Barack Obama's and John Kerry's anti-science rejection of Keystone XL pipeline

A lot of accusations have been flying around, denouncing anyone who questions the modeling that “proves” that civilization is causing global warming. “Anti- science deniers,” they’re called, and lumped in with anyone who doubts the much-more conclusive evidence of evolution. They’re anti-science dumbbells.

I wonder where the same critics are now when it comes to the anti-science rejection by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

Obama said that accepting the Keystone XL pipeline would jeopardize America’s standing as the leader in the fight against human-caused global warming. But in so doing, Obama and Kerry reject the scientific conclusions of their own State Department. 

Those findings confirm that the only demonstrable better alternative is to do what the environmental extremists want: To do nothing.

The political expediency of the timing and politics of this announcement are so transparent to need no explanation.  They come as Obama plans to travel to Paris in the coming weeks for talks climate change, allowing him to bask in the “wisdom” of his decision among like-minded savants. It also supports the positions of the two leading Democratic Party presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.


Visit my new editorial services website at

Want to be notified by email when I post? Type your email address in the box and click the “create subscription” button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.


Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    all must worship at the altar of manmade global warming/climate cgange/climate distruption...Dissent will not be tolerated, Comrades

  • I think that what you may be overlooking in declaring that the State Department's "scientific conclusions" were ignored by the administration is the limit to the State Department report you linked. If you look at page 41 of the executive report you will see the summary of the findings: "The three No Action Alternative scenarios differ from the proposed Project in that they would use alternative modes of transportation to deliver crude oil to refinery markets in the Gulf Coast rather than just a pipeline ...."

    If I am reading this report correctly, it is limited to considering the best alternative "to deliver crude oil to refinery markets in the Gulf Coast." It did not conclude that it was a scientifically good idea to transport that heavy crude here to begin with. If I am wrong in my reading, please enlighten me.

  • Thanks for sharing excellent information. Your site is very cool. I am intimidated by the details that you have on this site.

Leave a comment