Democrat Barack Obama is the new President of the United States. In his acceptance speech he promised to be a President for all Americans. He made only one oblique reference to climate change speaking of our earth in peril.
Oklahoma Senator and Republican Jim Inhofe, the only outspoken climate change sceptic in Washington, won a third term.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Try to contain your excitement please Jen!
Barack Obama’s election is a wonderful symbolic victory for tolerance and understanding.
A full transcipt of the President elect’s speech can be found at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24606449-5013948,00.html as well as lots of other places on the internet. The speech was gracious to his opponent and gave hope of unifying the United States. He also expressed a willingness to listen and the hope that change would make the USA a better place. I am sure it will be replayed and quoted often.
An interesting question I was asked today, if Obama was the republican candidate would he have won?
It was certainly a well written and inspirational speech, and one that will set the standard for the Presidency.
It’s good that Americans were able to elect Obama. However, the reality is that he has big economic problems to try and sort out. If he is going to use the US economy and energy policy to try and control the weather/climate, then the current euphoria may end up being a little like winning $1000 in the casino……on the Titanic.
Technically, he isn’t even the president-elect just yet…
With our electoral college system, we actually voted for whom our electoral college delegates would place their votes. The electoral college will convene in mid-December to cast their votes. At that time, Obama will become the president-elect, and Biden the vice-president elect.
In January will come inauguration day, when they are sworn into office.
A very complicated system, which few people understand well at all.
Nonetheless, he is to be my President, and I wish him well.
We here are universally pleased to be off the schneid, having our first black president.
He’s not MLK but then who would be? We seem to have run clean out of same.
Paul wrote: if Obama was the republican candidate would he have won?
Answer – No way. The media played a big part in electing Obama but would not have if he had been a Republican. A Pew Research Center poll found this: “By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4.” http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/10/23/nearly-8-1-voters-say-journalists-want-obama-win
Why? Well, the media supports blacks who “think black” and crucifies those who don’t, like Supreme Court Justice Thomas. The media supports women who “think feminst” and support abortions and crucifies those who don’t, like Gov. Palin. The media supports workers who belong to unions and are anti-business and crucifies those who don’t, like Joe the Plumber.
As long as a politician expresses a left-wing, socialist agenda, he will benefit from the media, but a Republican would not have a left-wing, socialist agenda.
I hate to think of our country becoming another high tax, nanny state.
The turkeys have voted for Christmas whilst in a state of divine rapture, with the green saving of the planet substituting for cranberry sauce.
That was the immediate thought that went through Jabba’s head as he listened to the Anointed One as he spoke and mesmerized the masses after John McCain conceded defeat in the early hours of this morning.
Reality will click into focus sooner rather than later, and the American electorate will see that they have traded in their freedoms and the contents of their wallets, on an unprecedented scale, with long term detrimental consequences that will take years to put right.
Sad news today – Author Michael Crichton had died from cancer. His honest assessment of the global warming alarmist fraud and his willingness to speak out against will be sorely missed.
Jen
I think you will find it more than symbolic – your slip is showing, again.
Cinders
It was not a “written speech” – Obama is a brilliant orator, what he said came from someone who can think on his feet.
McCain’s speech was also very well articulated, one of the best I have seen or heard.
DaveK
People are bound to get us confused. For clarity, I’m the one downunder. Your electoral system of voting and government has something more to offer than our Westminster system – I am impressed that Obama will seek help and advice from the McCain camp – that amounts to treason over here – a pity.
Other perverse comments are really not worth commenting on.
Well as an old guy I am amazed. An experience of a lifetime is USA Presidents are old experienced white men. They don’t enter politics and become president in 4 years at the age of 47. But there you go he has inspired and done it. In this respect he is exceptional and lets hope he is in other respects and can cope with the poisoned challis he has taken control of.
The last president who enthused the USA voter so greatly very nearly got the us into a third world war.
After this I think the Queen of England will divorce Phillip and marry the Pope!
David K,
There is nothing wrong with symbolism. It is indeed very important that people feel there is hope and that they can trust. Barack Obama brings hope to the Presidency.
As regards your reference to “my slip”, as many here know I come from a Labor background – that is the American equivalent of liberal.
As regards voting preferences, while it is generally assumed sceptics are right wing and/or conservative the available evidence does not always support such an assumption. You will see over at Climate Audit that Steve McIntyre is a liberal: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4265 .
Sceptics are certainly better supported by ‘conservative communities’ at this point in our history which is , in my view, a little paradoxical.
The barbarians are inside the gates. Let in by a majority of US voters.
Give it a little while and there will be nostalgia for the time of the man from Crawford.
As for McCain’s concession speech he obviously wasn’t paying attention during his time at Annapolis. I’m told there is a John Paul Jones quote above the entrance to one of the halls. Something along the lines of the Navy doesn’t need good losers, the Navy wants tough sons of bitches who can win.
I get the feeling his run was a vanity thing with no real hope of winning, just like Howard’s last run.
We will all pay dearly for both these actions and the world will be a much poorer, dangerous and polluted place.
What’s left of it.
Good on ya, Americans. You’re now back to your rightful place as the second greatest country on earth.
Sad to hear about Crichton. Cancer sucks. Didn’t mind some of his earlier books like the Andromeda Strain. The quality of his work dropped off lot in his later years, culminating in the excorable ‘Climate of Fear’. Alone among denialists, at least he admitted he was a fiction writer.
David K , hate to do this but the SMH speech states: “Remarks of President-Elect Barack Obama – as prepared for delivery” at http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/barack-obamas-speech/2008/11/05/1225560932912.html you can check the difference where he “can think on his feet” to the early link which is claimed to be a transcript of the actual speech. I agrree that McCain’s speech was also very well said
He’s not the Messiah, he’s just a naughty boy.
Gary:
“We here are universally pleased to be off the schneid”
I’d prefer that you didn’t speak for those of us who are not pleased.
cinders:
“The speech was gracious to his opponent and gave hope of unifying the United States.”
Victory speeches are always gracious. Unifying the country is not about having a nice smile. The idealogical gap about what is important in this country is as large as ever. Electing a candidate who’s voting record represents one far side of that gap is not likely to bring anyone together.
“He also expressed a willingness to listen and the hope that change would make the USA a better place.”
A willingness to listen does not imply a willingness to agree. If you think that people are going to be happy with just being listened to and patted on the head, you don’t understand idealogy.
With regard to hope and change making the world a better place, it has a 50% chance of making it better and a 50% chance of making it worse. I see no insight on the part of Obama that would indicate that he has a special ability to up the odds of the former. In fact, his pre-election discussions about his philosopy of governance would make me believe the latter.
I always knew Tilo was out of touch with the mainstream
“Obama is a brilliant orator”
Nope, not MLK on courage, veracity, integrity or this count either. Go fish.
The problem with getting such a ridiculous choice in the White House comes from the urge to trade away your best candidates on the basis that “oh ho ho he couldn’t win”. The Republicans had one of their very strongest line-ups in a very long time. But at every stage they traded down on the basis of “Oh such and such cannot win.”
So they started off with the brilliant Alan Keyes if you were a true conservative that didn’t want to cut overseas military spending and the superb Ron Paul if you were okay with that sort of financial triage. But of course ho ho. Alan Keyes is a black man and too staunch a Christian. And ho ho. Ron Paul is a fringe candidate. He cannot possibly win. Ho Ho. Why is he always talking about the frailty of financial markets?
So after rejecting those two the next obvious pick was the highly intelligent actor Fred Thompson. A true conservative. Well thought out positions. Didn’t fall for this climate crap. Oh ho ho. He cannot win. He looks tired. So keep trading down. Next pick. Well its Romney. Not really a sound conservative. But he managed to take the Olympics at LA and turn a profit. A real can-do fellow. Management experience that no-one can get close to. Ho Ho. He cannot win. He’s a Mormon.
The Democrats made the same mistake last time. They rolled their favourite Howard Dean. Because they reckoned he was too short and didn’t look “Presidential”. They got a guy who even they didn’t believe in. Tried to pretend Kerry was a war hero. But this time the Republicans took that same silly line all the way along their foolish path.
It ought to have been out of Alan Keyes and Ron Paul right from the start. The two of them were OUTSTANDING candidates. Its hard to even so much as IMAGINE a better wartime President than Keyes.
You always back the best candidate. If you lose you win. You get the ideas out there. Push the middle ground in your direction. Set things up for next time. That way when the party gets another chance it can get things done.
The only thing worse than losing is winning all the time. And in a two-party system you have to accept the other guys are going to win once in awhile. Thats why you always must back the quality candidate. Because if you win you win and if you lose you win also.
DavidK — “Your electoral system of voting and government has something more to offer than our Westminster system – I am impressed that Obama will seek help and advice from the McCain camp…”
In the US we have this thing that politicians do called lying. That is what Obama was doing to give you that impression of bi-partisanship. He was lying. He’s good at it. He does it a lot.
Thanks for the response Jennifer
Unfortunately, too many people make their decisions (on climate change for example) based on their political/ideological perspective – without understanding that politics (really) has got nothing to do with whether the globe is getting warmer (or not 🙂
Cinders
It’s the transcript – otherwise Obama has a very good memory (he was not reading). I assume you saw both the speeches.
Johneb
Generally yes, the life of a politician. But, Obama is a beacon of light for the rest of the world (do you not agree? How about we give him some time – he has been left with a mess after all.
Oh, you obviously haven’t seen the latest news on his appointments, check it out for yourself – a republican no less.
“Generally yes, the life of a politician. But, Obama is a beacon of light for the rest of the world (do you not agree? How about we give him some time – he has been left with a mess after all.”
Don’t be ridiculous. He’s a stupid Marxist know-nothing and is totally unprepared for the job ahead of him. His speeches were entirely vacuous. Yes he has been left a mess. And it would be hard to think of anyone more ill-equipped to deal with it.
“He’s (Obama) a stupid Marxist know-nothing”.
Jennifer
This is a typical example.
DavidK
I am not aware of any Republican appointment. Why don’t you share the info? Don’t think that any Republican pick would be a sign of great bi-partisonship. If McCain were president and he picked Joe Liberman as Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State, the Democrats would not look at the administration as being bi-partisan. Republicans would feel the same if Obama picked Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Republicans would take note if Obama picked a strong capitalist as Secretary of the Treasury. I’m not holding my breath. Having Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff means that he wants to play hardball partisan politics the Chicago way. It is his choice. He will be the President. I am just not buying anything until I see it. His record says that he will be a tough partisan that will try to enact a very liberal agenda.
Look DavidK. Just get back to reality. This guy is a Marxist know-nothing. His only background is in law AND HE GOT THAT WRONG since he is not an originalist in his approach to the constitution.
He is in a position where he must get a few things right and go after them with powerful conviction. For example the accursed treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, has been bleeding red ink everywhere in the hopes of solving problems that were caused by the persistent bleeding of red ink everywhere. Worse still this aberrant thinking seems hold total sway over Washington.
Now the Americans are in deep trouble. They have already put in motion certain actions that if they don’t know EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING and correct for these actions there will be galloping if not hyper-inflation. Hyper-inflation brings violence internally and often externally too. It wipes out the middle class and tends to bring on some sort of fascist shift.
Now Obama’s advisors may see the light, they may plan a strategy to pull the Americans out of the disastrous situation that has already been set up for them. But this is unlikely. Since Obama supported the bailout plans, supported the stimulus packages, and is planning a few more of his own.
So there is no point in putting any failth in this dimwitted, uneducated, unprepared Marxist know-nothing. The situation is so grave that everyone must comprehend it on their own and just do their best to get through what is going to be a very difficult time. And also to help some of the older blokes you know pull through these hard times that stand before us.
But you would have to be mad to think this mummified dumb-left law-student can be any use whatsoever in the impending crisis.
To give you an extreme example of what we have to expect to happen if Obama doesn’t go AGAINST the banks and Washington soon and develop extreme conviction about letting banks crash, developing a reserve asset ratio and various other technical monetary matters…….
…. Here is Zimbabwe. People just go crazy with monetary inflation. Everyone goes mad. They lie all the time. All good sense gets crowded out.
http://www.boncherry.com/blog/2008/10/26/global-crisis-this-is-the-real-crisis/
Zimbabwaen top brass are well-educated. A lot of them have gone to British universities and the like. So how could this happen one might ask? What happens is that the better connected can borrow earlier and then have their debts erased. So this sort of thing becomes a habit. Now in the states the better connected, that is to say the bankers themselves, have in the past, but in the last couple of months managed to get away with the following:
1. Outright public stealing in broad daylight 2. Flagrant open bribery. 3. Their position has bee augmented by interest rate subsidies (they get their interest at wholesale rates. Lately below wholesale) 4. Augmented also by their ability to create new money (not so applicable just lately but clearly in the works. 5. augmented by policies that will cause inflation down the track.
This is the banking system writ large taking control for their own benefit and not that of the US citizen. The opposite of what happened under Volcker.
So whilst there is still time to establish a reserve asset ratio and deregulate in nearly all other respects, and so take measures to avoid future inflation…..
… Since we know that the banks are working for their benefit and not for the US citizens benefit, we ought not expect them to do so. What we ought to expect them to do rather is start monopolizing on gold and silver.
Now another thing. These INSANE stimulus packages that are rolling out every few months. The ones that Paulson has launched, and that idiot-Marxist Obama will continue…………. these insane policies are more than sane from the bankers point of view. Since what they will do is ensure that the government, including pretty much all public sector workers, are in the exact same boat as the bankers, and in aligning their interests one to the other.
We can call this an institutional pull. Since I don’t pretend to know what goes on behind closed doors. And I don’t tend to emphasise the potential conspirational nature of a lot of these sorts of events, although there is probably a bit of that too.
All we can say is that if a reserve asset ratio isn’t established sometime soon then “all else follows with complete certainty, even in the midst of chaos.”
Graeme
I think I will stick to reading scientific papers, you lost me from the 1st paragraph from the first of your two epistles above (I did read them).
Ever thought of being a pollie yourself, perhaps even a behind the scenes advisor?
Davidk
AGW is all about politics – it is about redistributing wealth as pubicly stated by a former Canadian environment minister. AGW is merely the tool to increase taxation by taxing us on CO2 emissions. This is tantamount to taxing the air we exhale if taken to an extreme.
Political extremists tend to do things like that.
And there are then the publicly stated objectives of the billionaire extreme environmentalists calling for the destruction of industrialised society.
Why is it that humanity seems to have periods when the collectivists take control and inflict calamity on us all.
Yeah well thanks for reading them David. Good stuff. The second one is putting forth the most negative case and I’ve re-written a better version on my own blog. But you really want to understand these things. You want to keep reading them, and reading them and reading them until you start to understand. Even if the second one is pretty poorly written.
Obama’s people have already flagged conscription. In a part-time version at first of course. A sort of national service charity work deal. And his crowd have revived an incredible attack on freedom of speech. So they are trying a few of these totalitarian things on. Bush did immense damage to the Republic even though he himself isn’t like this other crowd. But leaving people in the field that long, having the patriot act going for that length of time, and all that monetary inflation and spilling red ink everywhere…… well its set things up for a more willful assault on liberty by people who really mean it.
Hopefuly he is not going to be as bad for the US as many people think. I read the following article and if it is true he will be a disaster. Time will tell.
“Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer
By Ali Sina
I must confess, I was not impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the
first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black
candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident,
a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just
because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of
haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his
body language were louder than his empty words. Obama’s speeches are
unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never
a politician in this land had such a quasi “religious” impact on so
many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero
accomplishment makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is
not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact, he is quite
ignorant on most important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist.
Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of “Malignant Self Love,” also believes,
“Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist.”
Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands it and
describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When
he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama’s
language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest,
nearest and dearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist
or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim
Jones, the charismatic leader of People’s Temple, the man who led
over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even
murder their own children was also a narcissist. Charles Manson,
Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Joe Stalin, Saddam, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong
IL, and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time.
All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers and
followers. They created a personality cult around themselves, and
with their blazing speeches elevated their admirer’s souls, filled
their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest
for life. Those men gave their followers hope! They promised them the
moon, but alas, they invariably brought them to their doom. When you
are a victim of a cult of personality, you don’t know it until it is
too late.
One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse.
“Obama’s early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic
and mentally bruising dislocations,” says Vaknin. “Mixed-race
marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a
divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father
only once again, before he died in a car accident. His mother
re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land
with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a stepfather. He
was raised as an only child, full of himself and no others. He never
had to share the spotlight with any siblings. At the age of ten, he
was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He
saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and
then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995.”
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological
narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it
overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the
narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do
his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes
the world around him and reduces others in his own inverted image. He
creates a cult of personality; his admirers become his co-dependents.
Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach
their personal objectives. They are focused on one thing alone, and
that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do
not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that
does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their
attention. If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in
one way or another, he has no interest in it. The “Present” vote is
a safe vote; he used the “Present” all the time as a member of the
Illinois legislature. No one can criticize him if things go wrong.
Why should he implicate himself in issues that may become
controversial when they don’t help him personally? Those issues are
unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.
Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law
Review led to a contract and an advance to write a book about race
relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him with a
fellowship and an office to work on his book. The book took him a lot
longer than expected and at the end it devolved into., guess what?
His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing
on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist
writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book “Dreams
from My Father.”
Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when
he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as
important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and
genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about
such an august being as himself? Narcissists are often callous and
even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident
from Obama’s lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only
one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private
jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly a half billion
dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no
interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? His brother cannot be
used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but
himself.
This election is like no other election in the history of America.
The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can
be more dangerous than having a man bereft of a conscience, a serial
liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as
the leader of the free world?
I hate to sound alarmist, but one must be a fool if one is not
alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to
others. They are simply self-serving and selfish. [Witness Al Gore’s
Income Tax; it reveals that he gave away NO MONEY to charities, not
even to a church!] Obama evinces symptoms of pathological narcissism,
which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard
Nixon or Bill Clinton, for example. To him reality and fantasy are
intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character
flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal
and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them
treacherous. [Look up the word ‘treachery.’]
Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this
man could put an end to their party [and to this great nation]. The
great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a
fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven.
Let us call a spade a spade [No pun intended]. This is racism, pure
and simple. The truth is that, while everyone carries a misconceived
collective guilt towards blacks for wrongs done centuries ago by a
bygone people to a bygone people, the blacks carry a collective
rancor, enmity or vendetta towards non-blacks, and to this day want
to “stand up” to the white man. They seem to be stuck in 19th century
[encouraged by race baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and
others].
The downside of this is, that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I
predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The
blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic
mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads
deeper in the sand and blame Obama’s detractors of racism. This will
cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take
advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support.
I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase
to levels not seen since the turbulent 1960s. Obama will set the
clock back decades. America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of
the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness
translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue
nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Maoist
Castroists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo
terrorists, and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by
the prospect of”their man” in the White House. America is on the verge of
destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a
pathological narcissist as president.”
Johneb
Ok, let’s wait and see.
________
Louis
We’re wandering off topic – apologies to others. Anyway, let me put it this way; politics (and economics, and religion) muddy the waters. The vast majority of scientists just want to do what they do best – present their research (in the appropriate forums may I add) and otherwise live a normal life. If the substance of their research proves to be challenging, to whomever (the status quo, BAU, entrepreneurs, evangelists, pollies, add your own) – so be it. In terms of AGW, at the end of the day, it is up to the ‘whomevers’ to deal with these challenges – the major policy and decision makers are, really.
GW alarmists, head-in-the-sanders and ‘deniers’ (not genuine sceptics – in the scientific sense) should all take a long, deep, breath – their actions (and inactions) are not doing anyone, anywhere, any good.
There are extremists/fundamentalists on both sides of the fence. Louis, you sit on one side – the weight of evidence is skewed to the other.
Don’t get me wrong, I have a great deal of respect for true sceptics. Take Roy Spencer, it would be truly great if his latest ‘piece’ is found to be robust, but it isn’t – yet. It’s a pity he “spewed his guts” in the blogosphere before publication, science doesn’t work like that. Btw, I think Jennifer was wrong to say he was “censored” – scientists are pedants by nature (a single wrong word can destroy their careers) but most people can be less pedantic (more disingenuous), particularly in populist media – they often distort and misrepresent the science (intentionally or not) for their own agenda (Andrew Bolt comes to mind).
There is a lot of debate in the scientific community about climate change but it’s more to do with the nuances (this consensus thing is being ‘spun’ by the ‘whomevers’) and much research is being done on attribution and climate sensitivity, as it must. However, it would be prudent to tread with caution. Whether you believe in AGW or not, it would make sense to live and develop in a more sustainable way – this is the real debate the politicians and economists are struggling with, not the science.
_________
Graeme
Please excuse my ignorance. However, I don’t know you (nor you me) or your blog site. Besides, Jennifer’s site should suffice and I do want to live an otherwise normal (be it frugal) life.
DavidK: Unfortunately, we have to make an effort to stay informed, especially of things economic, and that includes everything that relates to “cl..cl..cl.. cl..climate change”.
Da de da de da de da de da Kevin 07 and Barack 08 are gunna tax ya only it’s not gunna be a tax it’s gunna be an incentive. Ha ha ha!
As the current financial crisis/credit crisis unfolds we’ve had pollies of every persausion expressing surprising suprise as each revalation is more ugly than it’s predecessor.
http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/obama-victory-rally-in-stocks-dont-be-fooled-27910
Become a regular reader of something such as this, get into the archives, and have quick flick around.
Alarm bells have been rung for years, but who wanted to hear?
Select anything from this link and see what’s come to pass!
http://www.kitco.com/ind/index.html#Daughty
Look DavidK. Stop the jibber-jabber. If you were the least bit capable of understanding scientific papers you would have sorted out that this is science fraud by now.
And no you don’t accept science fraud under the excuse of sustainability. The acceptance of any such lies will lead to bad policy and is clearly idiotic. You are being a full blown idiot. Sort yourself out.
DavidK,
I suggest you study the origins of AGW – the Hadley Center was initially set up by Thatcher to collate evidence to show that coal mining was bad – she had an enormous political problem with the UK coal miners. the IPCC and CO2 warming grew from that prostitution of science for political purposes.
It has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in AGW. If you assert it to be a belief then it is religion because empirically it has been thoroughly falsified by measurement.
If continued debate is needed to convince doubters of the efficacy of a theory, then that is also not science.
And it is global warming, not climate change that is the issue. It was changed to climate change when the Greens started to realize that the warming theory was not being supported by the evidence.
That’s strange, press the submit (twice) and doesn’t get posted.
Trying again …
WJP
Thanks for those links – like I said, economics muddies the waters.
You say “Alarm bells have been rung for years, but who wanted to hear?”
The same can be said for climate change – although now, governments (from all political persuasions) and businesses across the globe are hearing.
______
Graeme
I guess that’s the end of our dialogue – bye.
______
Louis
It is apparent that many people, knowingly or unknowingly, adopt a position on ‘climate change’ based on their political or ideological leaning – you prove my point.
It was a George W Bush advisor (Frank Luntz) who popularised the term “climate change” in his now infamous memo to the White House.
“http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange”
(put it in your browser without the commas, this site is not accepting the post with the link?)
I am really not surprised that you were not aware of this … or was it deliberate distortion?
Its pretty clear you are a self-selected idiot Mr K. Because the global warming racket is a proven scientific fraud. And Obama is not the hope of the world he is a USURPER. He was born a British Citizen in Coast Providence Hotel Kenya. He is constitutionally not eligible to be President. His name isn’t even Obama. Its Barry. And so far as anyone knows he is an undocumented alien and a citizen of Indonesia.
This might seem to be a childish plot these jihadists and radicals have tried on. But look how far its gone?
There are only two outcomes possible for here. The scam will collapse. Or there will be a reign of fear. Since the illegality cannot be papered over except through fear.