Friday, December 25, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
[A] new study says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.— Isabelle Toussaint and Jurgen Hecker,AFPHere's some new terms for some of you, “carbon pawprint.” or “carbon clawprint.” Did you know that your pet emits more CO2 than your neighbors SUV? That’s right according to New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale’s new book “Time to Eat the Dog” you’d better stop casting that self-righteous stare at your neighbors as they pull out of their driveways in SUVs to go to work while you’re petting Fido on the head.
Why, because you’re the greater threat to the planet not the SUV driving neighbor.
According to Isabelle Toussaint’s and Jurgen Hecker’s report, the Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analyzed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.
Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.
To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.
Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.
So before you give complete power over to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or some government agency that wants to regulate carbon remember that after they take away your neighbors SUV they will come knocking at your door and you’ll have to hide Fido up in the attic because pets' environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, according to the Vales’ study.
Is this Green Nazism getting crazy enough for you yet? (see source)
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.There were 192 countries represented in Copenhagen to discuss Climate Change or the effects of man’s CO2 output as it increases the Earth’s temperature. One country, China, stop the whole process from moving forward. Delegates were there for two weeks Dec. 7 through Dec. 18, 2009 and save for China no one, not one single delegate mentioned an exit strategy.
In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature.
The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.—NOAA
An exit strategy you say? What is a global warming exit strategy? An exit strategy is simply this:
If scientific evidence continues to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that CO2 emissions are not inextricably linked to the earth’s temperature rising, and if there is continued proof of global temperatures cooling then the accord reached at Copenhagen and any future Climate Change decisions shall be null and void. That is the exit strategy or statement that should go into any agreement made about Anthropogenic Global warming (AGW).
You may ask why an exit strategy is needed. It is needed because some scientists have shown that CO2 emissions and the earth’s temperature, rise or fall, are not synchronized. Therefore, for example there could be elevated CO2 levels and cooler temperatures. Meaning that caps and regulations on emissions will not solve nor do they have the desired effect on global temperatures because there are other causes—causes that most likely are completely out of man’s control. (see 1:50min video)
If that is the case then all of the carbon that was expended to get to and meet in Copenhagen for two weeks was futility exhausted and here’s why.
Specifically global temperatures were not the primary discussion in Copenhagen. A global Carbon cap and trade agreement was the focus of Copenhagen. If the proof is in the pudding then let’s look at the pudding or the agreement or the accord reached in Copenhagen as that agreement is credited to U.S. president Barry Hussein Soetoro.
The agreement or accord, if you will, speaks primarily to cuts and lowering CO2 emissions with only cursory mentions of lower temperatures. Further the agreement puts in place a wealth transfer mechanism based solely on carbon increases but nothing is in place to stop payments if temperature goals are met or reversed.
What that accomplishes is, it severs actual cause and affects results as they relate to actual global temperature. So temperatures could be actually lowering while countries would be locked into a global warming agreement or treaty and they would still be forced to pay for CO2 emission that have nothing or little to do with temperature increases until 2020 and beyond.
Therefore whether temperatures increase or decline it makes no difference because all regulatory and monetary efforts are base on CO2 outcomes rather than actual global temperatures. If anyone in any of the 192 countries represented would have actually been concerned with Climate Change they would have addressed temperature increase and decline more strictly rather than CO2 emissions due to the fact that current scientific date shows that CO2 emissions and earth’s temperature are not linked as first hypothesized. (see previous post)
Nonetheless, below is the Agreement brokered by U.S. president Barry Hussein Soetoro. See for yourself that temperatures are not the focus only CO2 emissions and monetary reparations based on CO2 outputs.
In the accord
• Agreement that “deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science”
• A pledge of $30 billion from industrialized countries to poor nations over the period 2010 to 2012 to start in 2010
• A further pledge of an estimated $100 billion per year from industrialized countries to poor nations starting after from 2020
• “Long co-operative action” needed to keep the global temperature increase below 2C
• Rich countries should submit proposals for economy-wide emission reduction targets for 2020 to the UN by January 31
• By the same date, developing countries should produce plans to cut the rate of growth of their emissions
• There should be international monitoring of any emission cuts in developing countries that are funded by rich countries
• A reassessment of the accord by 2015 to check whether emission reductions are on track to keep the temperature increase below 2C
• Consideration in 2015 of strengthening the goal to 1.5C
Not in the accord
• Emission targets, either for 2020 or 2050
• A date by which global emissions should peak
• Any deadline for turning the accord into a binding treaty
• A commitment on how much of the climate protection funding would be additional to existing overseas aid pledges
• Agreement on an international body to verify the emissions reported by each country
With only minimal mention of temperature and all monetary incentives tied to carbon emissions there is no question that temperatures and temperature reduction were not the Accord’s objective contrarily monetizing carbon emissions was Copenhagen’s goal and objective.
This is all an effort to place humanity on environmental lockdown while Internationalist control the planet with environmentally friendly draconian international edicts called Kyoto protocol or some other fascist anti CO2 international environmental treaty.“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. (see previous post)The fact is the Barry Hussein Soetoro Agreement struck in Copenhagen was not meant to lessen temperature increases it was meant to create a carbon trading system by regulating carbon emission.
The reason China objected and didn’t buy into the Copenhagen agreement is because they viewed the agreement as an infringement on their sovereignty. China did not want to give up its economic freedom. No nation would object to lower temperatures if there were proof that there is an imminent threat to the planet and it was proven that man could do something about it.
There was no proof presented in Copenhagen that man-made Global warming is an immediate or imminent threat so China said no. And China's no stalled the international plan for an international carbon trading system.
Because there is no proof that there is an imminent threat of man-made global warming, China alone said no to Barry Hussein Soetoro’s agreement!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
"For the first time in history ... all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change."—president Barry Hussein SoetoroI was surprised that I didn’t see the Nobel Prize headline that’s above coming out of Denmark. After grading himself a B+ and after much self congratulations claiming an unprecedented breakthrough I would think the Nobel committee would be all giddy about the prospect of awarding the Nobel Prize for Science to president Soetoro for his aspirations to reduce green house gases.
After all he’s done just as much for Climate Change as he’s done for peace!
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations—president Barry Hussein Soetoro Nobel Peace Prize SpeechDidn’t Soetoro say that he was awarding the peace prize for his aspirations rather than his accomplishments? Well there you go! Now Soetoro is patting himself on the back for an Agreement that he put together in Copenhagen. Surely the Nobel committee can’t overlook such an achievement in science as Soetoro’s ‘unprecedented breakthrough’ at the Copenhagen meetings. (see story)(see 1:24min video)
Of course the agreement that president Soetoro brokered wasn’t prefect but as the Soetoro administration always says, ‘you shouldn’t allow the perfect be the enemy of the good.’ The agreement is in fact a nonbinding agreement that only asks developing nations to think about their carbon footprints and then list down how best to lessen their emissions, but it’s an important first step. And it’s the thought that counts right Nobel committee?
And then there’s that pledge of $30 billion from industrialized countries over the period 2010 to 2012 in the agreement. It was decided, as 'fast start funding' for adaptation, emissions reductions, research and capacity building in developing countries, including funding to prevent deforestation.
Mobilization of financing for the needs of developing countries beyond the year 2020 is also addressed in the agreement and is estimated at $100 billion per year from 2020 according to AHN Correspondent Tejinder Singh . (see story)
US taxpayers should be absolutely thrilled that their president has blamed them for Global warming and promised billions of their tax dollars to the UN as recompense for the United States’ past and present energy consumption. These carbon emissions sin payments are to start next year in 2010.
Well what’s the problem Nobel committee? You awarded, as Hugo Chavez called it, the Nobel Prize for War to president Soetoro for his aspirations for peace. And it almost seemed that you selected him as he was announcing sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. So surely he’s just as deserving of the Nobel Prize for Science for his unprecedented breakthrough on a non-binding agreement in Climate Change talks in Copenhagen too.
The irony of it is there is probably someone on the Nobel committee scratching his head while thinking, ‘Hey that does make sense. Why didn’t I think of that?’
Monday, December 21, 2009
Illusion is the appearance of something not real. Delusion is believing in the illusion—AlaphiahDemocrats, Liberals and Progressives (DLP) and their media allies are masters of illusion as demonstrated again last week. A scan of world events underscores this statement. Last week’s seminal topics were Health Care, Global warming and Jobs. In all of these topics the vast leftwing DLP front did its best work creating the appearances of something that is not real.
On the topic of Health Care there was created in the DLP media the illusion that Conservative efforts were blocking the DLP’s progress to getting their health care agenda passed. That was the illusion. (Not to mention that the whole Democrat health care argument is based and predicated on false illusions.)
What is real is that the blockage was actually in the DLP’s own camp. A blockage they are able to fix by strong arm threats and bribery.
Senator Joe Lieberman was the recipient of the just mentioned threats. He announced as late as a week ago that he would not support the DLP’s Health care reform. To which the vast leftwing DLP movement launched into a 1 million dollar strong arm threat to campaign against Lieberman and voilà!
Lieberman’s mind suddenly changed to supporting the bill.
Concurrently we could argue that the whole subject of Anthropogenic Global warming (AGW) is an illusion put forth by Al Gore and the vast leftwing DLP front as was substantiated by disclosure of recent emails which hint at climate collusion and fraud in the Climate Change movement. But that’s not the illusion we’re speaking about today.
Today we are speaking about the illusion of an agreement struck by president Barry Hussein Soetoro at Copenhagen. The headlines blared: President Obama reaches agreement with world leaders to limit global warming. That is the illusion.
However a closer look at what really transpired shows that it was president Soetoro who said it was an Agreement to make himself look good for media consumption. It was an agreement of sorts but not at all what it seemed to be. That’s the illusion.
It was not the multi-Trillion dollar binding agreement that Communist, Socialist, Anarchist, CO2 pimps and other AGW supports were hoping for, an agreement that would force America to pay “undeveloped” countries reparations for America’s past and present energy consumption.
No the ‘Agreement’ that president Soetoro touted was for the vast leftwing DLP front and it’s media cohorts. And that so-called agreement was an agreement that he brokered between China, India, Brazil and South Africa to at least be agreeable in discussing getting into the business of cap and trade. This is an illusion also.
“And that’s where we agreed to list our national actions and commitments, to provide information on the implementation on these actions through national communications, with international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines,” Mr. Obama said, “We agreed to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no more than 2 degree Celsius, and importantly to take action to meet this objective consistent with science.”The reality is that president Soetoro’s agreement was not the agreement that the Green Nazis came to Copenhagen for.
The accord is not legally binding, but Mr. Obama said that the hope is that the “we’re in this together” mentality will be a watch-dog of sorts among the countries. –Jim Sciutto and Sunlen Miller
Their goal was to have all major industrial nations sign a treaty which would afford Carbon traders and CO2 emissions pimps complete world domination through the guise of lowering greenhouse gases. Their plan would be implemented by a global taxation system that all nations were supposed to sign-up for in Copenhagen.
The fact is Copenhagen was an abject failure but only president Barry Hussein Soetoro would have the temerity to change the definition of failure and call it a Global Warming Agreement and an “Unprecedented Breakthrough.” That’s the illusion. (see story)
The reality is at the Copenhagen conference as Soetoro acknowledged in Copenhagen was a failure. Soetoro said, “We need more work, more confidence building between emerging economies, the least developed countries and developed countries before another legally binding treaty can be signed.”
What does that mean? It means that the binding treaty that was expected out of Copenhagen was not reached. No matter the verbal hocus pocus that president Soetoro used the Agreement that was expected out of Copenhagen was not reached. (see story)
The final illusion is Jobs. The Soetoro administration promised earlier this year if $787 billion dollar stimulus package was passed it would save and creating 3.6 million jobs and unemployment would not rise above 8%. That was the illusion.
The reality is unemployment will peak around 10.5% which has prompted the House of Representatives to craft a second $155 billion dollar jobs initiative.
Howard Dean has tagged president Soetoro’s and the vast left-wing DPL front’s efforts regarding health care as hocus pocus reform!
This is one isolated insular moment that I applaud Dr. Dean’s assessment of Democrat’s health care efforts. Yet I wish to go somewhat further. Everything that the Democrats have done while controlling the White House and both Houses of Congress has been hocus pocus! From Health Care to Global warming to Jobs all hocus pocus!
It’s all illusion and to believe any of it one would have to be delusional!
Friday, December 18, 2009
"We've gotten to this stage ... in Washington where passing any bill is a victory, and that's the problem, decisions are being about the long-term future of this country for short-term political reasons, and that's never a good sign.”—Howard DeanFormer Democratic National Committee chairman and medical doctor Howard Dean believes that Democrats’ efforts to pass a Health Care Bill has deteriorated to such a point that desperate Democrats are willing to pass anything just for the sake of passing something. The dread just do something disease. And according to Dean Democrats don’t really care if what they pass is detrimental to the Country. (see 4:48min video)
Please allow me to translate one point of Dean’s statement to Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos:
Democrats have gotten to a stage in Washington where exerting their power is the primary thing. Democrats are recklessly attempting to be victorious by passing any kind of health care bill. They have already bought a 300 million dollar vote from Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu and now they have gotten so desperate that they are catering to a single Independent Senator, Joe Lieberman by cutting out the public option in order to get his vote.
The public option is the most important reason that I and most Liberals want the Health Care Bill. We Democrats compromise our values so easily that we have completely compromised on why we wanted this health care bill.
The problem is Democrats are recklessly making long-term decisions for this country for short-term political reasons.
Yes Reader, Democrats are attempting to create a health care crisis so that they can do something that has never been done before like Rahm Emanuel once remarked:
Never let a serious crisis go to waste…it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before – Rahm Israel EmanuelAccording to Howard Dean Obamacare is a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than the Government bailout of AIG.
"This is a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG," former Democratic National Committee chairman and medical doctor Howard Dean told "Good Morning America's" George Stephanopoulos today. "A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works."
This is a bad bill taxes with begin immediately on the American people but they won’t get any insurance at all until 2014 so why all the hurry Mr. President?
Oh yes I did answer myself…taxes begin immediately. So once Obama signs this monstrosity into law we are taxed for a number of years and then maybe a very small number of people get insurance. So tax money is the reason that there’s such a hurry to get this legislation into law.
I have an idea; why not deliberate on Health Care as long as it took Obama to decide to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. What, that took 6 months? We don’t have to rush this bill through we could at least allow Congress to read it. (That’s right they haven’t read the darn thing yet!)
Howard Dean is upset because he believes that Democrats are compromising their values in order to get a hollow victory on health care reform. Ahhh don’t worry about it Howie, when Democrats get their 60 votes they’ll be able to put back what they’ve stripped out of it in conference.
Dean should know this; you think he is feigning concern? (see story)
Thursday, December 17, 2009
1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity.The London DailyExpress published 100 reasons why Global warming is a natural occurrence rather than a man-made occurrence, to which Michael Le Page from NewScientist responded by arguing 50 points in rebuttal.
Technically, proof exists only in mathematics, not in science.—Michael Le Page, features editor, Short Sharp Science A science news blog from NewScientist
In La Page’s opening he writes:
A British newspaper today published a list of "100 reasons why global warming is natural".Yet incredibly La Page had to concede the very first point, he didn’t debunk it as he claimed. The first point was there is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of green house gases from man’s activities. La Page responded to this point by agreeing with it, “Technically, proof exists only in mathematics, not in science,” he said.
Here we take a quick look at the first 50 of their claims - and debunk each one.
What? And it gets worst. But to first concede that the rest of your arguments are not based on science, “technically” makes your other 49 points suspect, I think Mr. La Page. In other words you have no argument.
So why is Al Gore going around stating that the Science is settled if there is “no real scientific proof”? Why are world governments ready to sign agreements in Copenhagen regarding Climate Change when there is “no real scientific proof”?
Below are the 100 reasons why Global warming is a natural occurrence and here is the link to La Page’s rebuttal to only 50 of those reasons.
There is a futility in argument when a person concedes the point but does not concede the argument. And that is the place where Global warming Alarmists find themselves. They argue in the name of science for a cause that, by their own admission, is not based on science:
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.
6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.
7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.
9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming
10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.
11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago
12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds
13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.
14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions
15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”
16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.
17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.
18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control
19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.
20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates
21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades
23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries
24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder
25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research
26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles
27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.
28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population
29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago
30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles
31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming
32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures
33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere
34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere
35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything
36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes
37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”
38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC
39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally
40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms
41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful
42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical
43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests
44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years
45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations
47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.
48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change
49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.
50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.
51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.
52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”
53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.
54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot
55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.
56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.
57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”
58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.
59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.
60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.
61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.
62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.
63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.
64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.
65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.
66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.
67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.
68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.
69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.
70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”
71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.
72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.
73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.
74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.
75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.
76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.
77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.
78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.
79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).
80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.
81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.
82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.
83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.
85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.
86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.
87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.
88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.
89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.
90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.
91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.
92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.
94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.
95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.
96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.
97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.
98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”
99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.” (see source)
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
A Taunton father is outraged after his 8-year-old son was sent home from school and required to undergo a psychological evaluation after drawing a stick-figure picture of Jesus Christ on the cross.—Gerry TuotiIn the spirit of Christmas officials at Lowell M Maxham Elementary School In Taunton Massachusetts apparently believe that Jesus’ death on the cross was violent. Apparently they also believe that someone should be punished for it.
So after a 2nd grade teacher asked student’s in class to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas one little 8-year-old boy responded by sketching a picture of Jesus’ death on the Cross as what he was reminded of when he thought of Christmas. (see picture above) (see story)
Maxham School principal Rebecca Couet and the 2nd grade teacher, whose name is being withheld, thought the stick figure depiction of Christ’s death on the cross was violent so they suspended the little 8-year-old student for three days and ordered him to submit to a psychological evaluation. Apparently these officials missed Mel Gibson’s 2004 movie The Passion of the Christ.
For those of you, Readers, who see this as yet another example of teachers and school administrators Gone Wild you might consider doing something about this blatant encroachment on freedom of thought.
Yes it is an obvious attack on religion and freedom of expression too. But the insidious act of ordering a psychological evaluation goes directly to controlling thought.
Maxham Elementary School is a K-4 public school serving 219 students with 15 Teachers, two teachers are 2nd Grade teachers.
Superintendent Julie Hackett speaking for the school said, “Generally speaking, we have safety protocols in place. If a situation warrants it, we ask for outside safety evaluations if we have particular concerns about a child’s safety. We followed all the protocols in our system.” (Taunton Public Schools)
Since the good people of Massachusetts are treating Christianity like it is a foreign cultural expression of which they know absolutely nothing about. Perhaps the people of Massachusetts at large and the Taunton Public Schools specifically need some sensitivity training. This kind of ignorance about cultural beliefs can not be tolerated. And it hasn’t been in the past.
What should be recommended to all of the school administrators involved, in the traumatizing of this little 2nd grade boy, is some culture sensitively training for school officials who apparently need to learn about the foreign American cultural religion Christianity.
And in addition Christianity should be taught in the Massachusetts schools as the apparent foreign culture that it has become. This is so that when teachers come across the word or name Jesus or a picture of Jesus on a cross or a bible they won’t be so confused or confuse these references with potential violence rather then the depicting of a biblical events that occurred over 2,000 years ago.
Also, you, Reader, might call Superintendent Julie Hackett and suggest sensitivity training regarding the ignorance in her school system regarding the cultural belief Christianity. This training is needed for the entire school system.
I’m sure you’ll agree that sensitivity training is warranted for the Massachusetts schools system so that no other American child will be traumatized for their cultural beliefs by an over-reacting government school system and authorities within that system.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
In the high-stakes game of chicken the Obama White House has been playing with Congress over who will regulate the earth's climate, the president's team just motored into a ditch.—KIMBERLEY A. STRASSELWho will regulate the Earth’s Climate ?
Call me a traditionalist but my first thought would be God…but silly me, somehow I continue to forget that the Barry Hussein Soetoro’s EPA, the EU and the UN have assumed any and all authority over the Earth’s environment—authority that God might have had. I guess each of these organizations have a little god in them because they claim that they have the power to regulate the Earth’s Climate at least that’s what they are attempting to agree to in Copenhagen. Or are they? (see story)
In Copenhagen the powers of the world are attempting to put in place means to restructure government as we have known it. Oh, yes I am aware that focus in Copenhagen is supposed to be about weather, but actually, what’s really going on in Copenhagen has very little to do with the weather.
No, the topic of Climate Change is misdirection, a bait and switch if you will. Its intended purpose is to have you thinking “save the planet” when what is actually going on is the enslaving of the people of the planet.
Through the guise of Climate Change the leaders of the world intent to take government from local and national and make government centralized and global. And all of this starts with getting you and me to fund their efforts. You and I are expected to comply with whatever agreement world leaders make in Copenhagen. Just how we are expected to comply? We are expected to pay for it through taxes.
Of course world leaders only lack a little thing for complete world domination over the world’s populace and that is your heart and your mind, again your compliance. You see if you could be convinced that what they are doing is on your behalf and is for your good—the greater good, then you will allow them to sign treaties in your name committing you to funding your own enslavement. That translates into global taxation without representation. It’s a wonderful dastardly plan don’t you think? But it sounds kind of conspiratorial doesn’t it, and who would believe such a story?
Yet these problems can be overcome by a joint effort between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of Global Governess with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis.Newly appointed president Herman Van Rompuy of the European Union believes such a story! He has so much as openly admitted that the purpose of the Copenhagen is a step toward global management of the planet. That plan requires money and where do you think that money is going to come from? Taxation!
The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet. Our mission—our presidency is one of hope supported by acts and by deeds.—European Union President Herman Van Rompuy (previous post)
Global institutions such as the European Union or the United Nations do not have the right to tax sovereign nations. To attempt to force taxes on sovereign nations would make the EU and the UN 21st Century Environmental Despots.
The only way that these international bodies could exact taxes from a sovereign nation is if a leader of any sovereign nation signed a treaty giving the EU or the UN authority to tax their country. Barry Hussein Soetoro has already signaled that he is ready to do this.
You remember that was unjust taxation that spurred the thirteen colonies, in the brave new world, to revolt. Unjust taxation gave the colonies the motivation to throw off the tyranny of England ’s King George.
Nasty King George wanted to tax tea and everyone knows that tea was essential to the sensibilities of the good European settlers of the new world. And what do the 21st Century Environmental Despots wish to tax, nothing less than the essential air that you breathe or exhale.
That’s right a world tax on air! Billions upon trillions of dollars based on CO2 emissions that all live carbon based life forms either emit or consume. Animals emit CO2 and plants consume CO2—it’s the circle of life. CO2 is not a pollutant and CO2 is not detrimental to the environment.
Yet the president Soetoro’s EPA has wrongly concluded that a fundamental element of life for this planet is contradictorily a deadly threat to life on this planet. It’s the circle of the ridiculous!
Yet based on this ridiculous notion Barry Hussein Soetoro and other citizens of the world are in Copenhagen attempting to agree to put in place this sinister cap and trade tax on developed and undeveloped nations. And that would be a tax which will once again place all earthly power in the hands of the descendants of King George. And that would be the circle of tyranny!
Monday, December 14, 2009
I cannot argue with those who find these men and women - some known, some obscure to all but those they help - to be far more deserving of this honor than I.—Barry Hussein Soetoro, Oslo Norway 12/10/09 (see transcript)There they sat royalty, commoner, academic, rich and the privileged being lectured to by someone that many in his own country consider to be a Usurper to the presidency.
The sweet irony of it all is Barry Hussein Soetoro illegitimately holds the office of president and as a usurper he accepted a prize that by his own admission was generous given and quite undeserved.
Yet the ultimate contradiction—the Orwellian redefinition of reality was Soetoro standing before the Oslo gathering. And standing there he told them that the prize which they awarded him, the Nobel Peace Prize, could in fact be awarded to a usurper who is conducting two wars because war can be conducted justly (as he is doing) and if waged correctly war is peace. That right Soetoro told Oslo that WAR IS PEACE.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries - including Norway - in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks…
…Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics, and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.—Barry Hussein Soetoro (see 9:38min video 4mins in)
Soetoro said if war is waged as a last resort or in self-defense or if force is used proportionally and if civilians are spared from violence if possible then War is Peace. I'll bet Oslo was so glad to learn that they actually awarded the Nobel Just War Prize instead of the one that they intended to award.
There is one other Orwellian concept that the American people have had to accept under the Soetoro presidency and that is article II of the Constitution; The Constitution does not a President make or you don’t have to be constitutionally eligible to be a Nobel Just War Prize awarded president.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Last night, defying the will of a bipartisan majority of the House and Senate, Democrats voted to allow the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) to receive federal taxpayer dollars.—Rep. John BoehnerThey’re Baaack! Oh it’s not like they ever left but while the American people are preoccupied with Democrats’ Fascist efforts to force Comprehensive Health Care and Cap and Trade taxes on the America people Democrats also thought they’d slip ACORN their complete funding back while you weren’t looking.
You already know that the Barry Hussein Soetoro Justice Department disallowed a presidential order to defund ACORN. (see previous post)
It’s reported by Rep. John Boehner that Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) attempted to offered an amendment during deliberations on the Democrats’ massive year-end appropriations bill to clarify the prohibition on federal funds going to ACORN or its subsidiaries. That amendment was shot down on a 5-9 party line vote as Republicans sided with taxpayers while Democrats stood with ACORN, five Republicans for the amendment Nine Democrats against the amendment.
What that means is Democrats support AG Eric Holder’s office decision to continue to fund ACORN whether Americans like it or not. (see story)
Rep Boehner reported that Rep. Latham’s amendment is necessary to prevent taxpayer money from going to ACORN because the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice has taken advantage of a legal loophole to allow ACORN to continue to receive federal funds – despite the passage of the House GOP’s Defund ACORN Act in the fall.
Please let it be known that your are outraged that your Government would knowingly fund what has been described as a continuing criminal enterprise that is currently been sued in courts across the United States of America for voters fund in the 2008 elections.
The America people do not what their government associated with overt corruption and criminal wrong doing and if there are elements presently in our government that find such associations acceptable these people should be identified and summarily dismissed.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
A draft text leaked to news organizations Tuesday has disrupted the Copenhagen climate talks, outraging poor nations who feel that the agreement gives far too much power to developed countries.They're talking about Billions to Trillions of Dollars in Copenhagen and who will control it. I can hear the naïve among us saying, “But, I thought they were there for Climate Change and saving the planet.” Yeah, right!
The so-called “Danish text,” produced in secret by a small group of developed nations, would give rich nations significant power over the billions of dollars that would be distributed as part of the agreement. –LISA LERER
More leaked information about Global warming. This time the “Danish text” was leaked to the press during the Copenhagen climate meetings and its content has nothing to do with phony science this time the leak has to do with phony intent. (see story)
According to the “Danish text” Global warming is not about saving the planet. No, on the contrary, Global warming is about enslaving the planet.
Global warming is about enriching a few people with billions of dollars by creating a new world system. Call it Kyoto II, or call it cap and trade, it’s all the same thing! This is a scheme concerning American tax payers’ dollars to create an international trading market from which to buy and sell carbon credits. It is a market which will be controlled by the European Union and the United Nations.
The agreements that are being sought by developing nations in the Copenhagen meetings are about billions of dollars in carbon trading and credits. But smaller non-developed nations believe that with all of that money at stake developed nations can’t be trusted to do the right thing.
The unearned windfall [Russia’s carbon credits], a legacy of the Kyoto agreement that tried to deal with the threat of climate change, is worth several billion dollars.There is also the problem of Russia! Russia has a surplus of carbon credits according to James Kanter. They received them as a result of the collapse of much of its heavy industry in the 1990s, Russia owns one of the largest stocks of credits to offset carbon emissions. (see story)
If abruptly sold abroad, those credits could send the price of carbon on the world’s fragile emissions markets plunging toward zero.
Without a predictable and reasonably high price for carbon emissions, most economists say, there is little prospect of setting in motion the many investments needed to shift from a carbon-intensive industrial economy to a more sustainable energy base in developed and developing countries alike.—James Kanter
What does all of this mean? The agreements set to be signed by president Barry Hussein Soetoro and other leaders of the world will begin the shutting down the productivity of western industries by imposing draconian carbon fines on them while allowing under developed nations to emit just enough carbon emissions to keep them poor and limit their growth too. The E.U. and the U.N. are set to collect all of the fines or “taxes.”
Their ultimate goal is to have all nations equally in economic bondage while placing the European Union and the United Nations above them all thus replacing the United States as the world’s pre-eminent and predominant economic power.
Ultimately according to the "Danish text" the Europe Union will supplant even the United Nations to become the sole World power.
The above explains the decades of weakening the U.S. economy by outsourcing middle class jobs, the in-sourcing Illegal Aliens to take up low wage American jobs, the banking crisis and the collapse of the dollar. There is a saying that nothing in politics is by accident. America’s economic troubles are due to world politics.
The world politics of changing from one economic power to another, don’t look now but America has been replaced. We are in the last throes of being a world economic leader.
Everything that has happened was needful in order to replace America as the world’s leader in economic power as Bill Clinton forecasted in 2002:
[T]his "brief moment in history" when the US had pre-eminent military, economic and political power, would not last.As more and more of you are about to discover Copenhagen is not about Global warming, it’s about global power, global dominance and global money.
"This is just a period, a few decades this will last, and I think that all of us who are Americans should think about this and ask ourselves how do we wish this moment to be judged 50 years from now," –Former President Bill Clinton (see story)
Zie spoedig u!
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
WASHINGTON, March 3 (UPI) -- Shovels already are hitting the ground in just the two weeks since the $787 billion stimulus package was signed, U.S. President Barack Obama said Tuesday.He promised shovel ready jobs if the Congress rushed through the $787 billion dollar stimulus earlier this year. He promised 400,000 to 3.5 million jobs and that unemployment would not rise above 8%. But as we all know by now absolutely nothing that he promised was real. It was all made up. (see 4:21min video)
Speaking to Transportation Department employees and flanked by Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Obama said 400,000 jobs of the estimated 3.5 million jobs either created or saved were involved in rebuilding infrastrucuture, updating transit or laying broadband line. –UPI(see source)
Now that he can no longer deny the reality of unemployment as high as 10.2% nor can he deny the made up Congressional districts in which made up jobs appeared, Soetoro admitted that he lied about jobs. No he didn’t say that he lied, and he didn’t admit that he was wrong about everything, he did just the opposite. Soetoro pretended like his economic policies worked but at the same time he's called for a jobs summit.
What does calling for a Jobs Summit mean? It means that Soetoro's economic stimulus failed. It means that his economy stimulus did not create the jobs that he said it would. Calling for a jobs summit is an admission that what he's done didn't work, it is an admission that Soetoro lied.
He’s finally realizing that government cannot produce the jobs that are needed to help the economy grow. Astonishingly, in true Orwellian doublethink and in full knowledge of the fact he is wrongly taking credit for none existent improvements in the economy Soetoro continues his false jobs creation rhetoric while at the same time calling for a jobs summit to create the jobs that his 787 billion stimulus didn't. (see 3:28 min video)
But it’s much more than a jobs summit, it’s an open acknowledgement that the Barry Hussein Soetoro administration’s philosophy that Government is the solution to all of America’s problems is totally wrong. It is also an acknowledgement that this present course in 700 billion dollars in bailouts, 787 billion dollars in stimulus spending, 1 trillion dollars in health care reform and trillions of dollars in global warming cost is unsustainable.
Although president Soetoro will never say straightforwardly that he is wrong about jobs,that he is wrong about the economy and he is wrong about everything that he and Democrat have done up to and including this point, he did acknowledge that the stimulus has not worked and that the government cannot create enough jobs to save this economy.
"The tension we've been seeing is that what is good for the longer term may not work as an immediate short-term stimulus. We're still getting slapped around in the Recovery Act for this.A fix will only come from the private sector. This is exactly what Conservatives and Republicans have been saying all along and as Soetoro now acknowledges true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector so the 787 billion dollars that Democrats voted to give to themselves was a fraud perpetrated on the American people in the name of jobs creation. All of the promises were lies. (see 1:39min video)
The term 'shovel-ready' -- let's be honest, it doesn't always live up to its billing."—president Barry Hussein Soetoro (see source)
"While I believe that government has a critical role in creating the conditions for economic growth, ultimately, true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector.
We don't have enough public dollars to fill the hole of private dollars that was created as a consequence of the crisis. It is only when the private sector starts to reinvest again; only when our businesses start hiring again and people start spending again and families start seeing improvement in their own lives again, that we're going to have the kind of economy that we want,"—president Barry Hussein Soetoro
You see the 787 billion dollar stimulus was never about saving or creating jobs,if it was it was a miserable failure. It was so bad that president Soetoro had to call for a Jobs Summit.
The Jobs Summit is proof that the Congress and the president were derelict in their duties and they defrauded the American people. Something to think about for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
I've gotten some very tough calls from parents of Cadets and from former Cadets at West Point about my saying last night that the President had gone to speak to "maybe the enemy camp."West Point is the enemy camp? Not the first or only outrageous thing that Chris Matthews has said but clearly the most unpatriotic and most dangerous. Yet I just love it when Liberals say what they really think and even they realize what they think is so outrageous that maybe they should apology for it. Even though it is a fake apology.
I was talking about the skepticism I saw on the faces in the crowd as President Obama spoke, also how West Point was where President Bush went in 2002 to make his most hawkish speech before the Iraq War. –Chris Matthews
Remember for Democrats the CIA, Returning war veterans, Christians, gun owners, Conservatives and Proponents of traditional marriage are potential enemies of the state. (see here and here)
So I have no doubt that Chris Matthews feels that West Point IS the enemy camp. He reaffirms as much in his apology when he said, “ I was talking about the skepticism I saw on the faces in the crowd as President Obama spoke, also how West Point was where President Bush went in 2002 to make his most hawkish speech before the Iraq War. “ In liberal math skepticism about president Barry Hussein Soetoro plus a place that approves of president Bush (as Matthews perceives West Point to be) adds up to the enemy camp!
But first what Matthews really thinks (see 31 sec. video)
Now I've found that an apology that is forced can be one of necessity. And after hearing Matthews’ apology I find it was forced. He may have also felt that his career depended upon an apology. I also have experienced that an apology full of explain rather than a concise acceptance of wrong doing is not an apology at all. Instead it is an attempt to justify one's position under the guise of, “I’m sorry.” (see 1:59min video)
I've gotten some very tough calls from parents of Cadets and from former Cadets at West Point about my saying last night that the President had gone to speak to "maybe the enemy camp." I was talking about the skepticism I saw on the faces in the crowd as President Obama spoke, also how West Point was where President Bush went in 2002 to make his most hawkish speech before the Iraq War.
Now I've heard too many politicians say things like "oh that was taken out of context" to explain something they wish they hadn't said. Let me just say to the cadets, their parents, former cadets, and everyone who cares about this country and those who defend it, I used the wrong words and worse than that I said something that is just not right. For that I deeply apologize.
As those who watch me regularly probably got right away, my point was that the military up at West Point was probably a skeptical audience for President Obama given his strong position against the war in Iraq and generally more dovish image.
I was wrong to make that conclusion based on the lack of applause or apparent enthusiasm in the ranks of officers and cadets last night. Cadets, one former cadet and friend just told me, aren't supposed to show that kind of reaction to a speaker.
He reminded me that soldiers, including those now in training to face the enemy, want wars to be fought effectively and ended as quickly as possible. I had no reason to assume that the cadets at West Point or the officers present last night are more hawkish than the President.
People who have watched me over the years know, I think, of my strong devotion to this country and strong gratitude toward those who serve it in the military. It's because our military is so good and true, I want the civilians who make the policies, and set the missions, to get them right, in this country's best possible interest. And it's something we're allowed to argue about in this country
Whenever I meet someone with a service record, I always say "Thank you for your service." They know I say it and I hope they know I mean it.–Chris Matthews (source)As Matthews readily admits Liberals speak a special language among themselves.
As those who watch me regularly probably got right away, my point was that the military up at West Point was probably a skeptical audience for President Obama given his strong position against the war in Iraq and generally more dovish image.Yes we all got you Chris. The military hence West Point is pro-Bush, pro-war and Conservative by Liberal definition, therefore they would naturally be skeptical of a dovish and anti-war president like Barry Hussein Soetoro.
Your Liberal bias, prejudice and ignorance are once again showing Mr. Matthews. Even though president Soetoro exploited the cadets of West Point, using them as a back drop and photo op for his most unfortunate exit Afghanistan speech, nevertheless the cadets showed him the utmost respect.
The Cadets of West Point showed the president the respect that they would show any president. Just because you didn’t perceive tingles up the Cadets legs or the “Oh my gosh Mr. President, thank you for taking time out of your busy day,” unmerited adulation for Soetoro that you think he deserves doesn’t mean that West Point was in any way hostilely negative toward Soetoro.
But thank you Chris for pointing out once again that you consider any and all things traditionally American the enemy. That also explains a lot about you and your viewers.
Again what it explains without question is like al Qaeda's declared war on America in 1998 for the most part Americans didn’t know it, in like fashion Liberals have declared war on Conservatives.
The twin towers of Conservative power have already been devastated in 2006 and 2008 when Conservatives loss both houses and Congress and the presidency. When will Conservatives realize that they are at war with Liberals and in fact we ARE the ENEMY CAMP!
Monday, December 07, 2009
Congresswoman you know I have heard Democrats now saying that these four Moderates, these holdouts, Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz, these hold outs are the tail driving the Donkey here[…]They’ve got 59 votes plus 1 Independent and 1 RINO, that’s 61 votes, but they still can’t past their signature bill, Universal Health Care Reform. Let this be a lesson for all of you who continue the insane meme that Republicans need a big tent. Big tents don’t work; they never have in the truest sense.
How are you going to reconcile all of these seemingly irreconcilable positions to get a bill even that you can, you know, you can bring to a vote—Geraldo Rivera
Geraldo Rivera states the big tent conundrum. How do you reconcile all the irreconcilable positions of the big tent?
Democrats won the 2006 and 2008 elections by running “Conservative Democrats” otherwise known as Blue Dog Democrats and now as a result their caucus is a virtual battleground of political ideological cagefighting. (see 5:10min video)
Attempting to make their big tent work Democrats have had to exhort a 300 million dollar Health Care vote from Sen. Mary Landrieu otherwise known as the second Louisiana purchase. They have had to arm twist and cajole their own Party members to get them in line in spite of their irreconcilable differences over abortion and the government private option.
Obama and Reid must unite liberals and moderates in the 60-member caucus, even as moderates balk over abortion and a proposal for the government to sell health insurance in competition with the private market.—Washington (AP)Things are deteriorating in the Democrat big tent at such an alarming rate that they have had to call in their Nobel Peace awarded Icon to make peace under the big tent. No doubt that he will stress the historic importance of the big picture of Democrat unity in spite of the losses that they are sure to incur when Democrats use their Fascist force to impose Universal Care on an American populist that has resoundedly said that they do not want their government to run one-sixth of the economy through government takeover of health care. (see story)
Notwithstanding, what is continuing to be a huge disappointment is how the Liberal Elite Media attempts to keep up the intellectually deceptive narrative that this is a Republican verses Democrat battle.
Sixty is the precise number needed to overcome Republican stalling tactics in the 100-member Senate, so Reid doesn't have a vote to spare.—Washington (AP)Com’ on Man! There is absolutely nothing that Republicans can do to stop Democrats from passing health care. This is strictly a Democrat against Democrat inside fight which is a result of the Democrat big tent. If health care is defeated or if it passes this year it will be solely the responsibility of Democrats alone so stop the bull! The fight is within the super majority filibuster proof 60 to 61 numbers that Democrats control not the 40 Republicans in the minority.
Will president Barry Hussein Soetoro and Democrats double down by demanding that Democrats goosestep into infamy by fundamentally changing the health care industry against the wishes a majority of the American people?
If Democrats can get their political Clowns, high wire Aerialist and Animal handler acts coordinated in the Senate’s three ring health care circus under the Democrat big tent, they will pass health care reform and they will be solely responsible for doing so. But should they fail to pass health care reform, again the fault will be solely their own.
Full liability is the responsibility Democrats assumed when they convinced the America people to give them super majorities in both houses of Congress and put them in charge of all three branches of Government. In addition the reigning confusion which Democrats are experiencing was concocted when Democrats forsook their Liberal values recruited Conservative Democrats in order to gain their majority numbers in Congress.
Whether health care passes or not, the Democrat Party will continue to be in a state of confliction due to the corrupting of ideology for artificial political advantage. Republican should be well aware of this phenomenon because it was big tent politics that gave Republicans a Compassionate Conservative, a Maverick and the RINO things from Maine. All of which combined to ultimately result in a failed political Party!
RNC Chairman Michael Steele's idea for a 10-point Republican values test received some push back by pundits. I would check to see if these critics had the Republican Party's best interest at heart before I would completely scrap the idea if I were Mr. Steele. I see no better time for some values clarification then now when various nefarious agenda driven groups have attempted to weaken the Republican Party with their own agenda driven politics, the Log Cabin Republicans being just one such group. Having a set of values defined can do nothing but strengthen the Party.
At any rate, let the trouble that Democrats are experiencing be a lesson for all of those calling for Big tent politics within the Republican Party. Republicans are in the minority because of the big tent and ultimately Democrats will be too!
Friday, December 04, 2009
And then Dean explains why Barry Hussein Soetoro has not gotten off of the campaign trail since he’s been elected. It’s a new ploy by the Democrats called, “The Permanent Campaign.” In the permanent campaign an elected official, Soetoro in this case just keep right on campaigning as if he is still running for office. For those of you who said that it seemed like he was still campaigning after 10 months in office you were right, he was!Howard Dean speaking in Paris France April 5, 2009 explains how the Democrat Party uses double think to justify their contradictory position on Capitalism and the perpetual campaign of Barry Hussein Soetoro. What is double think you ask?
Double think as described in the George Orwell book 1984 by Winston Smith the novel's protagonist, described doublethink in this fashion:
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.'
Dean explains how Democrat Political hierarchy no longer rejects Capitalism out of hand. No, Democrats believe that they can have the best of Capitalism and Socialism. Call it a hybrid Socitalism or Capocialism. Democrats use the Orwellian concept of double think to create the impossibility of two contradictory ideologies existing in the same space at the same time in both thought and reality.
And then Dean explains why Barry Hussein Soetoro has not gotten off of the campaign trail since he’s been elected. It’s a new ploy by the Democrats called, “The Permanent Campaign.” In the permanent campaign an elected official, Soetoro in this case just keep right on campaigning as if he is still running for office. For those of you who said that it seemed like he was still campaigning after 10 months in office you were right, he was!
According to Dean Democrats also use the permanent campaign for issues too. So now that you Conservatives know the new strategy it’s time for you to learn and adapt.
Thank you Dr. Dean for verifying the Democrat strategies what we were seeing. I always told you Liberals are Orwellian on the Machiavellian side. Now with Dean's help you see why I say so.