Thread: Sen Inhofe – Obama, UN Controlling Life Thru False Religion Of Climate Change, 3 Alar

Sen Inhofe – Obama, UN Controlling Life Thru False Religion Of Climate Change, 3 Alarmist Tenets

Posted on May 8, 2015
by Rick Wells



Yesterday Senator Jim Inhofe took to the floor of the Senate with a revealing message that was critical of the hoax that Hussein Obama and his dishonest allies, both within the U.S. government as well as international elites are perpetrating upon the world, that of man-caused climate change. Some of his comments are below; his entire speech is available here in the Congressional Record.

Senator Inhofe reminded his fellow Senators that of the financial devastation that is associated with the supposed remedy to the non-existent ailment. He said, “So the people have realized that this largest tax increase in the history of America, if it were to take place, is not going to solve a problem—a problem that really doesn’t exist to the extent it has been represented. Today, they are still debating this.”

He continued, saying, “I want to bring people up to date on where we are now—the fact that climate change is not based on hard evidence and observation, but rather on a set of wishful beliefs, a well-scripted dialogue with which ‘President’ Obama and the environmental alarmists are intending to scare the American people into accepting this thing that would be so devastating economically to America.

Inhofe said, “Global warming alarmism has evolved into a religion where one is either an alarmist or a skeptic. Some people are not aware of those two terms. Someone who has bought into this ‘the world is coming to an end’’—they are the alarmists. People who do not believe that, as myself, are skeptics.”

He then noted, “And being a skeptic is akin to heresy of the highest order. Good policy has to be based on good science, not on religion, and that requires science free from bias, whatever its conclusions may be.”

Senator Inhofe said, “The modern-day religion of climate change has been very artful in establishing and controlling carefully-scripted talking points intended to scare the American people under the guise of environmental protectionism.”

He pointed out “There are three main tenets of climate change alarmism that can be found in any related speech, which we heard the ‘President’ recite during his recent Earth Day speech. Those three tenets are: No. 1, climate change is human caused. No. 2, climate change is already wreaking havoc across the globe. And No. 3, we must act today, now, before terrible things happen— the world coming to an end.”

He remarked how “These three main tenets of climate change can be found on just about every administrative agency page, and they are creeping into every Federal policy determination.”

Inhofe raised the observations of MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, who is widely recognized as one of the top climatologists in the country who said of the man-caused climate change theory, “Of course it is not true. But the reason people, the bureaucracy, are so concerned about it is that regulating carbon is a bureaucracy’s dream. If you regulate carbon, you regulate life. That is what the motivation is around this.”

The failure of alarmists to predict the last fifteen [some argue 18] years of no warming is cited as evidence by Senator Inhofe that not only are the climate models inaccurate, but the climate zealots are so dedicated to their notion that they have labeled the period a “warming hiatus.” Unwilling to acknowledge that their claims have proven to be false; they choose to apply a label that implies the previous claimed trends will someday reappear.

Inhofe also reminded his fellow Senators of another deliberate deceptive designation at the root of the climate change hoax, that labeling CO2 as a pollutant. He said, “You cannot grow things without CO2. CO2 is a fertilizer. It is something you cannot do without. No one ever talks about the benefits.”

He continued, “Despite admitted gaps to the scientific understanding of climate change and a track record of climate modeling failures, ‘President’ Obama and his environmental allies are holding fast to their bedrock beliefs. They are intent on selling the ‘President’s’ so-called Climate Action Plan to the American people that is less about protecting the environment and more about expanding the role of the government while enriching, I should say, some campaigns of some of our friendly Democrats.”

Inhofe warned of the absurd and abject foolishness of this pursuit, saying, “The Clean Power Plan—again, admittedly, it is going to be $479 billion initially, the cost of this, and the core domestic policy of the ‘President’s’ Climate Action Plan that is supposed to protect this country from the impending impacts we are facing, the climate change—all of these costs will reduce CO2 concentrations by less than 0.5 percent.

Putting that in perspective, Inhofe said, “The global average temperature rise will be reduced by only 0.01 degree Fahrenheit, and sea level rise will be reduced by 0.3 millimeters. That is the thickness of three sheets of paper. Further, these minuscule benefits would be rendered pointless by the continued emissions growth in India and China.”

He added, “Under the religion of climate change. When the science doesn’t add up and the projections don’t pan out and the weather won’t cooperate, alarmists will refer to their commitment to a higher moral authority or obligation. As evidenced by the Clean Power Plan, it doesn’t matter if these policies provide any benefit in climate change; crusaders certainly will not be dissuaded by the exorbitant costs.”

“China is sitting back right now licking its chops,” said Inhofe, “and hoping America will start reducing its emissions and drive its manufacturing base overseas to places where they don’t have these emission restrictions. The farce of an agreement lets China continue business as usual, and that is 800 million tons of CO2 a month until 2030. Boy, that is until 2030, while hard-working American taxpayers are going to foot the cost of the ‘President’s’ economically disastrous climate agenda.”

He argued that “The tenet of the modern climate change religion cannot withstand the scrutiny of the merits, primarily because it is a result of political design and not scientific revelation. And that is why anyone who is willing to point out discrepancies within the climate change debate or raise legitimate concerns will be subjected to a barrage of arrogant sarcasm and personal attacks.” That’s a reality that Senator Inhofe has seen on countless occasions in his battle to save America from this madness.

He said, “Whether the alarmists call it global warming or climate change, the American people understand that the ‘President’s’ climate agenda is not about protecting the public; it is about a power grab.

He closed his remarks saying, “I will make three final points. First of all, I think we all know that the climate is always changing. I remember—and I will go from memory on this. We have cycles, and the cycles have been taking place all throughout history. In 1895, we went into a period of cooling, and that was when they first started saying that another ice age was coming, and that lasted 30 years, until about 1918. In 1918, a change came about. It started getting warmer, and we went into a 30-year warming period. It was the first time the phrase ‘global warming’ was used. In 1945, that changed, and we went into a cooling spell, and the same thing has happened since then. Right now, of course, we are in kind of a remission era. This is what is interesting: No one can deny that 1945 was the year when we had the largest surge in the emissions of CO2 in the history of this country, and that precipitated not a warming period but a cooling period. That is first.

The second thing is, in Australia—I wasn’t going to mention this until I talked yesterday to one of the members of Parliament in Australia. Several years ago, Australia bought into this argument and said: We are going to lead the way, and we will start restricting our emissions. They imposed a carbon tax on their economy a few years ago, and it cost $9 billion in lost economic activity each year and destroyed tens of thousands of jobs. It was so bad that the government recently voted to repeal the carbon tax, and their economy is better for it. In fact, it was announced just following the repeal that Australia experienced a record job growth of 121,000 jobs—far more than the 10,000 to 15,000 jobs economists had expected. There is a country that tried it, and they found out what it cost, and you would think we could learn from their mistakes.

The third thing is to ask the question. What if I am wrong and they are right? There is an answer to that. I remember when ‘President’ Obama was first elected. He appointed Lisa Jackson, and she became the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency. During the time she was there, they were building this thing up, and we were holding hearings in the committee I chaired at that time.

I asked her: In the event that one of these bills passes on cap and trade or the ‘President’ comes up with some kind of proposal or a regulation that does the same thing, will that have the effect of lowering CO2 emissions worldwide?

Her answer: No, it wouldn’t. And the reason it wouldn’t is because this is where the problem is. The problem is in China, Mexico, and India. So the mere fact that we do something just in our country has a reverse effect because as we chase away our manufacturing base and it goes to one of those countries—and China is hoping to be one of those countries—where they have no emission requirements, it would have the effect of not decreasing but increasing emissions.

If you bought into this and you agree that I am wrong and they are right, just keep in mind that by their own admission this would not reduce CO2, and that is what we are supposed to be concerned with.

The people of America have awakened. The economy and the Obama foreign policy of appeasement have captured their interest, and these are concerns that are real concerns and things we ought to do today.


http://www.rickwells.us/sen-inhofe-o...armist-tenets/

http://www.alipac.us/f19/australia-p...-order-319310/

Inhofe is right on this.