On the night of his election, standing atop a stage in Grant Park, Barack Obama reiterated one of the central themes of his candidacy. “LET US RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO FALL BACK ON THE SAME PARTISANSHIP AND PETTINESS AND IMMATURITY THAT HAS POISONED OUR POLITICS FOR SO LONG,” the Great Unifier said.
In Denver, during the Democratic National Convention, he said this: “One of the things that WE HAVE TO CHANGE IN OUR POLITICS IS THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE CANNOT DISAGREE WITHOUT CHALLENGING EACH OTHER’S CHARACTER AND EACH OTHER’S PATRIOTISM.”
So how are “resisting the partisan temptation” and “changing our politics” going in the Age of Obama?
Not well—if the evidence from the Democratic side of the aisle over the last 24 hours is to be trusted.
Representative LOUISE SLAUGHTER, in talking about the GOP effort to stop government money from going to Planned Parenthood, said REPUBLICANS ARE “HERE TO KILL WOMEN.” She went on to compare them to—wait for it—Nazis.
Former Speaker NANCY PELOSI, adding her typically gracious touch to things, said that what REPUBLICANS ARE DOING IS DECLARING A “WAR ON WOMEN.”
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, in keeping with the spirit of the metaphor, said that REPUBLICANS ARE ADVOCATING THE “FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF BOMBING INNOCENT CIVILIANS.”
Senator Majority Leader HARRY REID, emerging as the softy in the bunch, said REPUBLICANS “WANT TO SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THEY THINK THERE’S NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN KEEPING WOMEN FROM GETTING CANCER SCREENINGS.”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/08/well-executed-con-job
I thought after the shooting in Arizona we were supposed to dial down the rhetoric. I guess that doesn’t apply if you are a liberal.
Spending cuts, not policy riders, held up a deal, GOP aides say
House and Senate negotiators had reached a deal on controversial policy riders late Thursday night, according to a GOP leadership source close to the intense talks that resulted in an eleventh-hour deal to avert government shutdown, despite Democrats’ claims to the contrary.
House and Senate Democratic lawmakers spent most of Friday attacking Republicans for holding up a government funding measure over a controversial social policy rider to defund Planned Parenthood, but a source close to the situation said that Democratic attacks were "just a ruse."
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/155067-spending-cuts-not-policy-riders-held-up-a-deal-gop-aides-say
What politicians not telling the truth!!! Do you know how you can tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.
One more time: Why AGW is false
….The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But THE GRAVY TRAIN WAS TOO BIG, WITH TOO MANY JOBS, INDUSTRIES, TRADING PROFITS, POLITICAL CAREERS, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF WORLD GOVERNMENT AND TOTAL CONTROL RIDING ON THE OUTCOME. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the MORE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE AIR, THE WARMER THE PLANET. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much…...
….THE DISAGREEMENT COMES ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But DOES THE WATER HANG AROUND AND INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF MOIST AIR IN THE ATMOSPHERE, OR DOES IT SIMPLY CREATE MORE CLOUDS AND RAIN? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.
This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so TWO-THIRDS OF THEIR PROJECTED WARMING IS DUE TO EXTRA MOIST AIR (AND OTHER FACTORS); ONLY ONE-THIRD IS DUE TO EXTRA CARBON DIOXIDE.
That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The ALARMIST CASE IS BASED ON THIS GUESS ABOUT MOISTURE IN THE ATMOSPHERE, AND THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE FOR THE AMPLIFICATION THAT IS AT THE CORE OF THEIR ALARMISM.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, THE WEATHER BALLOONS FOUND NO HOT SPOT. NONE AT ALL. NOT EVEN A SMALL ONE. THIS EVIDENCE PROVES THAT THE CLIMATE MODELS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
AT THIS POINT, OFFICIAL “CLIMATE SCIENCE” STOPPED BEING A SCIENCE. In science, empirical EVIDENCE ALWAYS TRUMPS THEORY, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — …
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
I’ve posted a lot of this article, but it explains the argument very well. So next time someone says “everyone agrees” you not only know better, but quoting from this story should end the argument. Simply ask them where’s the hot spot?
No comments:
Post a Comment