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.
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.
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?
That's strange, press the submit (twice) and doesn't get posted.
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.
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: 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
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.
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."