  concern us is the pernicious effects that the constant barrage of “manmade climate change” hype and headlines is having on public policies, taxpayer and consumer expenditures, and our daily lives.

Like threads in a tapestry, “dangerous manmade climate change” is intertwined with anti-hydrocarbon, imminent resource depletion, renewable energy, sustainable development, and wealth redistribution theses and ideologies. They are used to concoct and justify energy and economic policies, ranging from delays and bans on oil and gas leasing and drilling, to the war on coal mining and use, and diehard opposition to hydraulic fracturing and the Keystone XL pipeline.

They promote spending $22 billion just in federal money during FY 2014 on climate change studies; costly solar projects of every description; wind turbines that blight scenic vistas and slaughter millions of birds and bats annually, while wind energy developers are exempted from endangered species and other environmental laws that apply to all other industries; and ethanol programs that require millions of acres of farmland and vast quantities of water, fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuel energy to produce a gasoline additive that reduces mileage, harms engines, drives up food prices … and increases CO2 emissions.

The policies pummel jobs, families, and entire communities around coal mines and coal-fired factories and electrical generating plants, impairing the health and welfare of millions. Being unemployed – or holding multiple lower paying part-time jobs – means greater stress, reduced nutrition, sleep deprivation, family discord, higher incidences of depression, greater alcohol, drug, spousal, and child abuse, higher suicide rates, and lower life expectancies. It means every life allegedly saved by anti-fossil fuel regulations isoffset by lives lost or shortened because of those rules.

The policies, laws and regulations affect everything we make, grow, ship, eat, drive and do – 100% of our energy based economy, not just one-sixth under ObamaCare – and put legislators, bureaucrats, activists and courts in ever-increasing control over our lives, livelihoods, liberties, living standards and life spans.

Even worse, it’s all for nothing – even if carbon dioxide plays a bigger role in climate change than many scientists believe it does. Germany is relying increasingly on coal for power generation. Australia has junked its cap-tax-and-trade program. The United Kingdom is reexamining its commitment to CO2 reduction. China and India are building new coal-fueled power plants every week, and neither they nor any of the real “developing countries” are required to commit to “binding targets” for lower carbon dioxide emissions.

Under agreements signed at the just-concluded UN climate conference in Warsaw, 130 developing nations must merely make “contributions” toward lower emissions, and only when they are “ready to do so.”

But then international climate programs were never really about preventing climate change. As IPCC official Ottmar Edenhoferhas admitted, they are about “how we redistribute the world’s wealth.” First, tens of billions continue flowing annually to IPCC scientists and bureaucrats and renewable energy programs. Then we start talking about real money.

Now that the IPCC, President Obama and hordes of other climate alarmists have convinced so many people that climate change is “real,” it’s “happening now,” humans are “contributing to” myriad disasters on an “unprecedented” scale – the Group of 130 expects the FRCs (Formerly Rich Countries) to pay up.

China, India, island nations, and poor countries demand “compensation,” “adaptation” and “mitigation” money, to pay for “losses and damages” from rising seas and more frequent, more intense storms and droughts – which they say are happening already, and which they blame on industrialized nations that helped raise CO2 levels from 280 ppm at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to 400 ppm today.

They want $50 billion immediately, followed by $100 billion to $400 billion per year, plus free transfers of our best energy, pollution control and industrial technologies. It’s too late to prevent, mitigate or adapt to climate change, they say. You “rich countries” need to start paying for the damage you are causing.

About 20% of the EU budget will now go toward CO2 emission reductions and helping poor countries adapt to climate change: €180 billion ($245 billion) by 2020. What the United States will have to pay in “compensation” and under ClimateCare schemes being hatched at EPA, DOI, and Energy headquarters is yet to be determined. But the payments will be substantial, even crippling.

We are caught in a climate trap of our own (bureaucrats and politicians) making. How will we get out?


About the Author: Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CFACT and author of Cracking Big Green and Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

  1. James Rust

    Great article that summarizes all the distortions of facts on energy policy and climate change the nation has suffered the past five years. This is a warning we must exercise political action to stop a continuation of these policies. Siting around and letting other people take responsibility is not enough; everyone must get involved with the political situation and insist candidates respond to these ruinous energy policies.
    As a footnote on history, human attempts to control climate has been exercised for thousands of years ago. Recently a painting of ancient Mayan attempts at climate control by sacrificing 6 year old children surfaced. For years we have read about the burning of witches in Europe during 14th, 15th, and 16th century because they were thought to cause bad climate events like drought, glacier movements, etc. Estimates have been 60,000 deaths over several centuries. Some thought human sacrifice worked because droughts were relived and glaciers receded–it may have taken a couple of hundred years for success.
    These human sacrifices involved only a very small percentage of the population–a bit painful for those condemned. We now are asking the entire population to make sacrifices for control of climate. Will that be any better than past actions? I think not.
    James H. Rust, Professor of nuclear engineering

  2. Ernie Clark

    How will we get out? I hope that we will vote our way out. If that doesn’t happen, maybe we can have a Cyber Shopping Day or an Alabama/Auburn Game Day at the White House and make it mandatory that all Washington politicians participate. I think justice would be served up on a “White House Platter!!”

  3. Arationofreason

    clipping taken: 5/6/2013 10:03 AM

    The cost-benefit
    ratio is thus 80/1.5 = 50

    The mitigation cost-effectiveness of the tax, which is the cost of abating 1 K warming by global measures as cost-effective as the tax, is $162.3 bn / 0.00005 = $3.2 quadrillion per Kelvin abated.
    To see the ’50 to 1′ calculations in detail, please click on Lord Monckton’s one page briefing HERE

    Ineffective US carbon mandates:

    The EPA regulators setting these carbon reduction mandates must be totally brain dead not to look at the consequences of their own proposals.
    Reference to checkthe calculations:

    • ltbl123

      Excellent point! There is also a law of diminishing returns. The cost of a 80% reduction or improvement is far greater than a 50% improvement. 90% plus reductions become unreasonably expensive. For instance natural gas can cause death by asphyxiation and fire and explosion if not used safely. Yet some people will misuse it intentionally and there will be accidents and leaks that will cause injury or death. The only 100% solution is to ban its use altogether and let people go bankrupt heating their homes in the winter with greener limited alternatives, or move to warmer climates. Liberals abhor the concept of common sense and reason. They are ready to legislate all freedom away for safety, but refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their actions create far greater harm to a much greater portion of the population. Poverty is a greater predictor of poor health, early death and much human misery and suffering for both child and adult. Killing economies, unemployment for citizens, and growing large intrusive paternalistic governments, leads to the demise of entire nations. If we destroy the infrastructure of a free capitalistic society, do you really think out of those ashes will come equal prosperity for all? I think not, What will be left is the carnage of fools, and when “disease and poverty” overtake us that will be all we will have to share with our neighbors no matter how good our intentions.

  4. cleanwater2

    There is a legal way to remove Obama and all his henchmen but it will take a real patriot to lead the movement.

    The president is the appointee of the majority of states by the wisdom of the Electors chosen by the states (Article II section 1). If the person chosen by the Electors proves to be a misfit, the States have the responsibility to remove the misfit from office. As a majority of states put him in office an act by the majority of the states can remove him from office.

    While this action is not specifically elaborated, there is the 10th Amendment that Reserves to the states any powers not delineated elsewhere in the constitution.

    The pretend department of unjustice will challenge this action so the Supreme Court may have to rule on this. We can not let the Supreme Court keep the unfit pretend president in office.

  5. cleanwater2

    There is no credible experiment that proves that the greenhouse gas effect exist. There is no credible experiment that proves that reducing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s temperature to decrease.

    There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect
    does not exist. This experiment which has been technologically
    reviewed by Ph. D physicists . Ph. D. Chemical engineers and others
    Ph. D’s in other fields The experiment is found on the web-site
    click on the blog tab then on page 3 of 12. . It is titled “The
    Experiment that failed which can save the world trillions-Proving the
    greenhouse gas effect does not exist” replaced by the following
    This web-site is being up-dated regularly with pertinent articles
    about the real science of the atmosphere.

    The Greenhouse Effect Explored
    Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012

    Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?

    Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to test the climatic impacts of water in
    our atmosphere.
    Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse
    effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback”
    hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the
    temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of
    water into water vapor.” ( This experiment proves that GHGE by
    the AGW is wrong)
    Another important website is www. Climate -G3 The
    Greenhouse gas effect does not exist.

    Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
    Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science
    intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to
    verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved
    false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but
    one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.

  6. John McDougall

    We are caught in a climate trap of our own (bureaucrats and politicians) making. How will we get out?

    Do what Tony Abbot (Australia) did. Tell them that you will not contribute to socialism masquerading as environmentalism. If Barry is so stupid as to sign a treaty, just dis-allow it when you are finally rid of that fool/tool/cretin.

  7. San Andres


    • Michael Castillo

      Everybody is missing the point. With the exception of a few sincere souls, the vast majority of the climate exaggeration people are not concerned with saving the planet. The vast majority are in it to create profit opportunities for their “green energy” cronies. Al Gore is one of the best examples of these hypocrites. He criticized Bush while he lived lavishly in a mansion with triple the carbon footprint of the Bush home. And these same hypocrites ignore the environmental damage caused by many of these so called (but not really) green energy technologies!

  8. Paul

    You wrote, (quote:) “There is one point on which the President is correct. In 2008 he said,“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow.” And indeed, they are now rising at a mere seven inches per century.”

    Actually, 7 inches per century is not that small – especially if the rate of increase has recently accelerated… Perhaps this was a typo?

  9. Mike_E_V

    One of the best articles yet on the climate farce and the intertwined power/money grab schemes which accompany this lie.. It does not, however, take into account all the hot air expelled from Washington DC, EPA officials and State legislators. Is there not some sort of filtering device which removes buffoonery? I would be for such devices being installed on these polluting mouth pieces even at taxpayer expense.

0 Pings & Trackbacks