JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

A moment of truth in the State of the Union?

Mark From the Hooterville gazette has spotted a very telling moment in Obama’s speech when the crowd laughs. Watch it closely.Without being in the room it’s hard to know who was laughing, and why. A year ago we could have assumed that laughter after a line about “overwhelming evidence” was really the crowd mocking those who don’t believe. But this is different.

“I know there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change….        but….     but…      but here’s the thing, even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for clean energy and efficiency is the right thing to do.”

I watched it a few times to be sure I wasn’t misreading it. But the clues are clear. Watch Obama, he is not expecting to say a funny line. His response to the rising laugh tells us the laugh was not part of the plan. A good speaker (and he’s polished) knows intuitively that the way to kill a laugh is to speak over the top of it and interrupt the “moment”. (Professional speakers are coached to pause after delivering a scripted line that’s intended for comic effect). But tellingly, Obama tries twice to interject as the laughter slowly gathers pace, but he can’t stop it, so he concedes and briefly joins in.

Laughter is a group thing, bound up in our gregarious interactions. (Try laughing on your own, laughing is not about the joke, so much as it’s about the company.)  Obama had to join in.

Usually, also, a group laugh builds very fast. But this one develops momentum slowly across the room. It’s almost as if the audience was surprised to find it was laughing. This was The State of The Union after all.

Watch Pelosi, she beams for most of Obama’s talk, but there’s a flickering grimace as the laugh keeps building. For a second she’s worried it will become even louder. Belatedly Obama joins the laughter. There wasn’t much else he could do.

He will have noticed the effect his use of the word “overwhelming” had on the crowd.

What was unfolding is that the news of the climategate scandal, (and the seemingly endless round of other scandals) means that in the mixed audience of republicans and democrats there would be a sizeable group who would be well versed in just how corrupt the system is. For these people, it’s involuntary, it’s hard to hear the words “overwhelming evidence” and not think “let’s hide the decline”, “use some tricks” and “delete the data”.  (Once you know, you can’t help but laugh at the pretence that this is meant to persuade us).

This naked moment tells everyone in the room that the political force of fake authoritative science is spent. The tipping point has tipped in the highest of circles. Many people in the crowd may have known for a while that there is no overwhelming evidence, but now the whole crowd knows that the bombastic line about evidence has backfired.

The emperor has no clothes… and the audience is aware.

There’s a long clip on youtube here if you want more context. The action is around 4:40.

There are some truly scary video’s on the rest of this Hooterville page.  Check out the bedtime story indoctrination!


UPDATE: This post hereoffers an odd mix of real information and outright denial of what happened at the same time. It seems we can credit Barton (long time skeptic) with setting things off…

“At that moment Barton–the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee–stood up, clapped and waved at the president. Other Republicans remained seated–and silent.

Undeterred, Obama continued…”

Juliet Eilperin’s analysis of what happened pretends that outright laughter is equal to silence, (don’t believe your lying ears) and that Obama was undeterred despite being forced to join in and weakly laugh at the word “overwhelming” when he was trying to be serious. Strange how the world looks through the prism of a fake scare.

Thanks to Jerry for the link.

Thanks to Wesley #46 for his incisive observation: “Watch where Pelosi and Biden look. Its to their left [right side of the screen] <strong>Its the republicans that started laughing first.</strong> But Obama, Pelosi and Biden all know they’re on camera. Their only defence is to act as if its a bipartisan joke. So they and many in the democrats laugh belatedly.”

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
A moment of truth in the State of the Union?, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yzw485d

No comments yet to A moment of truth in the State of the Union?

  • #
    Otter

    This particular state of the union address will go down in history as one of the most…….. disgraceful. He lied, he bullied, he threatened. I’m pleased to have been able to vote for a different candidate; just too bad too many ill-informed people voted for him, instead.

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    ………..but …but
    He now has Osama Bin Laden on board.

    His conclusions are peer reviewed

    00

  • #
    Michael

    Dr Henrik Svensmark’s theory on climate being driven by the interelatedness of the Magnetism between the sun and earth, coupled with the cyclical flow of cosmic radiation from inter-galactic space has been accepted as a very plausible causitive agent behind the Earth’s climate.

    See the You-tube six video clip series: The Cloud Mystery

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA

    The six papers in defense of his theory: Niche/Modeling blog

    http://landshape.org/enm/cosmic-ray-flux-and-the-ipcc

    and the instructive hour-long video relating climate to cosmic rays:

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

    Obama and others should fear the release by MSM. I hope I live to see the day. If you have difficulty in accessing any of these sites let me know and I will backtrack for verification.

    00

  • #

    [...] Obama and the evidence [...]

    00

  • #
    Albert

    Joanne,
    This may interest your readers.
    Nancy Pelosi born March 26, 1940(doesn’t she look well for 70), is the first female Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. She is also the first Italian-American and first Californian to serve as Speaker.
    As Speaker of the House, Pelosi is second in the line of presidential succession, following Vice President Joe Biden, which makes her the highest-ranking female politician in American history.

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    There is sort of an “We all know this is bullshit, but lets ride the pony to one world socialism anyhow” vibe to it.

    00

  • #
    average joe

    Its difficult to keep the mask now, as the mantra is being repeated.

    Just like robots.

    00

  • #
    davidc

    Yes, this is hard to read. Is it normal for Congress to react like this to a Presidential address? Or is this now a conventional partisan tactic?

    He also got a laugh when he said a few details needed to be sorted out regarding his health plan. So maybe they were laughing at Obama personally. But they could also be laughing at the idea that the evidence for “climate change” is overwhelming, either at the lteral meaning or as code for global warming. Or they could be laughing at him appearing to take seriously those who disagree with the evidence.

    But I’m left with the impression that this was not a group of people who believe that what is being commented on is the greatest threat ever faced by humanity. Just politics.

    00

  • #
    Michael

    In Dr. John P Costella’s ‘Climategate analysis’ pdf (scienceandpublicpolicy.org) there exists a documents file. When opened it reveals the confidential innerworkings of the UN-IPCC. Interestingly, the document file Rules Of The Game reveals a sinister methodology for how to best indoctrinate the world’s citizens into becoming AGWarmers. I was stunned. Now I realize just how naive I have really been. Hope this will help.

    http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/documents/RulesOfTheGame.pdf

    00

  • #
    BJM

    Rudd and Wong et el, are doing the same thing. These people do not and will not get it. The ‘jig’ is up. More people are becoming aware at what a fraud the whole Climate/Global warming hysteria was. Introduce a new tax and more regulation at your own peril. I really cannot understand these people, are they that indoctrinated or do they have another agenda? Well of course they have another agenda, selling each others respective Nations’ sovereignty out to the United Nations – ‘Progressives’ have been doing that for years. So there must be a financial component in there somewhere. Talk about desperate politics.

    00

  • #

    The best line I’ve seen about Obama is :

    “The new clothes have got no Emperor” (an empty suit)

    Biden and Pelosi are Obama’s insurance policy against assassination. Next in line is ….. Hillary.

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Yep, it’s awkward when people start laughing at your attempt at a serious point. Best to join in with the laughter rather than get all huffy and defensive and look like a dork – school-yard stuff, really.

    Anyway, he is talking to the group that didn’t cough up even one vote for the Kyoto Protocol, so he should have known better.

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    You are poking fun at my president? MY PRESIDENT?

    Ok, just checking. I would laugh too if I was not crying from the pain.

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    11Mike Borgelt:
    January 30th, 2010 at 7:35 am
    The best line I’ve seen about Obama is :

    “The new clothes have got no Emperor” (an empty suit)

    Biden and Pelosi are Obama’s insurance policy against assassination. Next in line is ….. Hillary.

    Very true! I never claimed Obama was stupid. Surrounding himself with those buffoons guarantees most Americans have his back!

    00

  • #

    This naked moment tells everyone in the room that the political force of fake authoritative science is spent. The tipping point has tipped in the highest of circles. Many people in the crowd may have known for a while that there is no overwhelming evidence, but now the whole crowd knows that the bombastic line about evidence has backfired.

    Very nicely put.

    00

  • #
    Atheist Ranter

    The bottom line is, he’s a politician. You know when a politician is lying because his lips are moving. How anyone can publicly spout crap about AGW being real leaves me cold with embarrassment. Obama surely can’t think he is helping the USA (or even himself or his political party) by continuing with that tripe??

    00

  • #
    average joe

    You have to remember that most people think a dog is stupid.

    But a dog has a very high IQ when it comes to the important matters.

    -Getting food, and adding its share to the gene-pool.

    These people have a very high IQ when it comes to aquiring power and control.

    00

  • #
    Ted Douglas

    He’s speaking before the members of Congress, where debates can be heated and the “overwhelming evidence” has surely been coming up a lot lately (someone who’s glued to C-SPAN might shed light on that; I pay little attention).

    So a slightly different interpretation might be that the “some debate” got the laughter started because the people there saw it as a tremendous understatement.

    00

  • #

    One more time, it is all about the money.

    Barack Obama got his start in politics with the help of the environmentalists.

    From: Steve Milloy November 6, 2008 “I had no money, had no organization, it was unlikely that the Democrats would nominate a skinny guy from the Southside with a funny name like Barack Obama,” he told the National Journal’s CongressDaily publication.

    Momentum began to shift his way “when we got the support of the League of Conservation Voters,” he said. “Not only did they provide us financial support, not only was [LCV head] Deb Callahan’s gorgeous face on television saying I was a pretty good guy — and that sold some tickets right there — more importantly the League, along with the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations, signaled to those who are considered swing voters in the state of Illinois, Republicans and independents who may sometimes veer toward that side of the aisle.” Obama was the first non-incumbent member of Congress to be included on the LCV’s list of “environmental champions.”

    Milloy nailed it on the head, Obama has no choice but to play ball with the greens. The only way he will be able to take a different stance on AGW is if nobody that he is beholden to has the goods on him. The guy was bought and paid for just like every politician. The good news is that the political opposition will probably profit at the expense of Obamas entrenched position on AGW. The bad news is that the Republicans will squander the opportunity to undo the harm that has been done by the environmentalists. Obama has to know that DDT is perfectly safe to use and yet he remains silent while a black child in sub saharan Africa dies every thirty seconds because of preventable malaria. Obama stands by while over a billion people struggle to survive without clean water or electricity. The black people of sub saharan Africa are lucky to live to 45. But hey, he kept his word to his political patrons.

    As this scandal unfolds the MSM will come in on the story because it is better late than never, somebody will roll over to avoid prosecution and get a fat reward and the dominos will keep falling faster and faster. Soon, this scandal will go critical mass and it is going to be interesting to watch.

    The great news is: there is plenty of everything to go around, if only the greens would allow us life liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PhilJourdan:
    “Surrounding himself with those buffoons guarantees most Americans have his back!”

    I think the official term for this should be the “Quayle Strategy” .. after all no one (internally) would have assassinated Bush senior would they?

    00

  • #
    matty

    RE: overwhelming evidence.

    The Guardian’s highly excitable George Monbiot has recently said that there are “hundreds of lines of evidence” that prove AGW. That was his dismissive response to Climategate. His reverence of the IPCC was momentarily rocked but not diminished, but what will be his response to WWF-gate and Greenpeace-gate, not to mention a few other gates. So far nothing. I notice he is writing extravagant critiques of sceptic columns but nothing so far on how activist groups became referenced in AR4.

    Such stoic advocacy will become increasingly lonely as warmers everywhere seem to be taking the foot off a little. Gore invisible, politicians not so sure, Lead authors starting to rat, even arrogant old Ross Garnaut has adjusted his position. As if we didn’t know that many of the rusted-on warmers are in the media.

    00

  • #
    Jerry

    The laughter was because House Republican Leader John Boehner stood up and raised his hand to indicate he was a doubter.

    00

  • #
    bsalis

    It is an odd response. First impressions is that people were laughing at “those who disagree” being code words for Republican. However the more you watch, you start to think everyone in Congress don’t really agree, and that the green/clean energy initiatives are just for Energy Security.

    00

  • #
    Keith

    Pity Al Gore wasn’t in the background.
    Carbon credits and laughter spontaneously annihilate each other.

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    Joanne: A good speaker (and he’s polished) …

    I disagree Joanne. He is a good reader of tele-prompters, but not a good speaker. As he is speaking he looks left, then he looks right, then left, ad infinitum. But he never speaks ‘into the camera’ to the TV audience. Even Bush, often derided for not being able to speak well, looked you in the eye when he spoke.

    Worse yet, he seldom speaks in concrete terms, but mostly in “feel good” words. Compare him to Reagan who once summed up ‘Obama-like’ government by saying: “Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a loud voice at one end and no responsibility at the other.” I don’t remember, but I’ll bet he was looking the audience in the eye when he said it.

    Mr. Obama, a supposed Constitutional lawyer, quoted the Declaration of Independence in the SOTU and attributed it to the U.S. Constitution. This in a speech that must have been gone over with a large number of fine-tooth-combs.

    He (Obama) reminds me of the young Marine’s comment on board the Bonhomme Richard. They had met the Serapis, and started firing broadsides at each other. Soon the Bonhomme Richard was a shambles. The masts and spars were all broken, the sails in tatters and on fire. Dead and bleeding were all over the deck. The ship was taking on water.

    The Captain of the Serapis picked up a megaphone and shouted across a, “Do you yield?” JohnPaul Jones picks up his megaphone and yells back his famous, “I have not yet begun to fight!”

    Whereupon a young Marine, lying on the deck and bleeding profusely, raises his head and remarks, “There is always some SOB that just doesn’t get the word!”

    00

  • #
    BJM

    As if the Climate Change advocates do not have enough trouble, is this just what they now need.

    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/20101277383676587.html

    What a fine endorsement for ‘Collective Green Politics’.

    00

  • #
    PeterB

    Jerry (22), your explanation seems much more likely – where did you get it?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Of course mine is a biased lopsided warmists take on it, but to me Obama has scripted the pause to take the laughter, anticipating it, rather then looking as though it caught him off guard. basically I disagree with “Watch Obama, he is not expecting to say a funny line. His response to the rising laugh tells us the laugh was not part of the plan.”

    Maybe your quote is the response of someone who has learned how to speak in an institutional environment, rather than a natural?

    00

  • #

    BTW folks, for those who are commenting about Hillary being after Pelosi in the line of succession, that’s incorrect. Next in line after the Speaker of the House is the president pro tempore of the Senate, Robert Byrd. Hillary is after Byrd. See Presidential Succession Act of 1947.

    As far as the laughter, definitely not expected by the Obamasiah. Reagan almost always threw in some humor during the State of the Union speech and he provided the comedic pause when he did.

    MattB, you are delusional, but what’s new?

    When the Obamasiah does a scripted speech, he doesn’t stutter. I’ve only seen “The One” stutter like that when he’s gotten an unexpected response from the audience. That has happened twice before the SOTUS: Last year when Joe Wilson interrupted him and earlier this month when he was heckled while campaigning for Martha Coakley.

    Get him off teleprompter and he stutters all the time. He doesn’t think well on his feet, which is probably why he never really “practiced” law even though he has a law degree.

    Heck, he even needed a teleprompter talking to sixth-graders a couple weeks ago. Not only that, he had a second one set up just in case the first one failed. This guy is an empty suit.

    00

  • #
    Charles Bourbaki

    Donna Laframboise,
    Nice to see you commenting here. Keep up you good work on the peer reviewed litchuchur in the IPCC. Anything yet on the Girl Guides and the Royal Antedeluvian Order of Buffaloes? They have just as much scientific credibility as Greenpeace, WWF and Friends of the Earth. Possibly more.

    00

  • #
    Jerry

    @Peter B #27

    It was in the Washington Post on the day of the speech. I got the guys name wrong – he was actually Joe Barton the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee

    http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/01/barton_makes_climate_skepticism_clear.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    There was quite a lot of standing and waving by various people during the speech – on various topics.

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    29JLKrueger:
    January 30th, 2010 at 11:19 am
    BTW folks, for those who are commenting about Hillary being after Pelosi in the line of succession, that’s incorrect. Next in line after the Speaker of the House is the president pro tempore of the Senate, Robert Byrd. Hillary is after Byrd. See Presidential Succession Act of 1947.

    Yes, but he is 97 and in bad health. If it got to him, he would die of shock. ;)

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    A bit OT Jo, but I wonder if you have come across videos of Peter Taylor, British policy analyst and environmental activist. He is extremely critical of the IPCC models and processes. There is a good presentation, though the video quality is lacking:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx5GnsL_ETU (part 1/5)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjQ_BZhj0bA&feature=video_response (part 2/5)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOWbOmJw-rg&feature=video_response (part 3/5)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOXgNbGVw8o&feature=video_response (part 4/5)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmW_A4ashio&feature=video_response (part 5/5)

    There are also interview clips here:

    http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/un-climate-change.htm

    My Dad bought me “Chill” for Xmas, a book by Peter Taylor, but I am too engrossed in Kurweil’s “The Singularity is Near” to start that one yet.

    00

  • #

    Above, Michael: January 30th, 2010 at 6:48 am, puts some good information about an alternative view to the AGW hypothesis.

    It is, however, important to remember a key point of Prof. Lindzen, MIT, that the proper ‘null’ hypothesis for the whole AGW argument is NOT an alternative cause [e.g sun vs. CO2] but that the whole climatic record shows no need for any other explanation than natural variability.
    http://www.heartland.org/events/newyork09/pdfs/lindzen.pdf

    To posit some other single cause of any global temperature increase is to affirm the false basis upon which the CO2 hypothesis rests: that some single cause can have such a big effect on a terribly complesx system.

    Dr. John Christy sums it up well: “Our ignorance about the climate system is enormous, and policy makers need to know that. This is an extremely complex system, and thinking we can control it is hubris.”

    THAT is the key point that we need to get across!

    00

  • #
    Anand

    I thought Obama smiled as he said “I know that there are those…”. It seemed as if he knew where the lie was headed.

    He looked next, as though he sensed that the laughter in the gathering was genuine and joined in briefly letting his guard down, but not without a trace of irritation.

    The laughter seemed as if it were directed at a running inside joke.

    This is fun indeed. :)

    00

  • #

    PhilJourdan:
    January 30th, 2010 at 12:43 pm #32

    It wouldn’t really be an issue unless the President, Vice-President, and Speaker were all taken out simultaneously (or effectively so). As soon as any one of those positions becomes vacant, there is a process in place to fill it. Unfortunately, most potential replacements are nutcases or fixin’ to kick off.

    Gee, we’re starting to look like the old Soviet Union where every potential successor is a wizened old coot waiting to die! ;)

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    36JLKrueger:
    January 30th, 2010 at 1:43 pm PhilJourdan:
    January 30th, 2010 at 12:43 pm #32
    Gee, we’re starting to look like the old Soviet Union where every potential successor is a wizened old coot waiting to die!

    I was thinking the same thing, What a difference a generation makes. ;)

    00

  • #
    PeterB

    Jerry (31)

    Thanks Jerry

    00

  • #
    Dean Turner

    He’s speaking before the members of Congress, where debates can be heated and the “overwhelming evidence” has surely been coming up a lot lately (someone who’s glued to C-SPAN might shed light on that; I pay little attention).

    So a slightly different interpretation might be that the “some debate” got the laughter started because the people there saw it as a tremendous understatement.

    ^ I think this is more likely…

    00

  • #
    Denny

    Hi Joanne and Hi everyone! So Obama state “Science is settled” There’s no Debate! This planet is warming….Uh…well I would try telling that to these People…Don’t ya think??

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1800.last

    Sorry Joanne…I know this was a little off topic but I DID refer to Obama…UHG!! :(

    00

  • #

    @JLKrueger and PhilJourdan

    Gentlemen,

    I enjoyed your comments about the order of succession. However, Robert Byrd is currently 92 years old. That being said, if their was a national emergency (nuclear war, biological or chemical attack, etc.) the Government would not be run by the most senior official of the U.S. Government, but by a group of career bureaucrats who will run the country from a bunker in an undisclosed area. It is called COG (Continuity of Government) and has been around since the Eisenhower Administration. God only knows what is really going on. We may know what the government is really up to today, in thirty years, if we are lucky.

    Remember, it is always about the money.Obama is relying on his liberal base to finance his reelection campaign. Barack played off the moment as best he could, with a laughter which can best be described as one of embarrassment. After all, a consummate politician will always go along to get along.

    @mattb

    You wrote, “MattB:
    January 30th, 2010 at 10:49 am
    Of course mine is a biased lopsided warmists take on it, but to me Obama has scripted the pause to take the laughter, anticipating it, rather then looking as though it caught him off guard. basically I disagree with “Watch Obama, he is not expecting to say a funny line. His response to the rising laugh tells us the laugh was not part of the plan.”

    Do you really believe that the pause was “scripted”? The “funny pause” was obviously unscripted as it was not meant to be “funny.” Actually, Barack has never said that AGW was “funny.” To say that the laughter was “anticipated’ is ridiculous on its face. The laughter was not spontaneous but spurious. The audience was stunned and were probably wondering if the president was a victim of inadequate briefings or just too lazy to keep up on current events. You know, Matt; climategate, amazongate, glaciergate, gate ad nauseam, etc.?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Arrudagate: The ability to add gate to any word and think it means there is a conspiracy.

    The more I watch that video the more I think you are clutching at straws. A comfortable president and a bit of a smile. I wonder if the laughs were his own party laughing at the nutters?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    p.s. Eddy why dn;t you make that cool-aid gag again? I googled and it actually has more hits for “Eddy Aruda Kool Aid” than for Climategate.

    00

  • #
    Jerry

    @Eddy Aruda and most others on this page. You’ve totally got the wrong end of the stick.

    The laughter was not at Obama. They were laughing at Joe Barton the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. At that moment he was standing up and waving his hand in the air letting everyone know he was on the denier side.

    Look at the video again and see where all eyes are directed. See Obama pause, let Barton have his moment, laugh along a bit, and then resume.

    Check again the link I posted above where it is explained better. I’m sorry I can’t find the original authoritative Washington Post news item, but the WashPost blog is good enough.

    Here is the link again – http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/01/barton_makes_climate_skepticism_clear.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Jerry – they’ve got the end of the stick and the more you shake it the harder they bite:)

    00

  • #

    Watch where Pelosi and Biden look. Its to their left [right side of the screen] Its the republicans that started laughing first. But Obama, Pelosi and Biden all know they’re on camera. Their only defence is to act as if its a bipartisan joke. So they and many in the democrats laugh belatedly. There are several other cameras but the mainstream [poisoned stream] media wont screen the footage of the audience. That’s telling. I feel another FOI request coming on. The media needs to ask for all the footage to be screened. It might be cunning to ask the left media to ‘out who laughed first’ by publishing the footage from the camera focused on the republicans. Their so clueless that they may fall for it.

    00

  • #

    41 Eddy Aruda:
    January 30th, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    That being said, if their was a national emergency (nuclear war, biological or chemical attack, etc.) the Government would not be run by the most senior official of the U.S. Government, but by a group of career bureaucrats who will run the country from a bunker in an undisclosed area. It is called COG (Continuity of Government) and has been around since the Eisenhower Administration.

    Sort of. COG is a principle of establishing predefined procedures in the event of a catastrophic nuclear attack or other major catastrophy. Most major countries have processes based on this principle. It was first employed by Britain in WWII to ensure government survival during the Blitz.

    NOTE: It is a contingency for a catastrophic distaster that would have likely otherwise decapitated the government.

    For the US, it isn’t just a single bunker, but an entire complex of redundant and mirrored centers covering all the essential services. The US even has a an array of airborne command centers coverning all essential government services. The overriding consideration in every Presidential Decision Directive since Eisenhower covering COG is maintenance of Constitutional government.

    During 9/11, Bush allegedly sent about 100 bureaucrats to an undisclosed location. Certain leftwing media accused him of using 9/11 to stage a “Presidential Coup” as a result of this decision. That’s probably where the “career bureaucrats” running the government idea came from.

    The amusing aspect of this was that Bush was acting under the Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 67, Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations, dated October 21, 1998 (Signed by Bill Clinton).

    The concept is not without Constitutional challenge. As a result of the Constitutional questions, the Continuity of Government Commission was established to explore COG in more detail. They first met in fall of 2002. Those interested in looking into this more can find accurate information at Continuity of Government Commission.

    00

  • #

    MattB:
    January 30th, 2010 at 3:55 pm #42
    Arrudagate: The ability to add gate to any word and think it means there is a conspiracy.

    The more I watch that video the more I think you are clutching at straws. A comfortable president and a bit of a smile. I wonder if the laughs were his own party laughing at the nutters?

    You’re delusional, but to be expected.

    I know it’s news to you, but Eddy didn’t coin all the “gates”. Pull your head out of the sand and get caught up. You’re really emabarrassing the lunatics on your side.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I’m a leftie. Last time I voted conservative was for Fraser. (Oz politics 1983). If you scratch me I’m a tinge green underneath.

    I was very hopeful that geopolitics may change when Obama won office.
    Shattered in only 12 months. :(

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    You are right Jo…. You can tell Obama knows that the laughing is contra to his point and puffs air out in a hfff sound… Indicates frustration…. but he also smiles, so he knows the irony of the situation also.

    Yep. The politics of AGW is in the end game… For them to win now, they will have to use tyranny. Democratic methods will no longer give gains for them.

    00

  • #

    Baa Humbug:
    January 30th, 2010 at 4:37 pm #49

    I’m a leftie. Last time I voted conservative was for Fraser. (Oz politics 1983). If you scratch me I’m a tinge green underneath.

    I was very hopeful that geopolitics may change when Obama won office.
    Shattered in only 12 months.

    Gee, just when I was starting to like you too. But since I’m somewhat Byzantine / Machiavellian, as long as we’re working to crush the AGW fraud, I’ll work with you. ;)

    In the US we call the “greenies” watermellons. Green outside, red inside. Socialism doesn’t go over well in the US except in the crowd that worships the Obamasiah. His days are numbered, as are numerous policiticians of both parties who’ve directed the country toward a socialist path. Buyer’s remorse has taken hold and the Dems and certain RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) know it.

    They’re pushing their socialist agenda hard now because they know the awaking public is going to trash them in November 2010. They’re hoping for a fait accompli by then.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    LoL. In the longer video on youtube… Look at Pelosi and Biden after Obama announces that America must build many more Nuclear power stations…. If he didn’t fart, then it must’ve been something he said;-)

    Biden leans away as his face goes still. Pelosi doesn’t leap to her feet clapping like she has been, instead she slowly claps, says something to Biden, realizes it will be on camera, bites her tongue in a body language expression of wanting to take the words back(she literally does poke her tongue out at the edge of her mouth and chews at it). She fleetingly glances guiltily at the camera and grimaces in a rictus of pretend amusement a moment latter.

    I’d like to know what she said. Any lip readers on the blog?… I sense dissension in the Dem camp on all questions nuclear!

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Hi JLK. Go easy on me will ya. Nothing remotely red about me. Not even a socialist. I just believe everything in life has to be tempered. That includes capitalism, development etc

    My hope for Obama was more for some honesty and integrity in politics. Guess I got taken in by his oratory :(

    00

  • #

    @mattb

    My name is spelled Aruda, not Arruda and what is “dn;t “? You got more hits for “Eddy Aruda Kool Aid” than you did for climategate? You probably misspelled something, “dn;t” you?

    “A comfortable president and a bit of a smile.”? At this point in his first term, Obama’s ratings are dismally low. He probably has wise consultants like you, Matt, giving him good advice.

    Here is a bit of news for you Matt, since you obviously lack the acumen or intelligence to see the trees from the forest; the same small group of climate scientists that authored chapter 9 of the IPCC report blaming man for AGW is the same group of scientists at the heart of the scandals. You know, the “gates”? Conspiracy? You bet I believe there is a conspiracy. What will you do when the end comes for this scam, Matt? Will you find something else to be wrong about so that you can visit another website to get your ass kicked until your nose bleeds? You seem to enjoy it. BTW, almost all of us make occasional mistakes in grammar and spelling, does your computer come equipped with a spelling checker?

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    SUBJECT: The IPCC’s latest source: Greenpeace

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/29/now-its-greenpeace-reports-cited-in-the-ipcc-ar4/
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_ipccs_latest_source_greenpeace/
    Gate du Jour – Now it’s Greenpeace reports in the IPCC AR4
    29 01 2010

    Donna Laframboise, who gave us the list of World Wildlife Fund non peer reviewed studies cited in the IPCC AR4 continues to make lists. Here’s her latest list. Those calm, rational, thoughtful folks at Greenpeace seem to have had a significant hand in the IPCC climate bible.

    She writes:

    Considered the climate Bible by governments around the world, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is meant to be a scientific analysis of the most authoritative research.

    Instead, it references literature generated by Greenpeace – an organization known more for headline-grabbing publicity stunts than sober-minded analysis. (Eight IPCC-cited Greenpeace publications are listed at the bottom of this post.)

    In one section of this Nobel-winning report, climate change is linked to coral reef degradation. The sole source for this claim? A Greenpeace report titled “Pacific in Peril” (see Hoegh-Guldberg below). Here the report relies on a Greenpeace document to establish the lower-end of an estimate involving solar power plants (Aringhoff).

    Read more at her blog here. In the meantime, here’s the list:

    GREENPEACE-GENERATED LITERATURE CITED BY THE 2007 NOBEL-WINNING IPCC REPORT

    * Aringhoff, R., C. Aubrey, G. Brakmann, and S. Teske, 2003: Solar thermal power 2020, Greenpeace International/European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association, Netherlands
    * ESTIA, 2004: Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change. European Solar Thermal Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Thermal Power 2020, UK
    * Greenpeace, 2004: http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/cop10ing/SolarGeneration.pdf accessed 05/06/07
    * Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam
    * GWEC, 2006: Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Bruxelles and Greenpeace, Amsterdam, September, 56 pp., accessed 05/06/07
    * Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp.
    * Lazarus, M., L. Greber, J. Hall, C. Bartels, S. Bernow, E. Hansen, P. Raskin, and D. Von Hippel, 1993: Towards a fossil free energy future: the next energy transition. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.
    * Wind Force 12, 2005: Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=8, accessed 03/07/07

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Obama and Rudd are on the same path to nowhere. Even the Courier Mail runs a Rudd failure story today. Leaders who raise the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change are begging to be howled down now. The New Left are rapidly becoming the New deniers. What a refreshing change!

    00

  • #

    Baa Humbug:
    January 30th, 2010 at 5:30 pm #53

    Good! I can still “offically” like you then. ;)

    You aren’t alone in being taken in by the smooth rhetoric. So many wanted to believe. :(

    Nothing remotely honest about Obama. He’s even more disingenous than Clinton. I despise Clinton for lots of reasons but, at least Clinton understands US history and knows the Constitution thoroughly. He’s very politically savy too and recognizes when his goal is “a bridge too far.”

    I saw Clinton at a conference after the 2000 election. Someone brought up how Hillary had said the Electoral College should go away. Bill said basically, “Whoa there! It’s there for a very good reason.” He then went on to expound upon the reason and why we shouldn’t be so eager to tamper with the Constitution. In my mind it was one of his brighter moments.

    00

  • #

    J.Hansford:
    January 30th, 2010 at 5:22 pm #52

    I sense dissension in the Dem camp on all questions nuclear!

    The far left base of the Democratic party has nuke phobia. They will not stand for the Dems going that direction. Sad thing is what the Dems really need is a divorce from the far left loonies. That’s why they lose the White House for such long stretches.

    They are also afflicted with NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) issues whenever someone proposes solar arrays or windmills. A huge solar array in the Mojave Desert of California was killed last year because the lefty loons were worried about a turtle.

    The problem these people have is that when you try to implement the “wonderful renewables” they find reasons for that being a bad idea too. Though I must agree deep-sixing the wind turbines (aka bird blenders) for that very reason. Bad for birds and bats.
    And they’re ugly to boot.

    00

  • #
    Jerry

    For those both in Australia and the US, I should point out that on any objective scale the ‘far left’ of the US Democrats is somewhat to the right of both Australian mainstream parties – Liberal and Labor.

    Of minor concern is which Australian party is more Socialist. I actually think – based on a wide range of policy initiatives – that the Australian Liberal Party is more Socialist than the Labor party. Just look at the Keating years to see what I mean.

    As an Australian of no particular leaning I find the tenor of the American political debate, as shown on these pages, to be well outside of Australian community values.

    I sincerely regret that these American opinions are eroding what is a very worthwhile effort by mainstream Australians to guide and influence their Government on serious policy issues relating to the climate debate.

    If we can move the debate back to good public policy and good science then we will all benefit.

    00

  • #

    Jerry:
    January 30th, 2010 at 7:06 pm #59

    As an Australian of no particular leaning I find the tenor of the American political debate, as shown on these pages, to be well outside of Australian community values.

    I sincerely regret that these American opinions are eroding what is a very worthwhile effort by mainstream Australians to guide and influence their Government on serious policy issues relating to the climate debate.

    If we can move the debate back to good public policy and good science then we will all benefit.

    Perhaps you missed the fact that this post is a political post dealing with US politics.

    If the tenor of American commentors on a topic that is their business bothers you, then don’t participate. Go to a topic specific to the science and Australian national policy. Jo has several in play right now.

    I don’t believe that Jo restricts her blog to Australians only, I’ve participated here for almost two years. When Jo does political posts specific to Australians, I usually don’t comment.

    Perhaps you can explain how OUR State of the Union address has a damn thing to do with advancing your Australian policy.

    I bit my tongue and self-snipped what I wanted to say about your snootiness.

    00

  • #
    Jerry

    Without resorting bold to match JLKrueger at 60 I respond.

    The issue is that you and I only have a -possibly- common agenda to counter climate alarmism.

    What is a problem is that this agenda has been inextricably mixed up with American internal politics – at least on this particular page.

    The real mission is to counter bad science. What I see you write is a different mission; that is to denigrate at all costs the Democrats. This is blatant hijacking of what is a worldwide concern about what is happening on climate to further your agenda against the Democrats.

    I look at this site to give good information about the state of climate science and to provide robust challenges to the orthodoxy. What I do not want to see is blatant politicisation of what is a serious issue into some form of support for an attack on US domestic agenda.

    I reiterate: The basic premise of this post by Jo is demonstrably false. This is not my opinion, it is supported by readily gatherable facts as I have posted. What has happened is a bunch of American alarmists has sprung up in response spouting all sorts of nonsense ( alarmist as in anti-Democrats ) and this is giving a really bad name to genuine readers of this blog who are concerned with truth, science, and integrity.

    The damage from the nonsense in this post is quite serious. It gives opponents a large amount of ammunition to discredit the entire mission based on a lunatic fringe opinion that has no basis in fact.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Jerry:
    January 30th, 2010 at 7:06 pm

    Jerry, you do understand the difference between socialism and capitalism don’t you? If not here is a simple description.

    Capitalism is an individual human choosing what to do.

    Socialism is the rejection of that.

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Eddy Love your work

    JLKrueger well put.

    Jerry what have you been smoking you are making us Aussies look stupid or are you Krudd in disguise?

    00

  • #
    P Gosselin

    The clip pretty much shows that there’s consensus on the statement that “AGW is a joke.”
    The laughter confirms it.

    00

  • #

    Jerry:
    January 30th, 2010 at 8:14 pm #61
    Without resorting bold to match JLKrueger at 60 I respond.

    The issue is that you and I only have a -possibly- common agenda to counter climate alarmism.

    What is a problem is that this agenda has been inextricably mixed up with American internal politics – at least on this particular page.

    Oh, but it’s OK when it’s inextricably mixed up in Australian politics. The politics are a part of it whether you like it or not. This post is politcal, specifically US politics. If it were on the science, then that’s what I would address.

    The real mission is to counter bad science. What I see you write is a different mission; that is to denigrate at all costs the Democrats. This is blatant hijacking of what is a worldwide concern about what is happening on climate to further your agenda against the Democrats.

    Science was not presented in this post. The post is political. Political bashing implicity allowed.

    I look at this site to give good information about the state of climate science and to provide robust challenges to the orthodoxy. What I do not want to see is blatant politicisation of what is a serious issue into some form of support for an attack on US domestic agenda.

    Then go to a post that discusses the science and pass this one by. This post dealt with the US State of the Union Address.

    I reiterate: The basic premise of this post by Jo is demonstrably false. This is not my opinion, it is supported by readily gatherable facts as I have posted. What has happened is a bunch of American alarmists has sprung up in response spouting all sorts of nonsense ( alarmist as in anti-Democrats ) and this is giving a really bad name to genuine readers of this blog who are concerned with truth, science, and integrity.

    No, it’s your opinion based upon a Washington Post story. The WaPo is decidedly pro-Obama, pro-AGW, pro-Democrat. Given the biased source you provided, those of us who know our own country are entitled to counter your comment.

    The damage from the nonsense in this post is quite serious. It gives opponents a large amount of ammunition to discredit the entire mission based on a lunatic fringe opinion that has no basis in fact.

    Don’t think so. Seems only you, MattB and one other share the same view on the Obamasiah’s speech.

    At this moment in the US, mine is not a lunatic fringe opinion, but very mainstream. Like it or not, the science got entangled in politics a LONG time ago. I don’t like that fact, but it is a fact. You can’t ignore the political aspects of the debate.

    Cap and Trade (the US equivalent of your ETS) is being pushed by which US party? I’ll help you out. Democrats — specifically far LEFT Democrats. Tell me again why we have no right to attack their policy when its implementation will ruin our economy?

    00

  • #
    Jerry

    @scott 63

    No I don’t smoke – anything. No I’m not Krudd. Yes I am an Australian, and yes (in case you ask) I am a qualified scientist who worked for many years in climate research.

    I am totally against politicisation of the process and I am aghast at the mess of American domestic politics intruding into what should be a done and dusted dismissal of some very dodgy science.

    I say again. This post is a low point in the climate argument. It does no credit for the cause and it allows quite valid criticism of the approach.

    I truly hope that the quality of reporting and commenting on this site improves. It is obviously influential, but it will very rapidly cease to be so if it strays from mission and starts promoting US domestic agendas.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    No I don’t smoke – anything. No I’m not Krudd. Yes I am an Australian, and yes (in case you ask) I am a qualified scientist who worked for many years in climate research.

    Climate isn’t a physical phenomenon – it’s a\n abstraction of localised weather, hence not a science per se. In science we need to “TEST” our ideas by doing experiments. In the physical sciences this actually works. In the non-physical ones, not.

    00

  • #
    Jerry

    @ JLKrueger: # 65

    At this moment in the US, mine is not a lunatic fringe opinion, but very mainstream.

    Then, if true, that is a very sad state of affairs.

    Though I note that 84% of Americans have said they have been ‘touched’ by Elvis.

    Can we assume then that 100% (or at least a significant percent) of the American public are well informed neutral observers and that their collective opinion on climate is correct?

    Can we also assume that the people who chose Obama – the majority – were wrong? Or is that not what democracy is about?

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    MattB, #28: “Maybe your quote is the response of someone who has learned how to speak in an institutional environment, rather than a natural?”

    I know JLKrueger already responded to this, but here goes: You’re always good for a laugh, Matt, and you deliver once more.

    Would this be the “natural”, off-the-cuff speaker Obama who can’t go anywhere without his teleprompter and can’t say boo without his scriptwriter being involved? The same Obama who set up the Presidential podium AND teleprompter in a classroom speaking to 6th graders, ferchrissake? Visuals are always better:

    Obama speaks to 6th graders

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Jerry: “Then, if true, that is a very sad state of affairs.”

    Only if you are of the opposite opinion!

    00

  • #
    Scott

    @ Jerry,

    I also have quals in Basic and Applied Chem (including atmospheric chem with CSIRO 1984)plus applied maths, I then went on to do Computing including modeling, MBA and Financial services. So I understand the science the finances and the computer modeling in the AGW scam.

    Any self respecting true scientist knows AGW is a scam as neither the science or the computer models stack up to even a seventh grader’s analysis.

    Having said that all that is left that keeps this AGW agenda running is money and political Ideology.

    So the fake science is easy to dismiss as this site and others like it do so well so what is left is the politics and the money so unless these are addressed as well then this scam will never be defeated.

    Hence this post’s aim at highlighting the dishonest politics and the fluf behind the Obama administration, which if defeated will reflect heavily on Krudd and his cronies which will benefit Australia.

    Similar posts are hammering at the money trail and those involved.

    Unless every aspect of this fraud is hammered there is every likely hood it will continue for longer than it needs to.

    So well done to Jo for highlighting every aspect of this fraud.

    00

  • #
    Jerry

    @scott 71

    I have no issue with your main comments. I do have issue with the approach in this post.

    Basically this post has segued from science to politics. Unsupportable politics.

    If the post was steered away from ad-hominem attacks to real attacks on science it would have been fine.

    The post will be demonstrated to have been mistaken. The responses -in main- have been the result of an uninformed inflammatory comment and later politically influenced comments.

    The effect on public perception: slight. The provocation and ammunition to warmists: immense.

    Please Jo. For the sake of your mission please find a way to stop this American Agenda from ruining your advocacy web-site.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I must apologise.. the Peter Taylor video I meant to link is actually the following:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6613938246449800148#

    After reviewing the previous one I realised it was the wrong video – he waxes somewhat lyrical in the former one, and not so much scietific as this one.

    Still OT I realise, but hey, it’s a blog :)

    00

  • #

    Jerry:
    January 30th, 2010 at 9:15 pm #68

    Then, if true, that is a very sad state of affairs.

    Thanks Anne-Kit, for already answering that one.

    Though I note that 84% of Americans have said they have been ‘touched’ by Elvis.

    Sure looks something like an ad hom attack. I’d have a very hard time believing that stat!

    Can we assume then that 100% (or at least a significant percent) of the American public are well informed neutral observers and that their collective opinion on climate is correct?

    Strawman. Can we assume the same about Australians? Or Germans? or Brits? NOPE! And why would you want to be a neutral observer anyway?

    Can we also assume that the people who chose Obama – the majority – were wrong? Or is that not what democracy is about?

    Well, two points here, second one first. The US is not a democracy. The US is a constitutional republic. It’s not the same as a parliamentary democracy.

    Given the current state of the body politic in the US I’d say yes, they voted wrong and they’ve made that judgement very clear in the New Jersey and Virginia governorship races and in the Massachusettss special election for the seat formerly held by the Kennedy clan for over 50 years.

    Virtually every poll has Obama at record low levels for a President this early in his term. The Senate Majority leader is trailing his GOP opposition by almost 27%. Senator Barbara Boxer is in a dead heat in California. These WERE safe seats for the Dems. What does that tell you?

    Add to that two recall petitions being circulated (one in New Jersey and one in Louisianna) where voters are disgusted with the Democrat Senators they elected and are working to remove them prior to their terms expiring. And this does not include the “swarm” of Dems electing not to stand for re-election come November.

    If the President were running in 2010, it’s unlikely that he’d be re-elected right now. He’s lost virtually all the Independents who voted for him in 2008 and a not insignificant number of conservative Democrats (yes, there is such a thing).

    Right now all of the above would be a very good thing to slow down the AGW political train. It would also remove the “top cover” that frauds like James Hansen are enjoying with Obama and key Democrats.

    00

  • #

    OT as a humorous aside.

    When I was a young lieutenant at the Armor School at Fort Knox, I had an Australian Infantry major as an instructor on offensive tactics. He once remarked that Aussies and Yanks tend to see eye-to-eye on most issues because both our countries were founded by criminals and outcasts. And we get our pugnaciousness from the large number of Scots and Irish who settled in both countries.

    My German landlord back in the 80s used to marvel how Americans, Brits and Aussies will drink, beat the crap out of each other and then have a celebratory drink with each other afterword. And by that I mean both within our own national ranks and cross national lines. He never could understand why we would fight for fun.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    JLKrueger:
    January 30th, 2010 at 10:52 pm

    Yep, the Scott and Irish influence will do it every time. Have a smile on my face.

    Jerry, might you be confusing a post from a blog? Jos blog is chock full of science related posts. This one, as has been pointed out, happens to be a political one. Sure, we’d all (I think) would prefer if politics didn’t mix with science, but go tell that to the INTERGOVERNMENTAL PCC.
    The 6000/4000/2500 or whatever scientists cited by the IPCC wouldn’t get a square inch of column space if it wasn’t for the politicisation by the IPCC via the UNFCCC via the UN. Lets move on.

    00

  • #
    Macha

    michael, #3.

    What great Utube links!! Henrick Svensmark, eugene parker, nir shaviv…the whole cloud mystery 6-part videos. top stuff. really in line with our local chap David Archibald. I loved it.

    Jo Nova should help advertise these more, perhaps via our Pollie , Mr Spencer?

    Weel done.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    sdcougar:
    January 30th, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Above, Michael: January 30th, 2010 at 6:48 am, puts some good information about an alternative view to the AGW hypothesis.

    It is, however, important to remember a key point of Prof. Lindzen, MIT, that the proper ‘null’ hypothesis for the whole AGW argument is NOT an alternative cause [e.g sun vs. CO2] but that the whole climatic record shows no need for any other explanation than natural variability.
    http://www.heartland.org/events/newyork09/pdfs/lindzen.pdf

    To posit some other single cause of any global temperature increase is to affirm the false basis upon which the CO2 hypothesis rests: that some single cause can have such a big effect on a terribly complesx system.

    Dr. John Christy sums it up well: “Our ignorance about the climate system is enormous, and policy makers need to know that. This is an extremely complex system, and thinking we can control it is hubris.”

    THAT is the key point that we need to get across!

    Yep. It is important to remind people that the accepted theory of climate is Natural variability…. The proponents of the AGW hypothesis have politicized the science by infering that it is otherwise.

    00

  • #
    Jerry

    @bah humbug # 76

    I’m mostly sure about the difference between a post and a blog.

    My issue on this post is that Jo got it totally wrong – and that this is obvious to all and sundry based on clinical evidence; and also that the ‘rabid’ supporting comments make it even worse.

    The problem is that the entire post is unsupportable and will be attacked on quite reasonable grounds.

    As a person who wants to promote a reasonable view on climate change I am embarrassed and discomforted by the tone and content of this post.

    Climate change alarmism is real. Stupid and unsupportable political stuff like this post make it much harder to sway opinion. It devolves into Republican vs Democrat US politics rather than the real issue of warmist vs skeptic.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Jerry:
    January 30th, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    Basically this post has segued from science to politics. Unsupportable politics……

    No it hasn’t Jerry. I direct you to look at the video again.

    Obama mentions the “Overwhelming Evidence of climate change”…. and powerful people laughed at him.

    People stood up and gestured at him.

    He was ridiculed while speaking during a highly ritualized and austere State of the Union address….

    So the point being is, that the most powerful figure in the free World was laughed at while mentioning the “Overwhelming Evidence of climate change”… No small thing and is pertinent for discussion on this blog.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Jerry:
    January 31st, 2010 at 12:04 am

    I appreciate what you are saying

    The whole issue of AGW is a coin of 2 sides. Science and politics. As you may be aware, the science will get nowhere without the politics. (e.g. the ice age scare of the 70′s didn’t get a foothold partly because politicians didn’t support it).

    The most important people in this debate are the general public. It is they who will sway the politicians. Hard core science doesn’t interest most people. The science debate has been going on since the first IPCC report 19yrs ago. The complexity of climate will ensure it will go on for longer still.
    If an alarmist politician can be discredited, the public will become (more) skeptical, the Australian opposition turmoil is a case in point.

    Consider that P Jones, M Mann K Briffa and sections of the AR4 have been discredited but many are saying that’s just a few people out of 2500 and a couple of paragraphs from 2900 pages. But now consider the hypothetical. Obama in US, Brown in UK and Rudd in Oz are discredited, lose office or lose large chunks of political capital. AGW will come to a screeching halt. Science will gain time for observational evidence and new research.

    So I must disagree with you respectfully, politics is an integral part of this debate.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Louis in #62: oh, so you don’t even know what capitalism is no? ahh well. can I lend you a dictionary?

    I’ll swap for a spellchecker apparently.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Jerry:
    January 31st, 2010 at 12:04 am

    By the way Jerry, I have no opinion on the Obama speech video so I haven’t commented on it. It’s anybodys guess why people laughed and what affect, if any, it will have on the public perception of the president.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Louis Hissink:
    January 30th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
    Jerry:
    January 30th, 2010 at 7:06 pm

    Jerry, you do understand the difference between socialism and capitalism don’t you? If not here is a simple description.

    Capitalism is an individual human choosing what to do.

    Socialism is the rejection of that.

    MattB:
    January 31st, 2010 at 12:40 am
    Louis in #62: oh, so you don’t even know what capitalism is no? ahh well. can I lend you a dictionary?

    I’ll swap for a spellchecker apparently.

    Here’s what he dictionary says Jerry and MattB….. Capitalism: An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

    I highlighted the pertinent point that Louis was making… As for corporations. They are a single entity, recognized by law…. and subject to the law.

    00

  • #
    janama

    The important part of the speech was when he declared that the US would embark on building a series of nuclear power stations and would increase it’s offshore exploration for oil. That had both sides of the chamber on their feet applauding.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Oh, MattB and Jerry… A point that Louis didn’t expressly make to you, but I will.

    Under capitalism, Property rights are enshrined… Ownership of your person is part of that.

    Productivity that belongs to you, is yours. Productivity is time. Time is money… You own your own time and are free to negotiate with whomever wishes to purchase it, whether by the Hour, minute or second…. Otherwise it is slavery.

    Now you understand a little bit more about Capitalism and by default. Freedom.

    00

  • #

    Jerry:
    January 31st, 2010 at 12:04 am #79

    My issue on this post is that Jo got it totally wrong – and that this is obvious to all and sundry based on clinical evidence; and also that the ‘rabid’ supporting comments make it even worse.

    All and sundry? Sheesh! Who are these “all and sundry” praytell? You don’t seem to be gaining a whole lot of traction here.

    The problem is that the entire post is unsupportable and will be attacked on quite reasonable grounds.

    That’s your opinion. Attacked by whom? The only one whining about it is you.

    Climate change alarmism is real. Stupid and unsupportable political stuff like this post make it much harder to sway opinion.

    Another unsupported assertion on your part. The “science” part of AGW was won by our side long ago, but it didn’t matter because we’d lost the emotional and political ground. We played nice, they didn’t.

    It devolves into Republican vs Democrat US politics rather than the real issue of warmist vs skeptic.

    I’m getting the feeling that your real issue is that you somehow thought this was an “Australians only” blog. You’ve flat ignored my comment that this blog has discussed Australian politics in the past and likely will in the future. So it’s OK in your mind to have it be a Labour vs Liberal Australian argument, but you don’t seem to like the “unwashed” Yanks commenting about their own government here even though the post is relevant to them. That strikes me a somewhat hypocritical.

    Or have you not bothered to look at the older posts dealing with Australian politics?

    00

  • #

    janama:
    January 31st, 2010 at 1:08 am #85

    The important part of the speech was when he declared that the US would embark on building a series of nuclear power stations and would increase it’s offshore exploration for oil. That had both sides of the chamber on their feet applauding.

    He was playing both sides. Did you see Pelosi’s reaction to that comment? That’s not what the far left of the Democratic party want to hear. Pelosi has already voiced opposition to both propositions, so it was more likely words without substance.

    Personally, I’m all in favor of nuclear plants and drilling our own resources, but I’m not holding my breath with current Congress.

    I don’t think Obama has the political capital anymore to get nuclear plants or drilling though Congress. Now I think on those issues Obama could garner public support, if he pushed them. Then he might gain the political capital to recover and accomplish those goals, but only if he dropped the Cap and Trade boondogle and quit talking the “climate change” talking points.

    00

  • #

    @ Jerry

    It is my sad duty to inform you that global warming was always about politics, not science. What happens in American politics has a profound affect on the rest of the world. In order for the socialists at the UN to form their one world government they must have the US acquiesce.

    As I commented earlier, Barack Obama, like any politician, owes those who supported him during his campaign. Unfortunately, he got his start with the help of the green misanthropes. I wish politics did not play a part in the GW debate. I realize that to believe politics could be avoided would be naive, so I confront reality. How about you, Jerry?

    00

  • #
    Harry

    @Edddy

    Just substitute the words ‘Energy Independence’ for ‘Global Warming’.
    Both are arguments to use ‘more expensive’ domestic energy supplies rather then cheaper ‘imported’ energy.

    In the 5 countries that have 80% of the worlds Coal Reserves, US,Russian,China,India and Australia the ‘Global Warming’ argument hasn’t gone anywhere.

    China became a net importer of coal in 2008…and surprise…surprise…they are going to do something about ‘Global Warming’.

    India has a bit of room to expand coal production…but not much..so they are ‘Global Warming’ lukewarmers.

    In the US we are dependent on foreign oil. So ‘Global Warming’ from oil is bad. Coal doesn’t produce global warming(Senator Byrd of West Virgina said so)…as I expect would be the case in Australia.

    So my Glorious Leader Obama will propose a ‘Global Warming’ package that leaves coal alone, has some measures to reduce dependence of foreign oil, gives the nuclear industry a bit of a bump and tosses in some change for windmills to keep the ‘greens’ happy.

    00

  • #
    Sharpshooter

    For a “Professor of Constitutional Law”, he’s abysmally ignorant of his own profession. Directing Congress to work around a Supreme Court ruling is incredibly stupid.

    He’s ignorant about history, too. From the SC Opinion:

    Most of the Founders’ resentment towards corporations was directed at the state-granted monopoly privileges that individually charted corporations enjoyed [e.g., the East India Company, which attempted to dump cheap tea on Americans]. Modern corporations do not have such privileges, and would probably have been favored by most of our enterprising Founders — excluding, perhaps, Thomas Jefferson and others favoring perpetuation of an agrarian society

    The freedom of “the press” was widely understood to protect the publishing activities of individual editors and printers… But these individuals often acted through newspapers, which (much like corporations) had their own names, outlived the individuals who had founded them, could be bought and sold, were sometimes owned by more than one person, and were operated for profit…Their activities were not stripped of First Amendment protection simply because they were carried out under the banner of an artificial legal entity. And the notion which follows from the dissent’s view, that modern newspapers, since they are incorporated, have free-speech rights only at the sufferance of Congress, boggles the mind.

    No, JoAnne, the entire SOTU speech was laughable!

    00

  • #
    Sharpshooter

    Laughter is a group thing, bound up in our gregarious interactions. (Try laughing on your own, laughing is not about the joke, so much as it’s about the company.) Obama had to join in.

    So when I watch a funny show at home, on TV, by myself….what would that reaction be?

    00

  • #
    Michael

    Hello again,

    This post is in response to the few individuals who feel Jo’s site is being abused when the scientific focus drifts toward the political.

    I love this site. It feeds me information which is at times ‘awakening’ and at time ‘frustrating.’ My initial reason for investing time to read every post was to become informed about global warming and the associated myths (or, the obvious possibilities). Having determined that my skepticism was indeed justified, in regard to AGWarming, I quickly(like so many other individuals) chose to become more politically interactive with my own representatives in the US Congress. Why?

    Does the issue relating to Australia’s own Peter Spencer ring any alarm bells? It certainly did for me. I begin to pursue any and all information relating to how my US government (and other world governments) were responding to the AGWarmer agenda.

    I wrote letters to my representatives, Senate and House leaders, the US EPA, and various media organizations and individual voices. Imagine my surprise when I discoverd that only 1 person has actually responded.I was ‘flabergasted’(i know, a very old form of expression for speechless.. but means so much more).

    I am a retired high school Chemistry, Biology, and Environmental instructor. Initially, the EPA designation respecting CO2 sparked my inner zeal. Now it has morphed into a political zeal expressly because Hardly Any Main Stream Media is willing to cover this terrible fraud. And now I worry about the ability of my children and grandchildren to experience the thrill of living freely. In this sense, to be free to take their own life, make their choices, learn to become responsible by their mistakes, and to perpetuate the ensuing wisdom onward for future generations. I don’t see the future under AGWarming and UN dominated One World Government enabling anything more than the enslavement of the human masses under the guise of saving a world from a false climate hysteria.

    Now, I am going to post a letter I received from the one congressional representative that has responded. I am retaining the name, as I do not wish to cause cessation of an, up to now, open dialogue. My representative has responded to three letters, and in each I have been shown why she supports cap and trade, and now is revealing a worry in supporting a Senate bill which would effectively block the EPA’s
    ability to enforce their CO2 edict. Perhaps the bigger point is that the response has mostly been a ‘push-button’ spiel. I have, and will continue, used information gleaned from various, repudible blogs in an attempt to open her mind to at least investigating the ‘other side’ of the issue. Next, I plan on providing data which represents how science supporting the EPA has been perverted, and by whom. As one can see it is a timely process. Good thing I am retired!

    The major point behind this very lengthy post(focus Mike), is that those who would have Jo’s blog (or any other) be just about science are missing the point. Exposing fraudulent science will not change what is going to happen, UNLESS we are able to get our political representatives to personally experience the fraud in a meaningful manner! The AGW pusher IPCC has a very thourough agenda which states “NEVER GIVE UP.” if you wonder if I am just making his up, I suggust you read the stored documents found with the Climategate emails. Look especially for the “rules” and you will see just how deeply these ONE WORLD GOVERNMENTer’s are committed by the level of indoctrination they have developed for the common masses. THIS IS NOT A SMALL THING THEY ARE ATTEMPTING: THEY WISH TO COMPLETELY ENSLAVE ALL OF THE WORLD! I am yelling because this is an important time to be alive and seeking for truth. Do your OWN research and try to find sources to validate it. And then share it. Don’t just let others do it for you.

    Scientists have it right: Nothing is ever settled, until it is law, and then we are still a bit skeptical. (Gravity doesn’t work the same way everywhere, does it?)

    I apologize for the incredibly lengthy post. M

    “Thank you for contacting me regarding proposed changes to the Clean Air Act. It is good to hear from you on this important issue.
    As you know, the Clean Air Act is the federal legislation that seeks to protect human health and the environment from emissions that pollute outdoor air. The legislation was originally enacted in 1955 and underwent major revisions in 1970, 1977, and 1990. The Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish minimum national standards for air quality and assigns primary responsibility to the states to assure compliance with the standards. The Act also establishes federal standards for vehicles, their fuels and other sources of air pollutants, and for emissions that cause acid rain.
    In the 2007 decision Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants, and directed the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emitted by automobiles. In response to this Supreme Court directive, on December 7, 2009, the EPA released findings from a years-long study that determined that greenhouse gases threaten the public health of American citizens. A mix of six key greenhouse gases are covered by this finding, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons.

    On January 21, 2010, Senator Murkowski (R-AK) introduced S. J. Res. 26, which is a “resolution of disapproval” regarding the EPA’s recently-released finding. A resolution of disapproval is a rarely-used legislative mechanism that attempts to halt a federal agency’s rule-making process. The resolution has been referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for consideration. A resolution of disapproval must be passed by the Senate and House and signed by the President in order to take effect. I am concerned that this resolution would remove the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, and hinder its ability to protect the public health and safety of Americans.
    During my time in the Senate, I have consistently fought for legislation that improves air quality throughout the country. Please know I will keep your thoughts in mind if this resolution is considered by the full Senate. If you would like to know more about my work…”

    I noticed that I posted an inaccurate web site for John P. Costella’s analysis, where you can also get the documents related to Climategate. It is:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/climategate_analysis.html

    and for the indoctrination “rules”:

    http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/documents/RulesOfTheGame.pdf

    00

  • #
    Nick M

    Forgive for not knowing who those 2 people are sitting behind Obama are, but their body language looked to me like they were just waiting for an opportunity to skuttle Obama. They looked to me like they didn’t beleive a word he was saying. He seemed to be very alone on that stand. I think there is some political instability coming for the US. Just an intuitive thing, I have no evidence I don’t even have a good grasp of US politics, but they didn’t look like they we’re supporting him at all. They looked more like… “theres a good puppet”.

    Like I said just an intuitive thing, a thought.

    00

  • #
    ElmarParker

    Thank you for this precise analysis of the obvious everyone seems to be afraid to see …

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Meanwhile, back in Oz we have our own political problems to contemplate. Folks, in a couple of days, Penny W(r)ong is going to resubmit the ETS to the Senate. Lib Senators Troeth and Boyce may yet sell us out.

    If some of you are pondering Tony Abbotts convoluted stance at the moment it may be because he has to take them into consideration. At least with the CC policy he will advocate there won’t be any tax or carbon credits to worry about and give the “rebels” an acceptable face-saving position.

    High-noon approacheth.

    00

  • #
    Otter

    Nick M~ Those two people were Vice President Joe ‘Foot in Mouth’ Biden and, I believe, Nancy Pelosi- pretty much second and third in line to take over if obummer ever goes down.

    They are his party and his support, but I would Not be surprised if they both hold him in contempt. He certainly is giving us enough proof that he IS contemptible in all areas.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB:

    So you think I don’t understand the definition of capitalism and need to consult a dictionary?

    Given that your fearless leader, Kevin Rudd, blamed extreme capitalism for the GFC, it s more likely neither you or he understand what it is. However I do point out that the pejorative “capitalist” seems to have fallen in disuse and replaced with the term “climate sceptic”. Still a “c” word and used as a term of abuse by the statists, showing that AGW was, is and will remain a purely political movement but dressed up in scientology to make it appear modern.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Michael @ 93

    I wrote letters to my representatives, Senate and House leaders, the US EPA, and various media organizations and individual voices. Imagine my surprise when I discoverd that only 1 person has actually responded.I was ‘flabergasted’(i know, a very old form of expression for speechless.. but means so much more).

    I am amazed, flabbergasted even, that you only received one response. Given that I work for Government (in Australia), I know that we must draft responses for Ministers when they receive letters from the public with questions relating to their portfolio. I have done it on numerous occasions on a number of different topics from government subsidies, policy, regulation and approvals issues.

    At the risk of riling you up further against the UN, you should perhaps have a look at “Agenda 21″. This is the backup plan for a “One World Government” that you are wary of mate:

    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

    This is not half as well publicised as the climate change issue but far more invasive with respect to the way we live. Knowing how zealously citizens of the US wish to preserve their freedoms under your excellent Constitution and Bill of Rights, Agenda 21 is a far greater threat to those freedoms in the long run.

    00

  • #
    Nick M

    Otter @ 97,

    Well I think he’s in trouble then. It doesn’t take much experience in “team” environments, offices, sporting clubs etc. to learn to notice when the “new star in the group” is not very well liked and is going to be undermined at the earliest opportunity for the benefit of the antagonists.

    00

  • #
    Michael

    Balldust @ 99:

    Thank you for the resource. I have started the process of ‘digestion.’

    Yes, I too expected at least some form of personal contact from all those I have written. At first I felt it must be something in the way I was writing. Now, I am able to let the irratation slide off and continue this journey.

    I believe there is a definite threat to people’s freedom here. The UN currently presents a front of being for all people but ignoring how the present forces (spending primarily most of their efforts on securing AGW participants) are negatively affecting the poorer third world nations.

    I am curious at the lack of attention being directed by mainsteam media to present a more objective, balanced reporting. It causes me to wonder if Media owners of the major newspapers are ‘in-bed’ with the perpetrators? I wonder how one might discover all the individuals/corporations supporting, or being direct/indirect beneficiaries of this UN agenda. The depth of indoctrination with-in the media seemed pretty apparent when I watched the representative from the British Met treat Dr. Svensmark so rudely in the video “The Cloud Mystery.” It still stuns me everytime I review it in my memory.

    Sorry, I have prattled on long enough. I just wanted to thank you Nick M for the new resource. Thank you Jo for the site. It provides a great opportunity to vent frustrations as well as becoming better educated.
    Michael

    00

  • #
    Michael

    My apologies to Balldust, I entered credit to Nick M when it should be directed toward you.

    Micahel

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I watched the whole SOTU myself. It rang hollow from front to back. It’s quite obvious that Obama didn’t expect his, “…overwhelming evidence…,” remark to get a laugh. His failure to understand the world in which he operates has been high comedy since he took office. Most in this country don’t follow him closely enough to realize it. But that’s changing and it will be his undoing.

    The other thing that puzzles me is how anyone can be surprised, much less offended at the politicization of global warming. It’s been a political disease from the start. There never was a bit of science in it. It thrives only because it was made political.

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Nick M:
    January 31st, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Very Interesting observation. IN actual fact, you could think of them as his main lieutenants! So your observation fits right in with this blog.

    00

  • #

    [...] JoNova has a video of Obama’s SoTU address and argues that the crowd is laughing at Obama’s “climate change” remark, not with it. I’m not sure I agree. Here’s the video. [...]

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Michael:
    January 31st, 2010 at 9:59 am

    Another site is http://www.keynesatharvard.org which will help explain what is going on.

    00

  • #
    pat

    no matter how scandalous the revelations, the beat goes on:

    30 Jan: Washington Post Editorial: President Obama reaches out to Republicans to get new energy legislation
    Mr. Obama was right about something else on Wednesday: Beyond such fixes, the best way to promote emissions-free energy is for Congress to put a price on carbon, giving private actors incentives to devise the most efficient ways to curb U.S. emissions. The best way to do that is through a carbon tax or a well-designed cap-and-trade scheme..
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012904222.html

    don’t hold your breath waiting for tony abbott (australia), david cameron (U.K.) or leaders of any party to bring up any of the “gates” that have exposed the AGW scam.

    the battle is not over yet.

    00

  • #
    Cement a friend

    Bulldust @99, agreed we have been kept in the dark about Agenda21 (thanks for the link) the same as the draft declaration for Coepenhavn 2009. 1992 was time of the want-to-be “greatest treasurer” and Maler loving want-to-be dictator who luckily the public threw out in 1996.
    What is happening to democracy. Monckton’s revelation of the draft (which he says was discovered by Willi Soon) and its publication in a Canadian newspaper was certainly a help in the rejection of CPRS or ETS in the (Aus)senate and the subsequent failure to reach any conclusion at Coepenhavn.
    Lets hope that democracy will prevail at the next elections in Australia, UK and US to remove the people who want to kill off democracy.

    00

  • #
    pat

    jo, this needs its own thread, and should be sent to all politicians:

    UK Tele: Richard Gray: Stern report was changed after being published
    Information was quietly removed from an influential government report on the cost of climate change after its initial publication because supporting scientific evidence could not be found.
    Among the claims that were removed in the later version of the report, which is now also available in its altered form online, were claims that North West Australia has been hit by stronger tropical typhoons in the past 30 years.
    Another claim that southern regions in Australia have lost rainfall due to rising ocean temperatures and air currents pushing rain further south was also removed.
    Claims that eucalyptus and savannah habitats in Australia would also become more common were also deleted.
    The claims were highlighted in several Australian newspapers when the report was initially published, but the changes were never publicly announced….
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111618/Stern-report-was-changed-after-being-published.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    oh dear! it’s an avalanche today:

    UK Tele: Richard Gray & Rebecca Lefort: UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
    The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.
    However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

    The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
    The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007. ..
    Professor Richard Tol, one of the report’s authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: “These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.

    “Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.
    “There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense.”..
    It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports…
    Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC’s latest report, added: “The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy. …
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

    mr. sedjo goes on to recommend improving IPCC, when it is obvious to any sane person that the IPCC needs to be disbanded.

    00

  • #

    UPDATE: This post here offers an odd mix of real information and outright denial of what happened at the same time. It seems we can credit Barton (long time skeptic) with setting things off…

    “At that moment Barton–the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee–stood up, clapped and waved at the president. Other Republicans remained seated–and silent.

    Undeterred, Obama continued…”

    Juliet Eilperin’s analysis of what happened pretends that outright laughter is equal to silence, (don’t believe your lying ears) and that Obama was undeterred despite being forced to join in and weakly laugh at the word “overwhelming” when he was trying to be serious. Strange how the world looks through the prism of a fake scare.

    Thanks to Jerry for the link.

    Thanks to Wesley #46 for his incisive observation: “Watch where Pelosi and Biden look. Its to their left [right side of the screen] Its the republicans that started laughing first. But Obama, Pelosi and Biden all know they’re on camera. Their only defence is to act as if its a bipartisan joke. So they and many in the democrats laugh belatedly.”

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Sharpshooter (#92): “So when I watch a funny show at home, on TV, by myself….what would that reaction be?”

    I think it’s called lafturbation.

    00

  • #

    Laughter is a crowd related thing. If I speak to a packed room, they laugh much louder and longer at the same jokes that I tell in a half filled one. It’s why most sit-coms used canned laughs. All the people sitting at home alone are much more likely to laugh if they “join the crowd”.

    I’ve seen my baby daughter laugh at jokes there’s no chance she understands. She’s just joining in. It’s programmed. Obama and the two fixed smilers behind had no choice but to weakly join in.

    Obama will remember that.

    00

  • #

    This may be something or nothing, but can anyone lip read Pelosi’s (to Briden) comments during the speech,
    particularly around the 3 minute 50 mark,
    just after / as Obama mentioned offshore drilling.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvJDBkBGyHA&feature=related

    00

  • #

    [...] regardless of the nonsense Nick and various commenter’s point out here, at least some politicians live in the real [...]

    00

  • #
    yonason

    HERE’S AN IRONY FOR YOU

    Carl (B.S. of nuclear winter) Sagan claims to have been inspired by Robert (falsified greenhouse in 1909) W. Wood.

    “At a dinner many decades ago, the physicist Robert W. Wood
    was asked to respond to the toast, “To physics and
    metaphysics.” By “metaphysics,” people then meant something
    like philosophy, or truths you could recognize just by thinking
    about them. They could also have included pseudoscience.
    Wood answered along these lines:
    The physicist has an idea. The more he thinks it through, the
    more sense it seems to make. He consults the scientific
    literature. The more he reads, the more promising the idea
    becomes. Thus prepared, he goes to the laboratory and devises
    an experiment to test it. The experiment is painstaking. Many
    possibilities are checked. The accuracy of measurement is
    refined, the error bars reduced. He lets the chips fall where they
    may. He is devoted only to what the experiment teaches. At the
    end of all this work, through careful experimentation, the idea
    is found to be worthless. So the physicist discards it, frees his
    mind from the clutter of error, and moves on to something
    else.(1)
    The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood
    concluded as he raised his glass high, is not that the
    practitioners of one are smarter than the practitioners of the
    other. The difference is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.”

    There couldn’t be two diametrically opposite intellects. If only Sagan had learned from him. Sagan had the tools, but never figured out how to properly use them.

    00

  • #

    [...] nicht zustimmen… Barack H. Obama, SOTU-Rede, 27.01.10 – das Protokoll vermerkt (und auf dem Video ist zu hören), dass bei „überwältigenden wissenschaftlichen Beweisen“ reichlich [...]

    00

  • #
    Otter

    Derek @ 114

    I believe she is saying: ‘When Pigs fly.’

    00

  • #
    yonason

    That’s odd…

    In my “yonason:February 1st, 2010 at 3:07 am” I thought I was posting to a different article, but when I looked there was nothing that matched what I thought I remembered. I don’t retract my post, but apologize for it being irrelevant to the material here.

    00

  • #
    yonason

    OK, it wasn’t my imagination. I really did post to another article, entitled “Help? How do I know who is right?”. The link to it, including to my comment on it, was…
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/help-how-do-i-know-who-is-right/comment-page-1/#comment-27555

    It’s not missing, so I did post to something else. Why my comment ended up here instead, I have no idea.

    (Naturally I’m relieved to see this was not a ‘senior moment’ for me)

    00

  • #
    yonason

    “It’s not missing…” should have read “It’s now missing.”

    Now, ms. Jo, let me help you…

    Help? How do I know who is right?

    How do you tell a scientist from a non-scientist? Where does science end, and propaganda, politics, and opinion begin? You only need to know one thing:

    Image bar

    Straight away this sorts the wheat from the weeds. We don’t learn about the natural world by calling people names, or hiding data. We don’t learn by chucking out measurements in favor of opinions. We don’t learn by suppressing discussions, setting up fake rules about which bits of paper count, nor which people have a “licence” to speak.

    A transparent, competitive system where all views are welcome, is the fastest way to advance humanity. The Royal Society is the oldest scientific association in the world. Its motto is essentially, Take No One’s Word For It. In other words, assume nothing, look at the data. When results come in that don’t fit the theory, a scientist chucks out their theory. A non-scientist has “faith”, they “believe” or assume their theory is right and try to make the measurements fit. When measurements disagree they ignore the awkward news, and “correct”, or statistically alter the data — but always in the direction that keeps their theory alive.

    followed by a really good visual.
    …etc.

    It’s pretty good. I hope you put it back

    00

  • #

    Jo, as lurking fan, I never thought I would have to say this, but I have to disagree with you! Obama is neither a “good” speaker, nor a “polished” speaker. Platitudes are his forté, and without his teleprompter his sentences verge on unintelligible. When he’s in “campaign mode” [which is most of the time, since it seems to be the only one in which he is comfortable] he sounds almost “plausible” – until one parses his paragraphs. When he’s in presidential mode, he’s flat, insincere and totally disconnected from reality.

    From where I’m sitting, Obama as “good polished speaker” is the rhetorical equivalent of “the science is settled”. IOW, it’s a myth, perpetrated and perpetuated by a willing coalition of MSM commentators. Please retract this unsupportable claim!! Or at least take a look at Victor Davis Hansen on Obama

    And even if you don’t want to retract this claim, which is your privilege ‘cuz it’s your blog, please consider the Presidential Ascendant Promise of the Great Green Hope and Almighty Stopper of Climate Change:

    Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources [including "stimulus" funding $500,000+ to Michael "Hide the decline" Mann] but protecting free and open enquiry, [ensuring] facts are never overturned by politics and ideology, and listening to what our scientists have to say especially when it’s inconvenient.”

    His SOTU indicates that he’s allowed facts to be overturned by politics and ideology – and failing to listen to what scientists have to say.

    00

  • #
    yonason

    @hro001: February 1st, 2010 at 5:17 am

    So, um, …uh, what makes you, er, think, (unintelligable) …. that Barack Obama Al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Washington, is, uh, er, …I mean is not (is that what he said?), ah, ah, ah, a …uh, …good speaker?

    00

  • #
    Michael

    My final post on this thread, I think…

    When one evaluates whether or not Obama is a “good” public speaker it seems necessary to include more inclusive arguments than limit it to some minimal lapses in fludity.

    I think Jo is absolutely correct, but would hasten to add that Obama is much better than ‘good.’ Harken back to election night and his PRESENCE before an adoring crowd in Chicago.

    I did not vote for Obama and it was precisely due to his charismatic nature. But in listening that night I felt my heart tugged by the hope deep within my soul that he would indeed be proved correct while I would be proved wrong. But if I were to examine closely what was being said, it merely represented ‘words that tickled the ear’ of a listener, and under close examination revealed an almost ‘empty substance.’

    If I am correct in my assessment, then one must wonder how it is that so many seemed to ‘believe’ what he said to be absolute truth? It is this ability to so effectively move, or sway, the opinion of large audiences into agreement with rather empty reality, that becomes ‘proof’ of the power of the speaker.

    In this case, and many others, Obama has displayed a powerful speaking presence and therefore one must give credit to his innate ability. The evidence (huge mass of believing followers) seems to be self-evident. It matters not whether one has the ability to speak in any ‘correct’ or ‘approved’ form. Obama can, for some reason, effectively touch, to the very depth, an individual’s soul when he speaks.

    Because he has this ability, his oratory skills are leaps and bounds beyond most other orators. One can almost count them on one hand: Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, John F. Kennedy, Abe Lincoln.. Okay, there are more than I can count on one hand. But the point I am making is that the manner in speaking (and its result) seems to be much more important than if the style suits acceptable practices. And it is here that Obama excells. All other arguments will fail because they will not be able to evade this reality. in my humble opinion. Thank you for your time. :)

    00

  • #
    yonason

    @Michael: February 1st, 2010 at 6:23 am

    A really good speaker is one who can get the opposition to admit he’s right. When someone like Obama appeases people who agree with him, or who have nothing but empty hopes that they use him as a receptacle for, in spite of what he says, then, no, he’s not a “good” speaker. His “talent” consists merely of a pleasant voice, and an ability to never admit he’s made a mistake, probably because, lacking a conscience, he doesn’t ever think he’s made any. His success speaks more for what the audience lacks, than for what he possesses.

    And, since I’ve already got this going, here’s something for pat:January 31st, 2010 at 10:35 am.
    http://www.climategate.com/the-dynamic-duo-james-delingpole-and-alex-jones
    How right you are. There’s just too much money and power to be had, for them to let a little setback like climategate stop them. This ain’t over yet, not by a long shot.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Just a brief note to the (few) lefties here who apparently think that capitalism is a created economic system:

    “Capitalism” is simply a name (adopted by socialists in the 19th century) to describe what it is that people do when they are free to manage their own lives and property. To have anything other than “Capitalism” you have to suppress at least some freedoms.

    Capitalism works so well because it is a fact of Human nature that people are vastly more productive when they are free to seek their fortune and keep the product of their labor than when they are serfs.

    Socialists began using “Capitalism” as a description of free markets because it made it sound as if “Capitalism” and “Socialism” were somehow equally legitimate. It played better with the masses than “Freedom” vs. “Slavery” (which tends to bias people at the outset).

    Americans, generally, tend to intuitively understand this distinction (has to be intuitive, since the schools quit teaching it decades ago) — Obama and his advisors do not, which is being reflected in the growing dissatisfaction with his adminstration.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Otter,

    Certainly pigs can fly! Pelosi knows this. Politicians have been selling flying pigs for years. They must be able to fly. A feather here, a feather there and away they go…

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Obama is a great wordsmith, but that’s about all. Before he finishes talking you’ve forgotten why he started. Have you ever watched him answer a question at a news conference?

    Loquacious he is to be sure. But a good speaker… No-no-no!

    Just for starters a good speaker doesn’t take an hour and 15 minutes to say 30 or 40 minutes worth of material. He overloaded himself with irrelevant stuff trying to cover every subject in the world — something for everyone, lest anyone feel left out. By the end I’d forgotten where he started. That’s not the State of The Union. See my postscript.

    Replay this speech if you have trouble sleeping.

    Postscript:

    This was a leopard trying desperately to change his spots so as to look more in line with conservative interests after having been repudiated by the voters in Massachusetts.
    Please don’t hold your breath till you see nuclear plants being built or offshore drilling starting. He lies without the slightest damage to his conscience.

    00

  • #
    chris Edwards

    As I have said elswhere we all need to note who in public service, politicians, scientists bureacrats, the UN and the damned EU and make sure they loose their jobs and any benefits an honest person could expect and never get in to a position of trust again, there is, as has been written here, no honest reason for embracing this scam so they are all “unfit to serve” they should keep that badge for life.

    00

  • #
    JAC

    I agree with you on most things Joanne, but you have missed read this.

    The audience is laughing at the the idea that someone would disgaree with “overwhelming evidence”. The laugh is on the “someone” (i.e. skeptics). Why only dumb skeptics would argue with “overwhelming evidence”. How funny are those guys!, its so obvious from the evidence. I guess that makes them deniers and not skeptics. Giggle.

    00

  • #
    CyberForester

    If he’s overwhelmed by the evidence for climate change then his advisors better not let him know about Chicago’s crime statistics.

    00

  • #
    Richard

    Obama – “I know there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change…

    Just like those that disagreed with the overwhelming evidence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

    And just look at who we have on our side – Such eminent scientists as Prince Charles (IPCC lead author through the WWF), Scient(tologo)ist John Travolta, Al Gore (inventor of the Internet and the global warming scam), Pachauri (inventor of the Glacial melt of Himalayan proportions), Osama Bin Laden (inventor of the airline bomb and great destroyer of those carbon polluting civilian planes and humans)

    Can the sceptics boast of such eminent company?

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Richard,

    Thankfully no!

    00

  • #

    [...] Obama and the evidence [...]

    00