What Barack Obama says about climate change is just not so:, Dr. Tim Ball, Canada Free Press:
Amid the rhetoric of President Obama’s speech to the United Nations September 22 conference on climate change in New York he repeated the same few points. They’re identical to those in Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” Trouble is they are wrong. So, what is the President’s culpability? If he doesn’t know they’re wrong he and his advisors are incompetent. If they know, they’re deceiving.
Is it incompetence, or indifference to the truth?
Tags: Al Gore, Canada, climate change, dr tim, incompetence, indifference, movie an inconvenient truth, rhetoric, tim ball, United nations
Posted by davidl
Barrack Obama, BitsBlog, Democrats, Enviro-Nazis, Idiots, Liberal, White House
Print This Post
Subscribe to RSS feed
Print This Post
Subscribe to RSS feed
October 6th, 2009 at 6:23
One retired scientist who works for an oil-funded ‘think tank’, whose main area of expertise is geography disagrees with the world’s climate scientists.Yeah, that’s really convincing.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:22
It has been increasinglly obvious that Barack Obama has never been one to let mere facts deter his idealogy. This moorn thinks that ending the grown of Israel’s settlements is somehow the key to two thousand year old Middle East peace problem. That hs can cause Russian to change her historic expansionist urge by pushing some phoney ‘reset’ button. That can lower the actual cost of medical care by restricting payments to doctors, while doing nothing about tort reform. That some a massive spend and borrow program would stimulate the economy. Lsst Valarie Jarrett sent the one to Denmark to win the Olympic bid because she outsourced the adminstration political intelligence to Richard Daley. Obama is listening to Joe Biden for advice in Afganistan, but shunning his own generals.
Obama is neither educated nor accmplished., but he is dangerous.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:49
ASD; if you want talk about convincing perhaps you should speak to the issue of how it is we’re supposed to believe these ire predictions about climate change over the next century when we can’t predict the weather over the next three days. The fact of the matter is that something along the lines of 18% of Americans right now believe that “climate change” is even real,, much less a threat.
What this boils down to is that “climate change” is naught but a tool to cripple western economies. On little to no evidence these people want us to curtail our energy use by something along the lines of 80%. No personal transportation, nowhere conditioning, no vacation travel, manufacturing severely curtailed, and so on. Does anybody think that an economy already in a rut over socialist spending is not going to fall over completely under those kind of restrictions?
Certainly the proponents of massive taxes on energy use to curtail such use don’t.
As for the credibility of Doctor Ball, I asked the question again who should we believe … someone who has made his life’s work in that area, or someone on the payroll of, say, George Soros?
I offer a third alternative; a senior policy analyst for the U.S. state department. Do you suppose he qualifies?
I’ve already indicated the percentage of Americans who have already made their choice on
the matter. I’d say the debate is over. Global warming is a hoax and the IPCC is fatally flawed, Move on.