Obama on his opponents: They would have been founding members of the “flat earth society”

posted at 4:50 pm on March 15, 2012 by Tina Korbe

In a speech at Prince George’s Community College in Largo, Md., a smug President Barack Obama smeared opponents of his energy policies as backward and unscientific in their approach:

“Now, here’s the sad thing. Lately, we have heard a lot of professional politicians, a lot of the folks who were running for a certain office, who shall go unnamed, they’ve been talking down new sources of energy. They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels. They were against raising fuel standards. I guess they like gas guzzlers. They think that’s good for our future. We’re trying to move towards the future. They want to be stuck in the past!” Obama exclaimed to cheers from the crowd. “If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they probably must have been founding members of the flat earth society. They would not believe that the world was round!”

The president continued on in the same vein, citing U.S. history for further examples of ignorant incredulousness. Some folks didn’t believe TV would take off! One of Henry Ford’s advisers suggested the automobile would be a fad! Rutherford B. Hayes couldn’t understand why anyone would want a telephone! The GOP is just like all of them!

Actually, the president had his facts wrong. On a purely surface level, he needs a history lesson:

But Nan Card, curator of manuscripts at the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center in Ohio, told TPM that the nation’s 19th president was being unfairly tagged as a Luddite.

“He really was the opposite,” she said. “He had the first telephone in the White House. He also had the first typewriter in the White House. Thomas Edison came to the White House as well and displayed the phonograph. Photographing people who came to the White House and visited at dinners and receptions was also very important to him.” …

“He was pretty technology-oriented for the time,” Card said. “Between the telephone, the telegraph, the phonograph and photography, I think he was pretty much on the cutting edge.” …

Obama’s invocation of the “flat earth” theory in the context of Christopher Columbus’ journey across the ocean also contained some dubious history. …

[H]istorians have long contended that the notion Europeans widely believed the Earth was flat, let alone 15th century Spanish scholars, is a myth developed centuries later.”

More importantly, though, the president’s speech betrays his misunderstanding of the nature of the objections to his energy policy. It’s not that the GOP candidates don’t see any potential in wind or solar energy; it’s that they don’t think it’s the role of the government to prop up alternative energy companies with subsidies. Did the federal government pay Henry Ford to develop the automobile? I didn’t think so.

If anything, Obama believes less in the potential of wind and solar companies than free marketeers who say, “Let them compete!”  He must not think the pioneers of wind and solar will ever find a way to contain costs or market their products without the help of the federal government. What’s that doubt about?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

hmm so knuckle draggers are opposed to be called “flat earthers”? who cares! take it to them Mr President! no way can we let people like greedy mitt or santorum who doesn’t believe in evolution or alternative energy and want a christian sharia society take over the white house, it’s bad enough these people are destroying congress (witness their 10% popularity). this country knows better and will show it in november!

DBear on March 15, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Once more: The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it’s limits.

ghostwalker1 on March 15, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Another day, another insult from President 10-289.

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Proverbs 26:11

MichaelGabriel on March 15, 2012 at 7:22 PM

And Veep Joe Biden proudly belongs to the Flat Line Society.

profitsbeard on March 15, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Experts are predicting that by 2020 we could see 60+ million gallons of algae produced gas. Wonderful. Of course, the world uses north of 138 Billion gallons.

The world, in 1850, did not begin to phase out horses because the future was in automotion – and hey – the first automobile patent granted in the US was in 1789.

maninthemiddle on March 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Barry is great at making straw man arguments.

Shows just how shallow his thought processes really are.

GarandFan on March 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM

The only thing flat around here is Obama’s head!

lhuffman34 on March 15, 2012 at 7:30 PM

The tape I saw didn’t appear to have anything more than canned laughter from his audience, not enthusiastic cheering like he used to get before he took office. I think I saw a few eyes roll too at his droll analogies :)

scalleywag on March 15, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Guess he’s not worrying about winning the independent votes is he? After all, that doesn’t sound like civil discourse, does it? … and we all know that engaging in non-civil discourse sends the independents running to the opposition.
/s

AZfederalist on March 15, 2012 at 7:30 PM

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Proverbs 26:11

MichaelGabriel on March 15, 2012 at 7:22 PM

quoting a 2000 year old fairy tale? funny way to prove you are not a flat earther!

DBear on March 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Obama on his opponents: They would have been founding members of the “flat earth society”

Obama, it seems, would have been in the Alchemists’ Guild.

smellthecoffee on March 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM

You have to buy the basic premise about CO2 . Huh we have had higher CO2 levels before man arrived. What is great is you use the great lies to support the great lies. You will do your little “tricks” to get what you are searching for.

CW on March 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM

quoting a 2000 year old fairy tale? funny way to prove you are not a flat earther!

DBear on March 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM

It’s a Proverb. Helllllllo….

MichaelGabriel on March 15, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Rush asked today, “Do they have any kind of alternative fuel that can put a jet plane in the air?” Uh, no. So it appears we do still need fossil fuels. Oh well, soon this quixotic bunch will disappear like the Wizard of Oz leaving Ohama, and land in the magical, byzantine world of NGO’s, while the economy responds nicely in their absence to some de-regulation, lower energy costs, and pent-up demand for consumer goods.

smellthecoffee on March 15, 2012 at 7:37 PM

arnold ziffel on March 15, 2012 at 7:16 PM

I wish that I had been there. These people believe that socialised medicine is the USS Good Ship Lollipop where the unicorns play with dancing teddy bears and cotton candy blooms. It is horrible and one of the reasons that I became an American.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2012 at 7:44 PM

quoting a 2000 year old fairy tale? funny way to prove you are not a flat earther!

DBear on March 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM

The Gods of the Copybook Headings

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

Rudyard Kipling, 1919

Resist We Much on March 15, 2012 at 7:48 PM

I wonder if Obama has heard of the following:

1) The Spruce Goose

2) 8 Track Tapes

3) Betamax

4) The Ford Pinto

5) The Edsel

6) New Coke

Sounds more like his approach to energy?

How about we ramp-up what works as a bridge to the new technologies? Instead, he is being a snark and acting like anyone who wants to actually bridge to the future is a member of the flat earth society. Who’s intellectually dishonest B?

zdpl0a on March 15, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Huh we have had higher CO2 levels before man arrived.

CW on March 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM

True, as part of a natural cycle, but here’s the difference.

The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Speaking of Energy,you stupid Carnival Barkers,er,Flat Earth
Socialists,er,YOU PEOPLE Flat Earth’rs jus dont git it!!!(sarc)
—————————————————————-

US President Barack Obama defends energy policy, calls critics a ‘Flat Earth Society’
***********************
************************

Submitted 19 mins ago from http://www.latimes.com
http://www.breakingnews.com/
============================

Obama defends energy policy, calls critics a ‘Flat Earth Society’
March 15, 2012, 9:12 a.m.
*************************
*************************

Reporting from Washington —

President Obama coined a new campaign line on Thursday when he said Republican presidential candidates’ views on energy policy qualifies them as members of the “Flat Earth Society.”

Speaking to a crowd in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, Obama charged that the GOP contenders are dismissive of alternative energy and compared them to those who thought Columbus shouldn’t set sail.

“We’ve heard these folks in the past,” Obama said. “‘Television won’t last. It’s a flash in the pan.’ … ‘The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a fad.’”

While the president riffed on the idea in a joking tone, his speech at Prince George’s Community College revealed a very serious undercurrent running through his White House right now. The president has few tools to check the rising cost of gasoline in the short term, and his advisors are acutely aware of the effect this could have on voters.

Of course, Obama has not always been above embracing the quick-hit solution on gas prices. During the 2008 campaign, as prices jumped, then-candidate Obama proposed a windfall profits tax on energy companies and said he’d use the money to give taxpayers a $1,000 energy rebate. But the proposal faded and never came to pass, after gas prices fell and the recession hit.(More…)
=============================================================

(President Obama delivers a speech at Prince George’s Community College in Largo, Md.EPA / March 15, 2012)

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-defends-energy-policy-calls-critics-a-flat-earth-society-20120315,0,6256698.story

canopfor on March 15, 2012 at 12:57 PM

canopfor on March 15, 2012 at 7:54 PM

So the douche is now officially “President Strawman”. The man disgusts me in so many ways.

I honestly think whoever is the nominee should be able to eviscerate this mental midget at a debate.

Wind ? Solar ? Bio-fuels ? What do these have in common ? They are all things that are not part of a serious approach to energy policy in a country of 330 million people with a $15 Trillion economy.

deadrody on March 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM

How in the h@!! is drying Algae and crushing it to extract oil from it any different from using pre heated crushed oil that is pumped from the ground. You still burn it. it still produces CO2 and particulates from the burning. To quote BB “What a maroon”

stormridercx4 on March 15, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Oh, and the irony of the anti-science liberals who continue to claim “global warming” is “science” while allowing their pet solar companies to get rich off the government teet calling Republicans the “flat earth society” is delicious.

What an ass.

deadrody on March 15, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Resist We Much on March 15, 2012 at 7:48 PM

One of my favorites from RK, but don’t expect that to sink in with that one. Far beyond his ability to comprehend.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Would you care to point us to an experiment, just one, not based on a computer model, which shows a temperature change resulting from increased CO2?

Would you also care to explain why increased CO2 levels trail increases in mean temperature?

Lost in Jersey on March 15, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Afcrapistan is the ultimate Bridge to Nowhere. Our Army and Marine generals should all be in Leavenworth as they have wasted so many lives and limbs and so much treasure just for their careers and their hubris. They have not helped America in the least. All they have done is help islam with all their “Respect the koran” and all their bowing and scraping to the followers of the Monster who Walked the Earth, Mohammad. God does not make them any lower. They are an utter disgrace to the uniform.

VorDaj on March 15, 2012 at 8:27 PM

DBear on March 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Anyone who believes what the bible says already knows/knew the earth was round, way back then till now.
Oooooo, how’s that for a fairy tale ?
And all of the other geographic information still used by militaries of the world.
Nevermind.

pambi on March 15, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Obama: Only an idiot thinks the earth looks like a pancake! Hah! We all know it looks like a waffle!

profitsbeard on March 15, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Earth’s climate change is one thing that could count on long before man set foot on this Earth.

CW on March 15, 2012 at 7:04 PM

More importantly to me is the arrogance that man alone could cause climate change by our actions. Here in DC, we’ve had the third mildest winter on record which only go back so far. The last instance was in the 1930s. Yet the left is demanding we buy $50 lightbulbs to save the polar bears or something.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2012 at 8:38 PM

As usual 0 is spot on./ I am now to be refereed to from this day forward as a Tea Bagging Flat Earther. Racist is as always optional.

Bmore on March 15, 2012 at 8:40 PM

TBFE

Bmore on March 15, 2012 at 8:41 PM

More importantly, they can’t explain the warm up after the Little Ice Age. That one stops them in their tracks, dead cold. Its climate, it changes, get over it. The hubris that goes hand in hand with climate science is staggering.

ShadowsPawn on March 15, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Would you also care to explain why increased CO2 levels trail increases in mean temperature?

Lost in Jersey on March 15, 2012 at 8:00 PM

You’re presumably referring to the Vostok ice core data, in which changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years over most of the last 400,000 years. I’ll let the Skeptical Science guys take that one:

The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change. This conclusion is not based on the analysis of past climate change, though this provides key insights into the way climate responds to different forcings and adds weight to the several lines of evidence that strongly support the role of greenhouse gases in recent warming.

As to your other note

Would you care to point us to an experiment, just one, not based on a computer model, which shows a temperature change resulting from increased CO2?

it sounds like you’re asking for actual “live” temperature measurements that –to have have any meaning over the relevant time scale– would have to have been conducted before the invention of the thermometer, let alone the ability to establish and communicate within the network of measuring stations that would be necessary to accomplish what you’re asking for.

To give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re NOT asking that, can you rephrase?

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 8:46 PM

How in the h@!! is drying Algae and crushing it to extract oil from it any different from using pre heated crushed oil that is pumped from the ground. You still burn it. it still produces CO2 and particulates from the burning. To quote BB “What a maroon”

stormridercx4 on March 15, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Actually, algae biofuel does show some interesting promise, which is why ExxonMobil is investing half-a-billion dollars in it. A good introduction can be found here.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Names, names, names. This guy can’t get over blaming someone else for no toilet paper in the oval office bathroom. Did he yell at moo-shell when she got pregnant, asking who the daddy was? Not his fault and better start saving 3000 bucks for their birth control.

Molonlabe2004 on March 15, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Really. From most of the reading I’ve done. It takes way to much freshwater resource. If you have a link to counter please provide.

Bmore on March 15, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

Now, let’s see if this statement can be substantiated.

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle.

Not proven, yet.

Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet.

Show citatations for this, from reliable sources, who are not pre-invested in an outcome that increases their income.

While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

Over what period of time can you prove this last? When you say it’s a very small component, do you dare to quantify it?
By what means do you prove that the “extra CO2″ is cumulative.

The science is unsettled. Increasing, as light is shined on it, the science is scuttled!

massrighty on March 15, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 7:53 PM

So why has the planet been cooling since 2005?

chewmeister on March 15, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Austan Goolsby drunk 2/24/11. Talks about Winning the Future and “other things”

Save it while you can.

Key West Reader on March 15, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Actually, algae biofuel does show some interesting promise, which is why ExxonMobil is investing half-a-billion dollars in it. A good introduction can be found here.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 8:50 PM

We say;

Let ExxonMobil invest as much as they want in alt fuels.
(This is the free market argument; you may have heard of it.)

Meanwhile, we need the fuel of the present, in vast amounts. The plane has to leave the gate. The truck with my stuff on it has to be on it’s way. I need to get home to my family tomorrow night.

If you disagree, then I challenge you to do without any fossil-fuel related products for 3 days.

Not just fuel; stuff’s made from it too.
Including the keyboard from which you attempt your haughty sanctimony.

massrighty on March 15, 2012 at 9:04 PM

So this is why traffic jammed up on 459 around DC and Secret Service had a Counter Sniper Team that interrupted my lunch at a Texas Rib Shack in Clinton, MD?!!!

Anybody else notice that Zero is doing a LOT of speechifying to easily seduced and led,under educated, non Caucasian kinda college kids recently?

Jack Deth on March 15, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 8:46 PM

One characteristic that defines a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. What, in your mind, would be the most reasonable and easily testable prediction that would falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming?

Yoop on March 15, 2012 at 9:12 PM

More importantly, they can’t explain the warm up after the Little Ice Age. That one stops them in their tracks, dead cold. Its climate, it changes, get over it. The hubris that goes hand in hand with climate science is staggering.

ShadowsPawn on March 15, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Which “Little Ice Age?” Depending on what start date you pick (the year 1250 for the beginning of the Atlantic ice pack? 1315 for the rains, floods and famine? 1650 for the first climatic minimum? Others?) the suggested causes for the post LIA “warmup” (itself in dispute) are going to depend on the causes of the LIA itself, which are still not determined (sunspots? volcanoes? slowing of thermohaline circulation? lower human populations after the Black Death, leading to reduced agricultural activity?)

“They” are not stopped in “their” tracks. Scientific inquiry continues, as always. It’s not “hubris,” for Pete’s sake — it’s one of the main reasons for human beings to live! The fact that there is not a scientific consensus to explain everything that has ever happened is not a reason to give up learning and “get over it,” as you suggest.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 8:50 PM

You do understand Exxon’s motivation for this, right?

Bmore on March 15, 2012 at 9:22 PM

So why has the planet been cooling since 2005?

chewmeister on March 15, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Ah, the old “short-term noise” versus “long-term trends” bugaboo. The answer to your question can be found here, with cool animated charts and everything.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Reason # 247,897 why we should unite behind Romney in November……. I REALLY want him out!

ThePrez on March 15, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Why would we unite behind Romney when you, like so many of us, really want Romney out? But I do agree with you–We REALLY want him (Romney) out!

NOMOBO on March 15, 2012 at 9:30 PM

If you disagree, then I challenge you to do without any fossil-fuel related products for 3 days.

Not just fuel; stuff’s made from it too.
Including the keyboard from which you attempt your haughty sanctimony.

massrighty on March 15, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Huh? How did my link to an paper about “some interesting promise” of algae biofuel get read by you as me suggesting it’s currently market-competitive with fossil fuels? Of course it’s not. Not yet. Hell, maybe it never will be. That’s what scientific research is for. We need petroleum now and will continue to need it, but we can’t abandon the search for alternative renewables.

“Haughty Sanctimony?” Weren’t they a Goth band in the 90s?

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 9:36 PM

You do understand Exxon’s motivation for this, right?

Bmore on March 15, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Sounds like you are prepared to enlighten us. Please proceed.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Ah, the old “short-term noise” versus “long-term trends” bugaboo. The answer to your question can be found here, with cool animated charts and everything.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Of course the author of that site has no vested interest in the subject, one way or the other:

About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

Yoop on March 15, 2012 at 9:42 PM

When the answer to the problem is the democrat party agenda of diminished liberty, class stagnation, and squandering wealth and opportunity, I don’t give a flying f*#@ what you say the damn problem is.

tom daschle concerned on March 15, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Huh? How did my link to an paper about “some interesting promise” of algae biofuel get read by you as me suggesting it’s currently market-competitive with fossil fuels? Of course it’s not. Not yet. Hell, maybe it never will be. That’s what scientific research is for. We need petroleum now and will continue to need it, but we can’t abandon the search for alternative renewables.

“Haughty Sanctimony?” Weren’t they a Goth band in the 90s?

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 9:36 PM

1. That’s a lot of typing – it would be easier for you to type:
“I completely missed your point.”

2. You tout ExxonMobil’s investment in biofuels, to show its’ promise. I counter that we (free-market conservatives) are in favor of ExxonMobil investing in anything it wants to, (that puts the “free” in “free-market” – get it now?

3. Go back and re-read my original post. Read slowly. Re-read if necessary. My point was not we should abandon the search for alternative renewables. Rather, it was we should drill/mine/extract the fuel we have now, while we develope new sources (with private investment,) as well.

massrighty on March 15, 2012 at 9:53 PM

I don’t post often, but damn! I’m proud to be part of the flat earth society, now excuse me while I go and get on my evil diesel tractor, and keep the land flat around my house.

uncommon sense on March 15, 2012 at 6:20 PM

To truly be a “flat earther” you need to give up your tractor and go get a couple of draft horses, or better yet, oxen.

moo on March 15, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 9:38 PM

For better optics, nothing more. They have people who spend a lot of money doing nothing but worrying about the bad optics of an issue.

Bmore on March 15, 2012 at 9:58 PM

One word comes to mind when reading your Obama quote: hackneyed.

melanerpes on March 15, 2012 at 9:59 PM

The earth being flat was the scientific consensus of it’s time.

beerman on March 15, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Ah, the old “short-term noise” versus “long-term trends” bugaboo. The answer to your question can be found here, with cool animated charts and everything.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 9:25 PM

So in reality, Drew really doesn’t know anything after all. And all this time I though he was better than D(ouche)Bear by being able to distinguish his sphincter from his olecranon process. But, I suppose that’s what happens with Faecal Encephalopathy posters.

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 10:06 PM

For better optics, nothing more. They have people who spend a lot of money doing nothing but worrying about the bad optics of an issue.

Bmore on March 15, 2012 at 9:58 PM

So you really believe Exxon Mobil is investing $600 million of shareholder’s money in algae biofuel research for “optics, nothing more?” That they believe, going in, that the project is doomed to fail? For the sake of their stockholders, let’s hope your cynicism is unfounded.

I know my share of folks in the oil and gas industry, and I assure you they know as well as anyone (and better than most) about the long-term unsustainability of their classic business model. They know they need to plan for a different ways of doing things in the future. They’re certainly not throwing 600 mil away on PR.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Sure they never invest money on PR. Certainly not in this current climate of Government over regulation. Never./ But since you seem to have it all figured out, I’ll defer to your better judgement. How do you feel about throwing away money on green tech companys. Is that good for the share holders also? Or how about the most regulated industry in the country. Would you like to tell me what to think on that front. Still waiting on that link by the way.

Bmore on March 15, 2012 at 10:25 PM

So in reality, Drew really doesn’t know anything after all. And all this time I though he was better than D(ouche)Bear by being able to distinguish his sphincter from his olecranon process. But, I suppose that’s what happens with Faecal Encephalopathy posters.
DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 10:06 PM

DevilsPrinciple, awright! I saw you guys open for Angelcorpse and Cradle Of Filth at Black Metal Fest ’98!!! You totally rawked!!!

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 10:29 PM

“We need petroleum now and will continue to need it, but we can’t abandon the search for alternative renewables.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 9:36 PM”

Who says we are abandoning the search for alternative renewables. Let those who are willing to risk their money pay for the research. We have liberals who control billions of dollars in personal assets who can invest in such research, without government grants and loans. If they suceed then they get a massive payout and claim that they saved the planet.

If they truly believe what is being said, they would put their money where their mouth is. Currently, the people running their yaps are just scamming the government for political payouts!
Yes, mortgage your house and invest in the next Solyndra if you truly believe in the technology.

It’s sad our President thinks his stand up routine is fooling anyone, he should stick with singing Al Green tunes!

Africanus on March 15, 2012 at 11:08 PM

To truly be a “flat earther” you need to give up your tractor and go get a couple of draft horses, or better yet, oxen.

moo on March 15, 2012 at 9:53 PM

I like oxen, good work animals. Have you met moocowbang yet? You will like him. Nice cow?

Bmore on March 15, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 8:46 PM

One characteristic that defines a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. What, in your mind, would be the most reasonable and easily testable prediction that would falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming?

Yoop on March 15, 2012 at 9:12 PM

It got awfully quiet in here. One could wonder if Drew is stuck between a theory and an hypothesis.

Yoop on March 15, 2012 at 11:26 PM

I also am insulted and dismayed by Obama’s continuous snarky, condescending and dismissive tone in all of his speeches.

Obama is screaming for all the distain normally set aside for Dan Quayle.

At least Hayes was in the military .. was wounded in the Civil War. Which is a hell of a lot more “skin in the game” than Pre**sent “Gutsy Call” ever will.

J_Crater on March 16, 2012 at 12:53 AM

Well first of all, solar is never going to be feasible.

The maximum theoretical yield for solar energy would require a solar bank the size of russia to meet our current needs. you know, the country that spans 8 time zones. They would have to be built in the tropics in order to get any kind of predictable yield. So we are either going to:

A) Level the rainforests of the world to build them
B) Build a whole new landmass in the oceans in order to have that kind of output.
C) Wake up and realize we need some entirely new technology and stop throwing money at this crap.

Did he close his speech with “Good luck finding jobs when you graduate, because my administration is dead set on you relying on me for the rest of your lives”?

ellesar04 on March 16, 2012 at 1:11 AM

And on another note:

All CO2 from fossil fuels was once atmospheric carbon.

ellesar04 on March 16, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Back in ol’ Chris’s day, I don’t think it was a “flat earth vs round earth” argument that sent him on his way. It was pure greed and a willingness to take risks to get rich by plundering others resources.
The President should be careful. His mocking does not prove him right. It just avoids be held to account.

Jabberwock on March 16, 2012 at 5:39 AM

News of the Earth being round hasn’t made it to the retards in Poli Sci departments yet, I take it.

The rest of the world figured that one out in 600BC or so.

MNHawk on March 16, 2012 at 7:03 AM

The most economically illiterate president in history utters one of his dumbest speeches on energy yet.
The country elected Obama to prove it’s not racist.
Now it needs to defeat him to prove it’s not stupid.

JayVee on March 16, 2012 at 7:49 AM

“If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they probably must have been founding members of the flat earth society. They would not believe that the world was round!”

This also shows his ignorance of history. The Spanish of that day not only knew that the world was round, but they had accurately calculated the circumferance. Columbus could not have reached Asia with the ships of his day. If the Canary islands had not been where they were, he would not even have reached the South American land mass.

There are those who say that he lied about his estimated distance because he had obtained Viking maps showing the ne continent there. However, the Viking maps would have been of the north.

As Wikipedia says,

Where Columbus did differ from the view accepted by scholars in his day was in his estimate of the westward distance from Europe to Asia. Columbus’ ideas in this regard were based on three factors: his low estimate of the size of the Earth, his high estimate of the size of the Eurasian landmass, and his belief that Japan and other inhabited islands lay far to the east of the coast of China. In all three of these issues Columbus was both wrong and at odds with the scholarly consensus of his day.

sabbahillel on March 16, 2012 at 8:35 AM

The science is settled.

Global warming is a REAL

liberal4life on March 16, 2012 at 8:43 AM

The earth being flat was the scientific consensus of it’s time.

beerman on March 15, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Bearing in mind that the curvature of the earth is trivially easy to determine, in at least three different ways, I doubt that a ‘flat earth’ has ever been widely believed except as it is now, i.e. by a group of people who get their kicks by pretending to believe something ridiculous, or by complete dullards who have never bothered to think about the matter.

The three methods, for those interested, are:

(1) Observing a ship from the shore or, even more clearly, observing a mountainous shore from a ship. The ship needs to be moving towards or away from the shore.

(2) Climbing a mountain and surveying the sky on a day when the sky is dotted with cumulus clouds with their base just slightly above the observer.

(3) Observing the shadow of the earth on the moon, and then creating models (balls of clay) of the earth and moon to discover which shapes yield the same shadows.

No knowledge of mathematics, geometry, geology, geography, astronomy or anything else that vaguely resembles ‘science’ is required. All three methods could have been successfully used by a moderately intelligent child, without any sophisticated instruments or formal education, at any time in the history of humanity.

YiZhangZhe on March 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM

The science is settled.

Global warming is a REAL

liberal4life on March 16, 2012 at 8:43 A

FACT: Liberalism is a disease worse than AIDS.

Scientific studies show liberalism is a precursor to dementia.

Government studies show that if abortions were done only for the purpose of eradicating liberalism from the gene pool there would be no more wars, no world hunger, no global warming (or cooling), and no democrats.

BigSven on March 16, 2012 at 9:10 AM

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Proverbs 26:11

MichaelGabriel on March 15, 2012 at 7:22 PM

quoting a 2000 year old fairy tale? funny way to prove you are not a flat earther!

DBear on March 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Yeah what is he thinking?!! Dogs, vomit and fools don’t really exist.

And “folly”? Can you kick “folly”? Can you eat it? Nope. No such thing.

Axeman on March 16, 2012 at 9:13 AM

What, in your mind, would be the most reasonable and easily testable prediction that would falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming?

Yoop on March 15, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Well, we could start by eliminating all these athropos critters… and then in 5,000 years if the temperature still increased…they’d still blame George Bush.

Axeman on March 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM

blink on March 16, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Its a troll?

Bmore on March 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Ah, the old “short-term noise” versus “long-term trends” bugaboo. The answer to your question can be found here, with cool animated charts and everything.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Oooooh pictures! Now read the discussion below that refutes the pretty pretty pictures. The note that the time frames are so small in terms of climate cycles as to be not relevant at all.

No one denies the climate changes. However, you might look up the recent NASA observation that Co2 is escaping the planet at an accelerated rate and NOT infact causing anything.

There really are more relevant things to worry about right now. Don’t stop looking, but start with the high points and work your way down to the little stuff.

landowner on March 16, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Who says we are abandoning the search for alternative renewables. Let those who are willing to risk their money pay for the research. We have liberals who control billions of dollars in personal assets who can invest in such research, without government grants and loans. If they suceed then they get a massive payout and claim that they saved the planet.

If they truly believe what is being said, they would put their money where their mouth is. Currently, the people running their yaps are just scamming the government for political payouts!
Yes, mortgage your house and invest in the next Solyndra if you truly believe in the technology.

It’s sad our President thinks his stand up routine is fooling anyone, he should stick with singing Al Green tunes!

Africanus on March 15, 2012 at 11:08 PM

I’m afraid that his stand-up routine is fooling the rubes.

ghostwriter on March 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

quoting a 2000 year old fairy tale? funny way to prove you are not a flat earther!

DBear on March 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Actually, the Bible contains astute observations of human nature, which in a sense has no history. Human nature is the same now as it was in biblical times. There is much to be recognized about people in the Bible, even if you only read it as literature. Any student of human nature can see and appreciate the wisdom in the Bible without interpreting it literally.

The quotation from Proverbs speaks volumes. Why is that observation less knowing than any other savvy remark about the human condition?

You can learn things from lots of different sources, but only if you put aside your prejudices.

cheeflo on March 16, 2012 at 10:34 AM

cheeflo on March 16, 2012 at 10:34 AM

That was a much nicer response than he deserved. Of course, I am fairly certain that it was wasted on him.

ghostwriter on March 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Meanwhile, we need the fuel of the present, in vast amounts. The plane has to leave the gate. The truck with my stuff on it has to be on it’s way. I need to get home to my family tomorrow night.

massrighty on March 15, 2012 at 9:04 PM

That is so self-evident, I’m astounded it’s never considered by the Obama administration.

Er, wait … it’s so self-evident, why am I astounded it’s never considered by the Obama administration? They don’t give damn about objective reality.

cheeflo on March 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM

3. Go back and re-read my original post. Read slowly. Re-read if necessary. My point was not we should abandon the search for alternative renewables. Rather, it was we should drill/mine/extract the fuel we have now, while we develope new sources (with private investment,) as well.

massrighty on March 15, 2012 at 9:53 PM

The thing that I find most infuriating (or infuriating at any rate), is not that they waste money on some alternative energy schemes–$1 billion out of a $3,500 billion budget is rounding error. (Don’t get me wrong–their spending on alternative energy projects is stupid and counterproductive.) No, the worst thing about it is how they constrain supplies of something that we need in the here and now–hurting real people– in order to force up prices to convince us that they’re right in wasting our money on these alternative energy projects.

And when the prices go up, as they must with supplies artificially constrained, they act as if it is some impenetrable mystery why the pries are high. Price gouging! Speculators! Shadowy corporate interests! It is really perverse and cynical. And to top it all off, they are arrogant and smug as hell as they spout the stupidest things.

ghostwriter on March 16, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Ah, the old “short-term noise” versus “long-term trends” bugaboo. The answer to your question can be found here, with cool animated charts and everything.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 9:25 PM

lol! That’s some website you’ve got there! A hundred-and-one ways to fly by the seat of your pants to try to win arguments on something that you know nothing about! lol! Liberals are so lame…

ghostwriter on March 16, 2012 at 11:23 AM

And so it goes …
Yet another lecture from the man-child who promised to lower the rising seas.
Uh Huh.
The only Luddites in this debate are ØbozØ and his farriers.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on March 16, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Well, if that’s the case, then Obastard is a member of the FLAT HEAD SOCIETY!?!

Colatteral Damage on March 16, 2012 at 6:08 PM

While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

Are you under the impression we create CO2? You people really need to relearn basic science.

Squiggy on March 17, 2012 at 7:19 AM

This from a guy who thinks economics is a zero-sum-game and has no conceptual understanding of the relationship between supply and demand?

Seriously?

Mr Galt on March 18, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3