Chicken Littlest: More hot air from Obama
Of all the Chicken Littles of climate change insisting that the sky is rapidly warming and that we must do something, President Obama of late is emerging as the Chicken Littlest.
Mr. Obama warns that the climate today is warming at an accelerated rate — “faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago” — and that the future “is going to depend on our willingness to deal with something we may not be able to see or smell.”
On the contrary, the smell of what's he's spreading around is quite distinctive.
At a recent Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, a panel of five scientists were asked twice whether they stood by the president's assessment, The Heritage Foundation reports. Their initial response?
“There is little or no observational evidence that severe weather of any type has worsened over the last 30, 50 or 100 years, irrespective of whether any changes could be blamed on human activities anyway,” said Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama, according to a Heritage report.
Yet it is Obama's unrelenting objective to force upon America — still in the throes of a stagnant economy — a solution in search of a problem.
And Obama says he has no patience with climate change “deniers”?
The president should be more concerned that Americans, increasingly skeptical of his unfounded climate claims, are losing patience with him.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- ‘Canary in a coal mine’: The SSDI dilemma
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Mon-Yough Tuesday takes
- A school choice victory: Follow the child
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Silencing whistle-blowers
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- Open contract negotiations: Let the sunshine in