Obama Admits That He Wants to Go Off On Republican Climate Change Deniers

obama-big-point

During an interview with The New York Times, President Obama admitted that the Republican anti-science climate change deniers are frustrating and that he wants to go off on them.

Advertising

Here is the exchange between Thomas Friedman of the Times and the president:

Do you ever want to just go off on the climate deniers in Congress?

“Yeah, absolutely,” the president said with a laugh. “Look, it’s frustrating when the science is in front of us. … We can argue about how. But let’s not argue about what’s going on. The science is compelling. … The baseline fact of climate change is not something we can afford to deny. And if you profess leadership in this country at this moment in our history, then you’ve got to recognize this is going to be one of the most significant long-term challenges, if not the most significant long-term challenge, that this country faces and that the planet faces. The good news is that the public may get out ahead of some of their politicians” — as people start to see the cost of cleaning up for hurricanes like Sandy or the drought in California — and when “those start multiplying, then people start thinking, ‘You know what? We’re going to reward politicians who talk to us honestly and seriously about this problem.’ ”

The president added: “The person who I consider to be the greatest president of all time, Abraham Lincoln, was pretty consistent in saying, ‘With public opinion there’s nothing I cannot do, and without public opinion there’s nothing I can get done,’ and so part of my job over these next two and a half years and beyond is trying to shift public opinion. And the way to shift public opinion is to really focus in on the fact that if we do nothing our kids are going to be worse off.”

The president finds himself in a familiar position. Most presidents have needed to rely on the public when the members of Congress are behind the times on an issue. The problem is that Republicans don’t have to respond to public pressure. They seem only concerned with what their big money donors like the Koch brothers want. Time and again, the American people have demanded action on everything from expanded gun background checks to extending unemployment benefits and they have gotten nothing, because this Congress does not work for or answer to the American people.

Advertising
Advertising

The fact that the one party in Congress has no interest in governing has to be frustrating to the president. There are vital long-term issues like climate change and immigration that are being ignored by a Republican Party that is only interesting in chasing the scandal of the day and raising more right-wing billionaire dollars.

Republicans are living in their own reality that is defined by whatever their big money donors tell them it is. When the anti-science religious right wing of the party is added into the mix, the result is a group of people who have no interest in dealing with fundamental reality, much less the future of the planet.

It was nice to hear that the president shares the same frustrations as the non-Koch owned and science embracing majority, and POTUS offered an attractive remedy to the nation’s current problem.

Advertising

Voters must start rewarding politicians who are living reality, and throwing out those who have been blinded by Koch dollars and anti-science pandering.

34 Replies to “Obama Admits That He Wants to Go Off On Republican Climate Change Deniers”

  1. go off on republicans on everything. they have become the stupid party. after every political ad i would run jindal saying republican is the stupid party.

  2. I’m quite sure that he can find a smooth, erudite way to go off on those clowns without ever stooping to their level. He’s done it before and he can do it again. The fact that he went over their heads to address climate change was one way of doing it–making a statement without saying a word.

  3. He already has the support of the public on climate change. The majority of people regardless of political party know it’s a fact. All he has to do is keep up the fight.

    Obama is light years ahead of the nay sayers. He goes about things in a very thoughtful and purposeful way. Not knee jerk reactions. Just like with the Bergdahl ordeal. He knew the repubs would cry chicken little, and then the facts would bear out. He is playing them like a puppet master and they’re to stupid to know it.

  4. The GOP acts like a bunch of ill tempered toddlers. Money is their sugar.

    Obama is the only adult in the room. He needs to take away their sugar and put hem in the corner for a time out.

  5. Asking for proof or even real evidence is “anti-science”? Not one bit!

    When in the history of Earth was the climate NOT changing? Answer that and we have a place to begin a discussion.

    There is nothing more anti-science than “man made climate change”, nothing more anti-science than declaring a baby in the womb is not human, nothing more anti-science than saying a man can be a woman and visa versa….

    I can go on and on.

  6. Ah the bible said you are not human till you take your first breath. Now I think you don’t believe in the increase of co2 does not lead to greenhouse gases but if you took science then you would know that what happen to Venus.True the earth goes through cycles but since I think you don’t believe in history it was first talked about in the 1880’s and proven to be a fact since the 1950’s. But like you said there is nothing more anti science than the ignorance you just posted.

  7. Help me out, folks….

    What is the normal temperature/climate of Earth?

    When has the Earth’s climate EVER been static?

    Answer those, and the conversation can begin.

    That said, warm temps, plus CO2 equals bountiful food supply; cool temps, minus CO2 equals famine, and death.

  8. I see we have a troll giving just about everyone down votes without offering anything that even remotely refutes the gist of this article.

  9. “The GOP acts like a bunch of ill tempered toddlers. Money is their sugar.

    Obama is the only adult in the room. He needs to take away their sugar and put hem in the corner for a time out.”

    What I find interesting is that only one side of the political spectrum is mentioned in the area of blaming a side to be like suger-high toddlers whose sugar is money. Democrats are fueled by the same sugar, and when the teacher decided to put these sugar-high toddlers into a corner, she asked them to make rules for the classroom that even she would follow. She also doesn’t seem to be very bright of a teacher, because she can delay the acceptance of a rule but there’s still chaos in the classroom.

  10. The science is not set in stone. What’s needed are more long-term studies, such as studies that go back further on the geological timescale. If you don’t have those, then you don’t have enough evidence, because there are studies that go back millions of years and they suggest a theory that the there were larger amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere when there was global cooling. This theory is a valid theory, whereas the theory that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause global warming is based on a correlation found in a shorter term chart that that which goes back millions of years. There was another I found but I can’t remember the name and that went back several thousands of years, moreso than the one Gore showed. It’s just about the timescale, just as it’s not just about a mere correlation, as we don’t know the cause. We must increase the accuracy of long-term studies (thousands and millions of year studies) and prove what causes global warming, and not just corre…

  11. The title says Obama wants to “go off” on climate deniers. Man if they would set up a pay per view with a boxing match between him and Rubio, or Cruz, especially Cruz, I’d pay what ever they wanted. An under card with Michelle vs. Sarah Palin. Just to keep it interesting Harry Reed vs. John McCain.

    I am imagining ol’ Teddy all beat up sitting in his corner and pouting.In the other corner Obama dances like Ali.

  12. That said, warm temps, plus CO2 equals bountiful food supply; cool temps, minus CO2 equals famine, and death.
    ————————————————————————————————-

    If you have the time and a open mind you need to watch this and it will answer your questions or doubts about CO2
    The World Set Free
    http://www.cosmosontv.com/watch/270803523723

  13. Ah we didn’t have coal plants, automobiles or burning fossil fuels on a geological timescale.This shit aint rocket science

  14. In the mean time the sea is rising in Florida and we must go study something. In a few years when land is being reclaimed by the sea we will have our heads in books wondering why our feet are wet.

    Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is a good place to start Steve

  15. Right now I am watching that episode again. It is downright scary and sticking your head in the sand and saying how do we know its just plain stupid. But then again if it isn’t in the bible then its not true

  16. My basic, stupid simple questions have not been answered.

    When somebody comes forth with the answers, the conversation can start.

    Useless drivel, and personal attacks, per Alinsky’s Rules just ain’t gonna work.

    Tell me what a “normal” temperature/climate is. Tell me, with proof, when the Earth’s climate has been static.

    And about getting your feet wet with the sinking of FLA…coastlines erode, mountains erode, continents subduct…nothing on, or in, or above the Earth is EVER static….nothing….ever-changing…always-evolving…and mankind cannot stop it….render it “static”.

  17. What is Earth’s “normal” temperature/climate?

    When has Earth’s climate EVER been static?

    Answers, please….I really want a conversation, but these simple basic questions need to be answered, first.

  18. I am watching my game right now so I will give you this to ponder on
    How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
    Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.
    Read More
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

  19. “Normal” in terms of our food crops is the climatic conditions that they were developed under, i.e. the average climate since the end of the last ice age. There’s no guarantee that increased heat and increased CO2 will make them grow better. In fact, there’s some evidence that increased CO2 actually causes our cereal grains to be less nutritious. Another problem is that weeds, which are hardier and more opportunistic than cultivated plants, will likely do much better under hotter conditions with more CO2. Then there’s the whole matter of shifting rainfall patterns. You won’t be growing anything in the Great Plains if the rains move elsewhere.

  20. 2012 marked the 36th consecutive year (since 1976) that the annual temperature was above the long-term average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2012, all 12 years to date in the 21st century (2001–2012) rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2012. The global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970.

    In 2013, the global temperature was about 1.12°F (0.62°C) above the long-term average for the 20th century.

    You can get all the data you want here:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/13#gtemp

  21. With regard to the Earth’s temperatures being static, they of course have not been static. Temperatures fluctuate.

    We expect normal temperatures to go up and down – we see this throughout the year with the change of seasons and even within a season. But we’re not talking about the WEATHER here – we’re talking about the entire CLIMATE.

    Climate is changing rapidly and we are causing a good deal of it.

  22. While there’s always some variability to climate, to say that “Climate is always changing” is incorrect in terms of major climatic changes, such as what we’re beginning to see. Many things can cause a major climatic change. For example, major volcanic eruptions lasting hundreds of thousands of years and pumping enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (i.e the Siberian Traps of approx. 250 million years ago). In the current case, science has looked at the other possible causes for climate change and ruled them out. All that’s really left is the massive and measurable amounts of CO2 humans are putting into the atmosphere. That’s science.

  23. @Paws…when has the “entire CLIMATE” ever been static?

    Simple question….all I need is an answer, and the conversation can begin…

    Sheesh…I don’t need any strawman answers.

  24. You got lots of data to work with. Its obvious you will not go with it.

    The climate has never been static she answered that. Now man up

  25. Interests, Ideology And Climate
    There are three things we know about man-made global warming. First, the consequences will be terrible if we don’t take quick action to limit carbon emissions. Second, in pure economic terms the required action shouldn’t be hard to take: emission controls, done right, would probably slow economic growth, but not by much. Third, the politics of action are nonetheless very difficult.
    Read More
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/opinion/krugman-interests-ideology-and-climate.html?emc=edit_th_20140609&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=10489823&_r=0

  26. Well sure he wants to go off on them they are stopping a whole new obama tax program and probably costing him person millions in his and Al Gore’s probable carbon credit scam.

  27. Thats about as silly as you can get. Who would pay him millions? The koch?

    You are righteously screwed up

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.