Articles Tagged "2012 USA Election"
Sorted by: Date Posted
Wednesday, March 20th 2013, 8:52 AM EDT
Roger Tallbloke has sent in via Twitter the following chart in reply to the recent Bjorn Lomborg article 40% of the warming we have seen the past 50 years can be ascribed not to man-made global warming but the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)
Look at this for my AMO/SOI/Solar/CO2 reconstruction of SST from 1874:
Click source for bigger image
Saturday, February 16th 2013, 3:08 PM EST
Earlier this week in his State of the Union address President Obama made some observations on climate change so brimming with falsehoods I'm surprised his nose didn't fall off.
It really doesn't matter where he himself was deliberately lying or whether he was merely lending the gravitas of his office to the deliberate lies of others. The point is that the President of the USA has access to any number of fact checkers and advisers and if he stands up and addresses the nation with a farrago of complete untruths then the buck stops with him. This dissembling and mendacity becomes all the more culpable when it forms the basis of major public policy decisions which will have a serious impact on people's lives in the US and beyond.
So why this snake-oil salesman being allowed to get away with it?
Here's the offending part of Obama's speech.
Now, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science and act before it’s too late.
Wednesday, February 13th 2013, 2:46 PM EST
The President offered up nothing more than the usual incorrect global warming platitudes during his speech. No wonder the speech brought a "smile" to Al Gore's face. The president could not have been more wrong in claiming “extreme weather” was “now more frequent and intense" and he failed to note that global temperatures have not increased in 16 years.
Climate Depot's Point-by-Point rebuttal:
President Obama: 'But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change'
Climate Depot Reaction: Our children do not need politicians in Washington posturing and pretending they can control global temperatures and make storms less severe or less frequent. See: Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball: 'Future generations will curse why we allowed a few political bullies to undermine development & progress with the false claim that human CO2 is causing climate change' Future generations 'will wonder how people could write such misinformed, hysterical, commentary.'
MIT's Dr. Lindzen: "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.'
Tuesday, January 29th 2013, 2:38 AM EST
President Barack Obama in his second inauguration address called for new action to “respond to the threat of climate change.” Taking advantage of the bully pulpit and a huge national audience, Obama mustered his best possible arguments in a brief case for why addressing global warming is supposedly necessary.
Unfortunately for global warming alarmists, Obama’s case was exceptionally flimsy. Then again, Obama did not have much to work with, as the overall case for global warming alarmism is exceptionally flimsy.
Obama presented his argument as follows: “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”
Given a fresh canvas on which to work, Obama sought the most compelling examples of an asserted global warming crisis. He chose wildfires, drought and powerful storms. At the same time, he urged us to defer to the “overwhelming judgment of science” on these matters.
Sunday, January 27th 2013, 12:45 PM EST
In the bizarre world of climate alarmism, a naturally evolving climate is viewed as a man-made catastrophe, but an evolving political climate is not, as long as it supports the hysteria. Few advocate learning enough about science to separate fact from fiction, because knowledge is considered an impediment to progress.
With the re-election of Barack Obama, his radical followers declared, “This is our time,” and ramped up efforts to transform society back to a simpler period when energy meant horse power and prosperity was a distant dream. The president steered clear of this climate morass, preferring to let his Environmental Protection Agency work “the problem” away from public scrutiny.
In the meantime, we have seen storms of alarmism. Public television declared that Hurricane Sandy fit the pattern expected in a warming world, despite the fact that the incidence of major hurricanes has declined dramatically to half what it was in the colder 1950s. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and two Oregon State University philosophy professors stressed their intellectual superiority over “creationists” and “deniers” (“Rejecting science that crosses faith,” Paul Krugman, Nov. 24, 2012; “Exposing the logic of climate change denial,” Michael P. Nelson and Kathleen Dean Moore, Dec. 2, 2012). And Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein rejoiced that his relentless climate propaganda was sinking into the American psyche.
Saturday, January 26th 2013, 4:46 PM EST
President Obama suggested in his second inaugural speech that God expects us to “preserve our planet” by taking steps to combat “the threat of climate change”. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science,” he said, “but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling droughts and more powerful storms.”
He seemed clearly to be blaming man-made climate change for the fact that his country last year endured its worst drought for 75 years; for Storm Sandy, which flooded New York; and for a record acreage of forest lost to fires. But one wonders how closely Mr Obama consulted “the overwhelming judgment of science” on these matters.
The Palmer Drought Severity Index shows no rising trend of drought in the US since the 1880s (the 1930s Dust Bowl disaster long preceding the scare over global warming). Figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration similarly show no rising trend in US hurricane activity (more intense in the 1950s than in recent years). As for forest fires, there are many experts (as in Australia and Spain) who argue that much of the increase in fire damage is due to pressure from “green” environmentalists to forbid the clearing of underbrush, which encourages fires to spread quicker and further than proper woodland management would allow.
I am not sure that the President’s wish to see yet more subsidies poured into windmills and solar panels will do as much to change the Earth’s climate as he fondly believes.
Click source for more from Christopher Booker [Forget Brussels: now we are ruled by the giants of Geneva]
Tuesday, January 22nd 2013, 9:52 AM EST
In his second inaugural speech, Barack Obama said, “We must respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations”?
To what “climate change” is Obama referring? Is it the now thoroughly debunked “global warming” hoax? Is it the climate change of the 11,500 years since the last ice age? Or is it “the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms” to which Obama referred?
If it is the latter, does anyone actually believe that these natural events can be mitigated by anything Americans or the entire population of the world can do? Did any among the thousands in attendance at the inauguration, shivering in the frigid weather, wonder what the President was talking about or why?
After more than three decades of being told that the Earth was dangerously heating up by people like Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there are more voices warning that the current cold cycle that will last, at a minimum, several decades.
The public continues to be misled to the mainstream media and, more importantly, by the federal government whose increased environmental regulations are based on the global warming lies, so who can you believe?
Monday, January 21st 2013, 5:55 PM EST
When George W Bush declared war on an abstract noun – "Terror" – he was widely and inevitably mocked by the left for his foolishness. Not to be outdone, Barack Obama has used his second inaugural address to declare war on an even more nebulous threat to the security of the world: reality, itself.
Here's how he put it in his inaugural address: (H/T Theo Spleenventer; Bishop Hill)
We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.
Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.
The first sentence is a blatant untruth. Concerted global action so far to deal with the threat of climate change has resulted in: higher energy prices; more deaths from fuel poverty; more intrusive regulation; the destruction of rainforests and the squandering of agricultural land on biofuels; higher food prices; famine and food riots – as a result partly of the drive for biofuels; the entrenchment of corporatism and rent-seeking to the detriment of free markets; the ravaging of the countryside with ugly solar farms and even uglier wind turbines; the deaths of millions of birds and bats; the great recession. How any of this has in any way benefited either our children (who are going to find it far harder to find a job) or future generations is a complete mystery.
Monday, November 12th 2012, 4:13 PM EST
Barack Obama received more than 99% of the vote in more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio on election day. In fact, there were a substantial number of precincts where Mitt Romney got exactly zero votes. So how in the world did this happen? Third world dictators don’t even get 99% of the vote. Overall, Mitt Romney received 30.12%of the vote in Cuyahoga County. There were even a bunch of precincts in Cuyahoga County that Romney actually won. But everyone certainly expected that Cuyahoga County would be Obama territory. And in most of the precincts that is exactly what we saw – large numbers of votes for both candidates but a definite edge for Obama.
However, there are more than 100 precincts in Cuyahoga County where the voting results can only be described as truly bizarre. Yes, we always knew that urban areas would lean very heavily toward Obama, but are we actually expected to believe that Obama got over 99% of the votes in those areas? In more than 50 different precincts, Romney received 2 votes or less. Considering how important the swing state of Ohio was to the national election, one would think that such improbable results would get the attention of somebody out there. Could we be looking at evidence of election fraud hidden in plain sight?
Perhaps if there were just one or two precincts where Obama got more than 99% of the vote we could dismiss the results as “statistical anomalies” and ignore them.
Source Link: infowars.com/
Thursday, November 8th 2012, 12:05 PM EST
"Can't wait for the leftards' misery when Romney wins. It will be like eating foie gras to the sound of trumpets." @jamesdelingpole on Twitter last week.
Well: I think that's what they call a 'hostage to fortune.' And, of course, I don't remotely blame all the leftards who've been blowing raspberries in response. I'm sure I would have done just the same had our positions been reversed.
Nonetheless it seems to me that the victory the Obamaphiles have won is entirely Pyrrhic. In what way, I would like to ask them, is a second term for a proven failure a good thing? On the evidence of Obama's four years in power so far, what exactly have they seen that augurs so well for the next four years of the American presidency?
Was it his resolute decision to sacrifice the lives of four brave men in Benghazi, perhaps?
157 articles foundshowing page 1 of 16« previous 1 2 3 4
. . . 15 16 next »