LAST year they met in Bali, tomorrow they meet in Poland, again under the direction of the United Nations, again about 10,000 people will gather to progress the global warming agenda. In particular, they will discuss policy options for averting a ‘climate crisis’.
According to Christopher Booker writing in the UK’s Telegraph:
“They will see a video of Mr Obama, in only his second major policy commitment, pledging that America is now about to play the leading role in the fight to “save the planet” from global warming.
Mr Obama begins by saying that “the science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear”. “Sea levels,” he claims, “are rising, coastlines are shrinking, we’ve seen record drought, spreading famine and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.”
Far from the science being “beyond dispute”, we can only deduce from this that Mr Obama has believed all he was told by Al Gore’s wondrously batty film An Inconvenient Truth without bothering to check the facts.
Each of these four statements is so wildly at odds with the truth that on this score alone we should be seriously worried.”
How did we get to this sorry state of affairs?
I would be much happier if Mr Obama didn’t claim to know anything about “the science”. Why doesn’t he just say: “I am a lawyer by training, but I have been lead to believe sea levels are rising.”?
Why does he, and every other politician, claim to understand the science of climate change?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“How did we get to this sorry state of affairs? ”
I agree, why is so much journalism these days based on beating up strawmen and lies?
“Far from the science being “beyond dispute”, we can only deduce from this that Mr Obama has believed all he was told by Al Gore’s wondrously batty film An Inconvenient Truth without bothering to check the facts. Each of these four statements is so wildly at odds with the truth that on this score alone we should be seriously worried.”
Sheer fabrication, that is, lies. Booker has no idea how Obama has come to his conclusions.
Perhaps we could also hold Vuclav Klaus to the same standards that you have set for Obama, Jennifer?
SJT,
Vaclav Klaus presents mostly data from the Czech Republic in his new book. And I don’t think there is anything on sea levels. Also, he is not suggesting my country, or any other country, introduce a new tax or anything else. In short, what is your problem with Klaus?
Klaus is not a scientist, but he is telling people, not just that AGW theory is wrong, but that it is some kind of communist style plot to take over the world.
Go Jen, give us your four statements. And maybe your odds on your actually conveying the truth (old OED = ‘quality of being true or accurate or honest or sincere or loyal or accurately shaped or adjusted’. Sorry that many criteria – perhaps if you get a pass on four will do. We seekers of truth are not hard markers; I liked the last two tho – that resonated on this altar of outliers – real or contrived. And I dont just mean the data.
Bazza, Do you have an issue with my post, or my comments about the book by Klaus? You suggest I am somehow misleading readers, the least you could do is provide a specific example.
Can’t edit posts here. Try again.
Klaus is not a scientist, but he is telling people, not just that AGW theory is wrong, but that it is some kind of communist style plot to take over the world.
In the case of Obama, he has made statements on the science, but Booker has no idea what these statements are based on. He has merely fabricated an attribution.
The legacy of the last USA election, it’s very easy to make idiot voters out of ignorant people. Why ruin the fun.
Obama lies, get used to it on a large scale.
“Klaus is not a scientist, but he is telling people, not just that AGW theory is wrong, but that it is some kind of communist style plot to take over the world.”
Thats pretty much it. Since there is absolutely no science behind it whatsoever we have to go looking for other motives to this ongoing fraud. The thing about Barry Soetoro is its no use arguing with this fellow. The main thing is to get this undocumented alien to step down before he takes the oath. Whereupon he will be an usurper and the basic nature of the US will change.
See SJT. You are a liar. And you are willing to keep lying about this science fraud no matter what. Why? Its because you are and extreme leftist. Thats what this movement is. So “Obama” is just going to make a tape and lie flat out same as you do.
So SJT, can you please explain Wong’s backpeddling or is that a whiff electoral fear I detect?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/australia-squibs-on-climate-promise/2008/11/30/1227979844927.html
And what of the question asked of on Daily Reckoning 28/11/08……..
“……However while you are successfully championing the destruction of myths such as fiat currency, paper generated wealth based on mathematical modelling and the lack of common sense in our governments, can you start debunking the ‘climate change’ modelling that has governments around the world girding the loins of the taxpayer for more spurious spending…..
With kind regards
Robert S.
The science behind climate change is beyond the scope of your editors knowledge……But cheerful scepticism is always a good approach to any large theory”
“In the case of Obama, he has made statements on the science….. ” Hmmmmmm.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obama_on_the_urgency_of_combat.html
Or direct to Obama….
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=hvG2XptIEJk&eurl=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/18/obama_sends_a_message_to_gover.html
As someone or other pointed out on CA, once the policy train has left the station it is impervious to both reason and fact, with the exception of a majority of the populace changing its vote.
Obama can be made to step down. Him being a usurper. And if he is made to step down then perhaps the lunatic policy will go down with him.
My ‘favourite’ bit in the Obi video is his line, (and remember this is the CEO and CIC elect speaking): “Denial is no longer acceptable.” All he needs is a Tokarev pistol in his hand to complete the picture.
“Him being a usurper. ”
Usurper? Sorry, I know I don’t want to know the answer, but I just can’t help myself.
SJT says: Can’t edit posts here. Try again.
I suppose this is like Mann at al when they had to admit that the Hockey Stick was wrong. They surely knew it was wrong after the leaked letter from Prof Jonathon Overpeck to Prof David Deming – We have to get rid of that warm medieval
period.” It was a blatant fraud.
Like when James Hansen and the GISS had to adjust the temperature record for the USA.
It had to be recast, because 1998 was not the century’s hottest but
rather 1934, and ten of the twenty hottest years of the 20th century occurred before large scale industrialisation, ie
before significant man-made CO2 emissions.
So as you say SJT – James Hansen, try again
Both klaus and Obama express their opinions on global warming. SJT says Klaus isn’t a scientist, but nor is Obama. Obama’s statement is clearly BS and not representative of the science e.g. “storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.”
Obama is just another rich, vacuous politician who has just bought his wife a £20,000 ring – he’s rich enough not to have to worry about futile carbon taxes.
“Usurper? Sorry, I know I don’t want to know the answer, but I just can’t help myself.” He’s an undocumented alien neither willing nor able to prove his eligibility. You obviously have to be BOTH willing an able. Its not for others to prove ones eligibility.
He appears to have been born in Kenya and is unwilling and seems to be unable to prove otherwise. He does not appear to have been re-naturalised after being an Indonesian citizen.
Errr…..SJT…..
Just having quite moment……
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=zQQ5sEOhbjQ
“Like when James Hansen and the GISS had to adjust the temperature record for the USA.
It had to be recast, because 1998 was not the century’s hottest but
rather 1934, and ten of the twenty hottest years of the 20th century occurred before large scale industrialisation, ie before significant man-made CO2 emissions.”
Amazing. What a strange world you must live in.
““Usurper? Sorry, I know I don’t want to know the answer, but I just can’t help myself.” He’s an undocumented alien neither willing nor able to prove his eligibility. You obviously have to be BOTH willing an able. Its not for others to prove ones eligibility.”
So, if he doesn’t leave voluntarily, would a private citizen be etitled to take matters into their own hands?
“Why does he, and every other politician, claim to understand the science of climate change?”
Jen,
To put it crudely, why does a dog lick its dick?
For pretty much the same reason.
God, Graeme. You know I want to like you, but what utter, unadulterated pyschopathology.
Obama has a lot of faults, including hanging out with some pretty undesirable people, but being an Indonesian citizen or an “alien”, undoc or otherwise ain’t one of ’em, buddy. Any more crap like this out of you and the moderator should ban you from the site because this sounds like a deep cover sabotage of this venue’s credibility.
I can think just off the top of my head about a dozen really major issues I have with Obama and the ideologies he represents, yet all of them are remotely based in reality. You must try harder to make your own mental meandering comport to some resemblance of natural phenomena in the real world. And if you can’t control your hallucinations. Just STFU and seek medical help.
And just in case that you really are so disconnected from reality to actually believe that Obama might be an Indonesian, you might want to consider that the Republicans, a party of about 70 million people with a budget about the size of Victoria and some of the best think tanks on the planet pretty much checked out all angles of attack on Obama, including his eligibility to run for President and decided not to bark up this particular moonbat roost.
Even the Wall Street Journal has run articles debunking this particular myth. And they are not Obama supporters. You really have to dig a bit deeper than a couple of nutter website on the web, mate.
Oh, and BTW, just to nip this topic in the bud, George Bush did NOT blow up the WTC. It was all Dick Cheney’s idea!
Get a life, dude. Somewhere else, hopefully.
-snip-
Sorry for the outburst. I just wanted to be the first to kick Graeme in the head so his first good bashing came from the Right of Center, rather than waiting for Sjt and Luke use Graeme to as an example of the level of usual discourse here.
Way to go Wes ! At last someone of the opposition has wacked the Bird.
On the other hand Wes – we like Birdy really – like on one of the those Alien movies – what was the line from Alien (1979) –
” You still don’t know what you’re dealing with do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility. – You admire it. – I admire its purity, its sense of survival; unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality – I’ve heard enough and I’m asking you to pull the plug. – One more word….. I can’t lie to you about your chances, but… you have my sympathies ”
Alien has some other good AGW lines like “the crew are expendable”.
anyway – we cite Birdy as a classic example of the sceptic mind – so let’s hear some more Bird philosophy.
Come in spinners.
Of course if we were down the pub you’d just head butt him.
I am not sure if this presentation by Peter Taylor in the UK this year has been mentioned before, but it is a very eloquent criticism of the IPCC bandwagon put forward by a prominent scientific analyst:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6613938246449800148
Perhaps President-elect Obama should watch and learn.
Patrick J. Michaels and the team are still at it – they have one (3 in fact ) especially for the European conference.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/01/european-update/#more-349
“The record from Verona shows us that very warm years occurred long before the great buildup of greenhouse gases and periods in the past have experienced far more warming that what has been observed in recent decades.”
Warm years? That’s it? If you look at the graph, the sustained trend is pretty obvious, despite a few spikes along the way.
Oh Comon SJT! look at the dramatic increase in temp from 1816 – 1827 – from -4.5 to +3.5 yet you AGW s are screaming this current rate of warming is unprecedented – AGW bullshit once again.
The problem with that theory of yours George is that its wrong. He’s unwilling or unable to prove that he is eligible. Therefore he is not eligible. Simple as that.
And the fact is nowhere can anybody find that he ISN’T an undocumented alien. You cannot work this stuff out apriori George. As far as anyone knows he’s an undocumented alien. And thats just the fact of the matter. But it has huge implications, given his associations, since it is the case that an undocumented alien could not have gotten that far unaided.
I’ve read what you have written with great care George. And its crap. Because you were supposed to focus on the empirical facts of whether he was eligible or not or an undocumented alien or not. And you just beat around the bush and never got directly at the problem. Discussions on the global warming fraud are like that as well. Its like people have forgotten what evidence is and what empirical research is.
Now you are wrong. You should live with it. But do you have any evidence that you are NOT wrong? Because once you learn to provide evidence for this sort of easy stuff then maybe you can get a grip on this science stuff that you clearly have no natural calling for.
Where is that empirical evidence fella? Its all induction plus make-believe to you isn’t it?
“So, if he doesn’t leave voluntarily, would a private citizen be etitled to take matters into their own hands?”
Its a real problem and nothing to be flippant about. An usurper, under the constitution, is held to be committing the crime of perjury merely by taking the oath. Thereafter all decisions he makes are held to be criminal acts. He has to be arrested. He cannot be impeached. The constitution does not allow for his impeachment since he is not President. But these laws were written when the President would have had a sword, a musket, or a piece of hickory as his only weaponry. And not some massive security establishment.
So one can see the seriousness of the matter and the importance of stopping this Monsourian candidate before he takes the oath.
Birds of a feather don’t necessarily flock together. Ma, get me shotgun down, the galahs ‘r in the garden agin!
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB122763857669957141.html
“No, the Supreme Court is not going to intervene and stop Barack Obama from becoming president.
Normally this would be “Bottom Story of the Day” material, but lots of crazy rumors have been going around, albeit mostly on blogs and other Web sites of the far-right fringe. Last week, however, David Serchuk of Forbes.com rehearsed one of them, giving us an opportunity to set the record straight. Here’s Serchuk:
You’ve got to hand it to Philip J. Berg: he doesn’t give up easily. You might recall that Philadelphia attorney Berg tried, and failed, to halt the presidential election of Barack Obama on the grounds that he is not a native-born citizen. Game over, right? Wrong.
Berg filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in late October, asking that the highest court review the decision of the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania. The latter court dismissed Berg’s claims because he lacked standing to bring them. Standing requires plaintiffs to prove they are directly affected by the issue at hand, with evidence of injury that is concrete and particular. In its decision the district court said Berg “does not, and we believe cannot, establish injury in fact.” It also dismissed his claims as frivolous.
Berg takes this in stride. His writ, he says, requires Obama and the Democratic National Council to respond by December 1. . . .
One of the pillars of Berg’s argument is that Obama doesn’t have a legally-valid U.S. birth certificate because he was born in Kenya . . .
In fairness to Serchuk, he doesn’t seem to take this seriously–but he doesn’t quite explain why it is nonsense. So, here goes.
In August Berg filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia’s federal trial court, alleging that Obama was not a “natural born citizen” and thus constitutionally ineligible to be president. No trial was held; on Oct. 24, the court summarily dismissed Berg v. Obama on the ground that Berg did not have standing to sue. (In fact, the judge who dismissed the case opined that Berg’s efforts to establish standing “are frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”)
On Oct. 30, Berg filed a petition for a writ of certiorari–in laymen’s terms, he asked the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. (Note that contrary to Berg’s language, which Serchuk repeats, one does not “file a writ.” One files a petition, and the court decides whether to issue a writ.) On Oct. 31, according to Berg’s Web site, he filed a motion asking Justice David Souter for injunctive relief in the form of halting the following week’s election.
On Nov. 3, Souter denied the injunction. The next day, the election was held as scheduled. You might have read about it, it was in all the papers.
It is true that Berg’s petition for certiorari is still pending before the high court. It is also true that there is a deadline for responses from the defendants (including Obama) of next Monday, Dec. 1. The defendants, however, are under no obligation to respond, and there is no reason to think they will bother.
The probability that the court will actually grant certiorari is, in theory, greater than zero, but it is such a small number as to be incomprehensible to anyone within the ordinary range of intelligence. As Judge Peter Messitte notes in an article for the State Department’s eJournalUSA, the justices typically grant such petitions only for cases “raising particularly significant questions of law, and/or those where there is a division of legal authority, as where lower courts have produced conflicting interpretations of constitutional or federal law.”
An additional rumor, not repeated by Forbes.com’s Serchuk, is that the “response” that Obama is “required” to file next week consists of proof that he is a natural-born citizen. Those who make this claim seem to believe that cert. is two, two, two writs in one. In fact, the only question currently before the high court is whether to hear the appeal at all.
Even in the vanishingly unlikely event that the court does grant certiorari, it almost certainly would consider only the legal issue raised by the lower court’s ruling–namely, whether Berg has standing to sue. In the even more vanishingly unlikely event that the justices rule in his favor, the case would be returned to a trial judge for consideration of the factual allegations.
One Leo Denofrio has a pending petition for certiorari in a similar case that was dismissed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. His prospects for success are approximately equal to Berg’s, for the same reasons. We devoutly hope this is the last item we will ever have to write on this silly topic.”
“Normally this would be “Bottom Story of the Day” material, but lots of crazy rumors have been going around, albeit mostly on blogs and other Web sites of the far-right fringe. Last week, however, David Serchuk of Forbes.com rehearsed one of them, giving us an opportunity to set the record straight. Here’s Serchuk:”
And it turned up here. Who would have thunk it.
Touche, Sjt!
Don’t ever let it be said that when the opposition scores a clever point, that Wes George doesn’t tip his hat!
Enjoy the moment, darling, I believe it’s your first this year.
My goodness you fall for the lamest stuff. Taranto isn’t a constitutional law graduate. He isn’t even any graduate at all AND HE DOESN’T HAVE AN ARGUMENT. There is nothing there in that content-free column. A number of promises that he doesn’t come through on and some mindless soothsaying. Your global warming fraud supporting nature is coming through loud and clear here.
So you just read a nothing column like that? And you think its significant? This is the way you nutters read the baseless sentiment involved in most of these global warming fraud pdf’s.
Try harder. Try harder to overcome your natural congenital deficiencies.
I could have chosen a dozen serious sources to post. I’ll try a bit harder:
From the National Review, THE voice of the right wing, of the conservative faction, of the Republican party.
Obama Derangement Syndrome
Shut up about the birth certificate.
By David Horowitz
The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, a demagogue who lost a Senate election to the then-unknown Obama by 42 points, should be a warning in itself.
The birth-certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)
…Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for president trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?
Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to five Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the four liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?
It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQyOTgxM2M0YWMxOTdhZDcwMzlmMDU1ZGYxNzFkMmQ=