@Nate"If he's incapable of doing independent research, and thinks
it's sufficient to just call up a so-called expert whenever he has a
question, and believes whatever they tell him, I don't want him to go
anywhere near any important decisions affecting my life."You
expect presidents to independently research everything? "A
climate scientist feeding at the government trough needs the public to stay
interested in his work."The fastest way for a climate scientist
to get funding is to publish high quality research. You and others believe
there's this massive hoax out there somehow. Do you know the fastest way
for a climate scientist to get money if there were such a hoax? Expose it. "If a climate model predicts rising temperatures, and the
temperatures don't rise, ask why."We did. The models
don't account for solar cycles and we're in the weakest one in a
century so we're sorta stalled in temperatures for a bit (whereas if only
natural cycles were at play we should be cooling, not setting top dozen warmest
years even with La Nina years in a very weak solar cycle).
Ft: if there ever was a showcase of what is wrong with political parties, or
should I be even more blunt, people supporting Political parties, it is your
response. It is the delusional following, whether Democrat or Republican, of
those who can't think for themselves and are willing to grab a hold of
anybody or any group that has a conditional response to survive no matter how
messed up or tyrannical their policies are! If you are so slicked up by either
party to make such outrageous statements, I know why we have problems that will
never be solved! Come join the independent thinkers and make a difference!
RE: "they said that no one could be sure because the overall climate system
is "devilishly complex"..."Devilishly Complex"... Is
that a scientific term?===RE: "Nonetheless, they
believe that the issue is real"....So... when asked to quantify
it... they throw up their hands and say "we don't know.... It's
devilishly complex"...! But then they turn around and want us to believe
that even though they admit they can't understand it.... they know their
theory is "real" (but can't be quantified).====I think we all know the climate is "real", and theory that
climate is changing... is "real". We just don't know how much of
it is blamable on silly Humans (and how much is nature).====I think Nature is the major part (as in most natural systems). But we
can have a small impact. And we should strive to make that impact as POSITIVE
an impact as we can. Humans can't exist without having an impact on
nature. Plants and animals can't exist without an impact on nature.We need to accept the theory and do our best to have as positive an
impact as possible...
@ patriot, I literally broke out laughing at your comment. Your humor is the
tops! The U.S. is more energy independent now than ever before, and we
haven't had to invade another country over oil to do so. Kind of
remarkable, isn't it. All under the Dems!
America will NEVER be energy independent so long as a Democrat sits in the White
House. The American economy will never recover so long as a Democrat sits in the
White House. How long are people willing to wait? I guess that is what elections
are for but the real question is do we have enough informed citizens left in
this country to understand the issues enough to choose a leader who will turn
this country around? I doubt it. China is going to pass us by this year and take
over as the #1 economy in the world and the slide for America will continue
until there is a major grass roots movement to throw out the Democrats. A dose
of some straight talk folks....
America could and should be energy independent ...but it isn't and it never
will be so long as a Democrat is in the White House. Think of an energy
independent America with no dependence on the Middle East. Think of the tens of
thousands of jobs - high paying jobs with benefits like in North Dakota today.
Dream on people because it will NEVER happen so long as you have leaders who put
politics above country (the Democrat Party). In the Dakota's the oil boom
there is all on PRIVATE land but is a great example of what could happen all
over the country on public land. State after state after state should and could
be booming right now with energy production but we have a president who still
won't even approve the Keystone pipeline which even Hillary says is a
no-brainer. We are being held hostage right now by left wing extremists and
chief amoung them sits in the White House. Global warming - what a complete
farce but it serves the enviornmental crazies on the left. Of course we leverage
technology to create cleaner air but not by shutting down the economy.
Bob, when you confer with scientist and ananlyze facts you drift further and
further from today's current GOP. Yes, the GOP is bound to pick up some
congressional seats this Fall, that's always the case for the party out of
power in mid-terms. But, they won't gain control because of who controls
the WH. History repeats itself because so many people fail to learn from it.
Over the past 50 years, the GOP creates a mess and then the Dem's clean it
up. It's taken us nearly 6 years to get the economy back on solid ground,
individual rights being protected, and our country safe and respected. People
tend to take those things for granted until they are messed with.
Marxist: I have checked out the evidence. In 20 years, the evidence will show
that climate change is occurring the same way that the oceans tides rise and
fall. Does that mean that coal production must stop or that fossil fuels need
to be eliminated? No! What it means is that human progress is capable of
adapting and changing to the environment, including coming up with different or
better ways to "help" the environment. If the government, and people
supporting compulsion, would get out of the way and allow the human mind to
freely think and solve problems, dirty air, etc. will be a thing of the past,
just as polio was eradicated. When, however, you have the "do-gooders"
wanting to control the decision making process of mankind, it never works and
indeed makes things worse! As for Climate change, their simplistic answers
supplied by proponents are absolutely ridiculous in nature and fail to include
the complex nature of our environment. In essence, there is no proof that
humans are destroying our planet. Do I want to see more gardens, more bike
riding, less plastic, etc. Yes! That's because I like simplicity, not
because I believe in a hoax!
Re: "A map comparing average temperatures at various points in the United
States with those posted between 1901 and 1960"...Who the heck
was taking temperature readings in Utah 1901?? And where? There was no
airport!Utah wasn't even a State back then!This map
just seems very dubious to me. IF we are going to pretend this is a Scientific
apples-to-apples test, I have some questions in my mind... Who took the 1901
readings, where were the readings taken, what kind of instrumentation and
qualifications did the temp takers have, etc.
@Nate – “You still don't get it…”I was
thinking the same about you because you seem to miss the point I was making.It’s not whether the 49 are right or the 1 is right - it’s
how do you, a relative non-expert (if you are a climate scientist publishing
peer reviewed research, please correct me) make that assessment. For
me, the most logical approach is when faced with a 49 out of 50 like consensus,
and understanding how difficult that is to achieve & sustain in science,
given that consensus the benefit of the doubt seems best.Am I also
inclined to think that the cherry picked factoids you and others toss out have
already been answered many times over by the scientific community… and
they still maintain the consensus (I say this with some degree of certainty
because every time I have looked into these factoids, the above scenario has
always held). That said, I’ll grant that it is at least
metaphysically possible that you are right… I just don’t see any
real evidence to suggest you are.
re: banderson " Climate change advocates will be viewed in the same light
as population control advocates in the seventies, with same deluded
followers."You hope for this, you don't know this. Have
you checked out any of the evidence?
@Tyler D "...whose advice are you most justified (by logic &
probability) in following?"You still don't get it? The one
who steps up with the best facts, evidence, and reasoning. If that person is the
one who stands alone, so be it. Forty-nine hacks are still only hacks.
The popular media present us with a gross distortion both of climate science and
of climate scientists. Certainly there are a few climate scientists who play the
alarmist card and are predicting the end of life on earth if we don't cede
control of all energy production and consumption to some government entity, but
that is not an accurate picture of the state of the science. In fact, what is
most enlightening about the science is what climate scientists have failed to
find, which is correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2. For
this reason, it is impossible that the theory of human caused global warming as
presented by the alarmists can be right. The data does not match the theory, so
the theory cannot possibly be correct. That is basic science.I find
the recent National Climate Assessment by the Obama administration to be both
embarrassing and disappointing. There is hardly anything scientific about it,
and yet it is paraded about as if it were. I don't think even the likes of
James Hansen or Michael Mann would stand behind some of the absurd claims it
makes. It is propaganda, pure and simple.
Re UtahBlueDevils rejoinder to J Thompson..."...Your turn, site
case law where the US supremacy over federal lands has been proven
unlawful...".In the spirit of extending an olive branch...Still waiting for your response...
@Nate – “Sorry, but I've never seen you base a climate
discussion on anything other than this.”You must have missed
my earliest comments on the subject. But I learned quickly that evidence
doesn’t work for deniers… come to think of it I’m not sure
anything does.@Nate – “The cancer doctor has nothing to
gain by lying.”Not really. A small government grant to a
climate scientist is a piker next to the profits made in treating cancer, not to
mention the amount of money a climate scientist could make if they sold out to
the deep oil industry pockets of the denier side.The doctor analogy
is appropriate though and given the percentage of climate scientists stating we
are causing climate change, it would look like this.If you were
experiencing some physical problems and consulted 50 doctors and 49 of them said
you have cancer and should begin treatment, while 1 said not only do you not
have cancer but that if you did you should do nothing because your body can
"heal itself," whose advice are you most justified (by logic &
probability) in following?
When you all start thinking for yourself, both the Republican Party and the
Democratic Party will cease to have so many delusional followers. Climate
change advocates will be viewed in the same light as population control
advocates in the seventies, with same deluded followers. They screamed that
unless we curbed population there would be mass starvation by the year 2000!
Best sellers, Pulitzer Prize winners, universities far and wide, and their
screaming followers all did the same thing that Climate Change people do;
anybody who disagreed was not just ignorant, but should be silenced at all
costs! Nothing has changed except those who see the foolishness for what it is,
I suspect that if the climate change people are right there will be plenty of
jobs in the Disaster clean up services and how to increase crop yield in desert
It doesn't matter, for people like Mike everything is President
@Tyler D "I would certainly never argue for a blind or sacred deference to
'experts'...."Sorry, but I've never seen you base
a climate discussion on anything other than this."Where does
ideologically based skepticism end and some measure of deference to trained
experts begin?"Why deference? Examine the claims they are
making, consult the evidence, and see how it stands up. If you catch Michael
Mann truncating a graph because it raises questions about his story line, ask
why. If someone tells you that something unprecedented is happening when it
happened only a few hundred years ago, ask why. If warming appears only after
temperature data is "adjusted," ask why. If you feed random numbers into
a climate model, and it produces a hockey stick 99% of the time, ask why. If a
climate model predicts rising temperatures, and the temperatures don't
rise, ask why.The scientific method is not to "follow someone
you think is really, really smart." It is to check the theory against actual
experience. If the theory doesn't match reality, it gets rejected.
@Schnee "Well who else should he be talking to?"No one. He
should stay out of office and far away from public policy. If he's
incapable of doing independent research, and thinks it's sufficient to just
call up a so-called expert whenever he has a question, and believes whatever
they tell him, I don't want him to go anywhere near any important decisions
affecting my life.The cancer doctor has nothing to gain by lying. A
climate scientist feeding at the government trough needs the public to stay
interested in his work.Try on this quote from the late Stephen
Schneider, who before his death was a contributor to the IPCC:"Scientists need to get some broader based support, to capture the
public's imagination...that, of course, entails getting loads of media
coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have...each of us has
to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being
honest."There's your expert.
@Mike Richards – “Jefferson, himself, doubted that the purchase was
legal under the Constitution.”Yes, and then he consulted James
– Father of the Constitution – Madison about it and Madison said it
was absolutely constitutional and he should buy the land immediately.You post a lot of personal interpretations on the Constitution that often make
me think what you’re mostly referring to is the Articles of Confederation.
I’m sorry you didn’t get the government charter you prefer (that set
up an utterly powerless federal government), but our forefathers decided
otherwise.@Nate – “… he's been talking to
experts, a warning flag always goes up for me.”I would
certainly never argue for a blind or sacred deference to “experts,”
but this undermining of our best & brightest (unless they espouse
conservative ideology) by the Right lately I think is one of the most dangerous
aspects of the so-called culture war. If you distrust climate
scientists do you also distrust your doctor, accountant, pilot flying your
plane, bridge engineers, geologists, archeologists, chemists, astronomers, etc.,
etc., etc…?Where does ideologically based skepticism end and
some measure of deference to trained experts begin?
Senator Bennett is claiming that scientists are wishy washy on this issue and
that the options to cut emissions would all be economic disasters.Both statements are half truths at best.Scientists use careful
language to communicate precisely what they mean and how confident they are of
their results and predictions. To the layperson this can look like serious
uncertainty, but it is simply precision. Many fields don't have to deal
with it so it looks bad when it is in fact good.As for things we can
do immediately those include shifting our fuel mix and our subsidy mix. For the
past three decades much of our national defense budget has basically been a huge
energy subsidy. But only for relatively dirty sources. People complain about
clean energy subsidies but they are minuscule compared to what we spend propping
up oil and coal.Meanwhile the Tea Party fights sensible conservation
measures such as phasing out incandescent light bulbs tooth and nail. This op-ed basically reads like a huge excuse to maintain the status quo.
Senator Bennett, show leadership and propose reasonable solutions.
@J Thompson . I was actually trying to extend an olive leaf to Mike saying I
admired his enthusiasm, but that his logic was wrong. There is a huge
difference between ones opinion, versus the law of the land. If
you would like the case law... fine... I will list them out and you can read
them. There is no shortage of precedent here.Kleppe v. New Mexico,
426 U.S. 529 (1976) - regards to congress' right to create laws and rules
over federally owned landUnited States v. Gratiot, 39 U.S. 14 Pet.
526 526 (1840) - The right of congress to lease or otherwise manage lands held
by the federal government.Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518
(1897) - The government of the United States has, with respect to its own lands
within the limits of a state, the rights of an ordinary proprietor to maintain
its possession, and to prosecute trespassers, and may legislate for their
protection, though such legislation may involve the exercise of the police
powerThere are lots more... many. If you need more... I will add
more. Your turn, site case law where the US supremacy over federal
lands has been proven unlawful.
"I was a Republican until George W's second term. He and Dicky C scared
me away, and the current crop of tea-party-scared GOPers have driven me so far
from the Republican Party, I will never rejoin"My sentiments
exactly. With the exception of the last line.I could vote R (I
would never join either party) but they would need to stop catering to and
promoting the far right ideology. Give me a reasonable fiscal conservative
without all the baggage and lose the likes of Palin. She just grates on me.
@J Thompson - May I suggest you take some of same advice you offered
@UtahBlueDevil and cite sources. The US is by far not a minor contributor of CO2
emission. It is true that China emits more CO2 gasses but the United States is
not far behind, actually, we are second amongst the largest CO2 emitters. China
is investing billions of dollars in "green" technologies, this will not
solve all the pollution issues but it will help. The last time Mexico hosted the
olympics was in 1968 and Mexico City had terrible pollution issues but they have
since made some very difficult decisions regarding industry and they have
drastically improved the air quality.
f freak:No, Obama is not the most polarizing president in history.
It's just that the Republicans declared before he ever took office that
they would destroy him. So even when he pushes Republican ideas (see ACA) or
leads from a right-of-center position on many issues, the Repubs oppose him. The
polarization here is largely one-sided, largely disingenuous, and largely
self-destructive. I was a Republican until George W's second
term. He and Dicky C scared me away, and the current crop of tea-party-scared
GOPers have driven me so far from the Republican Party, I will never rejoin.
Their antiscience, antiwomen, anti-immigrant, antieverything platform is not
only extreme, it is irrational. And their war on the poor is shameful.
Re: Mike--the part of the Constitution you reference has to do with DC and the
"purchase" of lands that already lie within a state. The lands in the
west currently owned by the federal government were federal territory before
congress approved new states. Also, as Senator Bennett pointed out, we are
producing more oil now in the U.S. than ever before--much of it drilled on
federal land. So while I understand that some people wish we had more drilling,
it is not accurate to say that "Obama will not let us drill on
Obama is trying desperately to save the train wreck called the 2014 midterms.And he is dangling every carrot he has in front of the voters.AmnestyStudent loansEqual pay for womenMinimum wageClean airWho knows what's next? Closing Gitmo? Bringing all the troops
home?Obama can throw out there anything he wants. Voters will buy it
if he says it. And he has no obligation to make any of it work. He's moving
out in January 2017.
@Mike Richards - Read Article 4 Section 3 of the US Constitution, the Feds can
own property, its very clear. The Antiquities Acts of 1095, enacted by the 59th
Congress expressively gives the President authority to preserve American
antiquities. A side note, this was Republican sponsored legislation.
@NateWell who else should he be talking to? The fossil fuel lobbyists?
People who aren't experts in the relevant field? Do you not trust doctors
when it comes to cancer diagnosis because they get their paychecks by having
We need to rid citizens of the European view of the world, which is rooted in
foolish ideas like fossil fuels needing to be eliminated. I would wager any
amount that all those here responding are using fossil fuels in abundance, but,
of course, in true progressive patronizing fashiion, want everyone else to stop
using them! It is the typical big government knows best crowd that wants
everyone else to pay the bills and live with unjust laws, while they go on their
merry way. I'm all for going back to the dark ages, if that's what
everyone wants, but I ain't going there alone. In meantime, forego the
hypocrisy and stop talking nonsense. Climate change as a means to get more power
is not worthy of any citizen, particularly someone who most likely is otherwise
educated! If religion is a hoax, this ones rises above that in epic
Obama has politicized law enforcement, racism and civil rights issues, class
envy, medical care, and the military.He may as well add "climate
change" to the mix.MOST polarizing president in history!
re:UtahBlueDevil,Personally attacking a poster does not make YOU an
expert on the Constitution. You make vague arguments, never substantiated by
citing the Constitution or Court cases that clarify an issue. Nothing you
posted proves that the Government can own land. Nothing===I agree with Bob Bennett. He leans towards thinking that climate change may
be impacted by what humans do. But, with the regulations already in place, the
United States is a minor contributor to CO2 emmissions. China is a major
contributor. Do you think that China will tax their people to reduce growth?
How about Mexico? Have you ever been to Mexico City? The Olympians wore maskes
to protect their lungs. What is Mexico doing to reduce CO2 emmissions? How
about India? As far as oil and gas are concerned, we have enough -
and to spare - but Obama, being politiclly motivated, has no interest in opening
those lands for drilling. He owes too much to those who fly around the world in
private jets, using thousands of gallons of oil, to ever create jobs for those
who can't afford private jets.
@ Mike R... again, love the passion and commitment to a cause, but your opinion
on constitutional law does not make it law... it is just your opinion... one
that has been found to be wrong many times over by the Supreme Court of the US
over the last 200 years. So while you vigor is great, it is misplaced. You may
claim that you have deeper insight into constitutional law than all those who
have served since the John Jay Supreme Court, but unfortunately that
doesn't make what you think the law of the land. So until you succeed in
overturning over 200 years of precedent, your just going to keep getting more
frustrated.And unfortunately you can't sue to get the current
interpretation overturned, because you don't have standing in this issue.
You would need to represent the state. Perhaps you could run for office on a
platform of the agreement that incorporated the state of Utah as being invalid,
and the sue.... or support someone that will.But until you do get
the victory, figuring out how to get equitably and just access under the current
system is your best bet.
“By trying to please both sides of a bitter controversy by issuing
separate statements aimed at each one, the Obama Administration has embarrassed
itself with both.”Really Bob? You are embarrassing yourself
with such a ridiculous statement. Both the announcement on
sustainable energy progress and the reality of climate change were made to the
same people, the American people.And yes I know, Republicans are
terribly jealous of the fact that oil and gas production has skyrocketed since
Obama took over, when Republican “pundits” had predicted just the
opposite, but facts are facts. Get used to it.Yes, Climate Change
is very real, and no, Obama is not advocating the “immediate end to
fossil fuels [that] would end civilization as you know it.”You’re complaining again, while offering no solutions. You’re mad
at Obama now because he’s led the nation closer to energy
self-sufficiency, and you’re mad at him because he recognizes climate
change as a reality.If the Dems had their way, this nation would be
investing heavily in alternative energy, but the Repubs won’t allow it.
What is YOUR solution?
Hey, why not just come out and admit that things are so much better, overall,
under Obama than under the prior Administration. I know Republicans are really
getting themselves twisted in tying to minimize success and find unique,
creative ways to criticize the President they vowed to destroy. The right wing
is in denial about a lot of things, not just about climate change.
re: Joe,You asked a valid question. What was the rhetoric about the
Louisiana Purchase? Jefferson, himself, doubted that the purchase was legal
under the Constitution.He believed that the Constitution did not authorize the
government to make land purchases. Those who wanted that land convinced him that
his authority to make treaties authorized the purchase.Think about
that. Think about what Obama is doing today. Think about how Obama is making
an end-run around Congress through the use of executive orders. Then, read the
Constitution, especially the part that ONLY gives Congress the authority to
legislate.As you said, the Constitution CAN be modified, but it has
NOT been modified - yet - to allow the government to own land. Jefferson did
not call for an amendment. He did an end-run.The federal government
may have purchased the majority of the land, but they had no legal authority to
"own" that land.The oil in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado does
not belong to the "government", but people suffer because the government
misuses authority.The government has paid scientists to
"find" a reason to tax us. That does not make the "facts" true.
Well, at least now Bob Bennett is admitting that climate change is real. The body of research pointing to significant, economically devastating,
climate change is simply overwhelming. You have to make a concerted, willful
effort to plug your ears and close your eyes to the science in order to deny
it.Pay a little now to begin weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels,
or pay a _lot_ later in taxes, insurance premiums, disaster cleanup, crop
losses, military conflicts, etc., - that's really the only choice before
us. Not doing anything is itself making a choice - albeit a short-sighted and
ruinously expensive choice.This is _not_ a call to lower
people's standards of living or shrink the economy! In fact, it's
just the opposite. We have an opportunity now to pursue new technologies,
re-establish ourselves as world leaders in innovation, clean up our air and
water and give our grandkids a better world in which to live. This absolutely
can be done - we just have to see past the PR machine of the oil & coal
industry who understandably hate the idea that the world truly does need to
begin moving away from their products.
Good grief Mike.... I love your passion.... but details is not one of the strong
points to your arguments. Obama has next to nothing to do with whether the oil
lying under the Green River Formation is economically recoverable. These
reserves have been known for a long time, but technology to economically recover
it haven't found their way to market yet. Right now the yields are
extremely low. According to the Utah Geological Survey, of the potential 1.3
Trillion barrels of oil there, only 77 billion are considered recoverable right
now.Don't mistake recoverable oil with total reserve estimate.
On average, maybe 40% are recoverable without going to extreme measures, like
injection, to increase yields. Yield rates and economics have nothing to do
with Obama... much to I am sure your dismay.But all that said, the
issue we currently have is we have two economies going on right now. One that
is dying a slow death, and those who rely on it are in deep despair. Prospects
are not strong for them. The other economy based on technology and global
markets is doing just fine. Any one-sided view on the situation ignores the
So, the lousianna purchase was illegal and should have been prevented by the
constitution. Would that make sense? By the way, that happened under T.
Jefferson's presidencyMike, the founders were smart men. The
constitution is a framework with the ability to be modified and interpreted in
the light of changes that occur over time.The majority of the US was
at one time "owned" by the government. So, feel free to
quote the Constitution, but your interpretation appears to be in conflict with
those who wrote it.
re: Joe, Let's look at what the Constitution says about
government ownership of land: Article I, Section 8, "To exercise exclusive
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles
square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,
become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like
Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"What is
economical? Is it better to spend $750 billion on welfare, or to provide jobs
where those on welfare become tax paying workers? Sorry about the
typo on CBS vs CNS. but the type didn't change the facts.Yes,I
consider my statement honest. There is only speculation from the scientific
community. No scientist can absolutely predict the weather two weeks from now,
much less two decades from now. There warnings are "substantiated" with
speculation of what might happen if everything required by the data set occurs
at the proper time and in the proper place.
Mike,I agree that the Keystone pipeline should be built. It is nice
to not have to toe any party line."The Constitution forbids the
Federal Government from "owning" that land"That is
blatantly and patently false.The Shale oil in the Green River
Formation is massive, no doubt. However this is not conventional oil and the
technology is not there at this point to economically recover this oil. I suspect that will change in the future.Also, that was not
CBS news. It was CNS news."Scientist "think" that
burning fossil fuel "possibly" could "contribute" to global
warming"The ultimate down playing of the scientific community
opinion. Do you consider your statement honest?
Talking to experts is one way of gaining information, but it's not
necessarily the best way.One thing I've noticed about academic
experts: they place a high priority on obtaining funding for their projects.
When a former member of Congress such as Bailout Bob says he's been talking
to experts, a warning flag always goes up for me. The advice I'm about to
hear is coming from someone who wants my tax money.It was the same
way with TARP. He got his information by talking with the people who wanted a
bailout.I'd be much happier to hear that he had done some
reading on a subject, from a wide range of sources. But he never mentions it.
It's always just talking.
Responsible people act responsibly. but Obama craves popularity. He gives the
people what he thinks they want, no matter what is best for the country. A small segment of Americans, who have friends in the media, tell him
NOT to allow the pipeline to be build. He listens to them because he knows that
they have friends in the media and that the media will report whatever those
vocal activists ask them to report. He's more concerned with what the
media will report than what is best for this country.We have more
oil in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado than the rest of the world has - combined,
according to CBS News, May 11, 2012. Obama will not let us drill on
"government lands". The Constitution forbids the Federal Government
from "owning" that land, but that doesn't matter to Obama. What
he's concerned with is popularity, no matter how many people suffer.Scientist "think" that burning fossil fuel "possibly"
could "contribute" to global warming, but they know, without a doubt
that millions of Americans are out of work. Obama listens to the
"mights" instead of helping those who need jobs.
Yes Mr Bennett. This is a complex, interconnected issue.It is good
that you recognize that. You write "While in the Senate, I looked for good
data. I talked to a lot of scientists"And maybe that is why you
are out of a job.You want to appeal to your base? Just hold up a
gun and shout "Drill Baby Drill".