Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Carly Fiorina states the obvious... Maobama is delusional.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Carly Fiorina states the obvious... Maobama is delusional.

    WALLACE: Your reaction to the summit and to the contention by some in the Obama administration that climate change is, if not the biggest, certainly the most immediate threat to our national security?

    FIORINA: Well, that's delusional. It is delusional for President Obama and Hillary Clinton and anyone else to say that climate change is our near-term most severe security threat. It is ISIS, period, followed closely by Iran and perhaps Russia.

    President Obama continues to think that somehow our behavior causes terrorism, so he says the climate change summit is a powerful rebuke. No, it's not. The terrorists don't care that we're gathering in Paris other than it provides a target, just as he said, well, Republicans are giving terrorists a recruiting tool when we don't think Syrian refugees should be allowed to enter this country if we cannot properly vet them.

    http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ina-reacts-to/
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    He's not the only one constantly ranting about climate change being the end of the world. You do it constantly on every section of ACG. Must be a Democrat thing...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      He's not the only one constantly ranting about climate change being the end of the world. You do it constantly on every section of ACG. Must be a Democrat thing...
      ^A perfectly clueless post.^
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, when a Progressive columnist like Dana Millbank calls Obama "President O-bummer" there's some serious $h!+ flying.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mepage%2Fstory

        Millbank in that column, normally a defender of Obama, tears him a new one over his handling of ISIS and Syria.

        On the left, facing the cameras, was François Hollande, war president. He spoke of “cowardly murderers” who “dishonor humanity,” of a “relentless determination to fight terrorism everywhere and anywhere,” of “an implacable joint response,” of “hunting down their leaders” and “taking back the land.”

        On the right stood Barack Obama, President Oh-bummer.

        Defeating the Islamic State?

        “That’s going to be a process that involves hard, methodical work. It’s not going to be something that happens just because suddenly we take a few more airstrikes.”

        A political settlement in Syria?

        “It’s going to be hard. And we should not be under any illusions.”

        Could the Paris attacks have been prevented?

        “That’s hard — that’s a hard thing to track. . . . That’s a tough job.”
        The column doesn't let up either. When your loyal base is attacking you, you've got serious problems as a politician.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          He's not the only one constantly ranting about climate change being the end of the world. You do it constantly on every section of ACG. Must be a Democrat thing...
          I understand your point as resistance to the precepts associated with AGW represent a reactionary perspective to some extent.

          There are obvious benefits to the replacement of fossil fuels besides reducing co2 emissions. The issues of course are complex but I have been a long time supporter of the Pickens plan for example as a logical step toward a hydrogen fuel economy. I also support Nuclear power as an alternative to coal fired power plants although the relative cost and disposal of waste remain unsolved problems.
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            Well, when a Progressive columnist like Dana Millbank calls Obama "President O-bummer" there's some serious $h!+ flying.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mepage%2Fstory

            Millbank in that column, normally a defender of Obama, tears him a new one over his handling of ISIS and Syria.



            The column doesn't let up either. When your loyal base is attacking you, you've got serious problems as a politician.
            One of the "flaws" in liberalism is that it is based on the idea that change is good. Once you adopt a philosophy that doesn't allow for high fidelity replication a great deal of diversity is likely to creep in. Conservatives may appear to have a wider diversity of opinions than liberals but over the long term their core values remain less malleable. Obama is the victim of being outdated.

            There is at present a seismic shift in liberalism best characterized by the decline of the "blank slate" hypothesis of human nature. The "blank slate" hypothesis is closely associated with the anarchist wing of socialism. Obama in many ways is a product of the old anarchist wing of socialism perhaps best represented by people like Noam Chomsky. What is developing in liberal circles is a more positive view of Western civilization and a reaffirmation of it's traditions in the sciences and enlightenment. Over time I expect the negative influence of people like Marx to become less important as new more progressive ideologies are adopted.
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              ...
              The column doesn't let up either. When your loyal base is attacking you, you've got serious problems as a politician.
              Yeah, someone else to purge from the ranks in a couple of days.

              I wonder if that reporter will enjoy the Sports Desk in Guadeloupe.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                Yeah, someone else to purge from the ranks in a couple of days.

                I wonder if that reporter will enjoy the Sports Desk in Guadeloupe.
                Bill Maher has come under heated attack for the same reason but I suspect that liberals will regroup closer to the ideas of Maher than Obama.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                  I understand your point as resistance to the precepts associated with AGW represent a reactionary perspective to some extent.

                  There are obvious benefits to the replacement of fossil fuels besides reducing co2 emissions. The issues of course are complex but I have been a long time supporter of the Pickens plan for example as a logical step toward a hydrogen fuel economy. I also support Nuclear power as an alternative to coal fired power plants although the relative cost and disposal of waste remain unsolved problems.
                  Global warming isn't "reactionary" by any measure; it's merely non-science presented constantly as a problem that humans can solve. That takes it out of the mainstream of intelligent thinking and into the realm of fantasy and self-delusion. the true solution is not to try and stop a planetary trend, but to develop ways of adapting to it, since we no longer have the wisdom or the ability to respond to natural climate trends the way the ancients did...by moving.

                  The problem with nuclear power is aging nuclear power plants and spent nuclear fuel. Neither will ever go away, and they cannot just be ignored or left sitting around. Even if no longer used, they stay with us forever. How many obsolete nuclear power plants forever dotting the landscape can we afford? We've got one in Colorado that isn't ever going away, and I live not far from an old uranium refinery that not only isn't going away, but still isn't being cleaned up, either. The Feds just can;t seem to find the money and neither can the former operators, but they opened another refinery on the other side of the state. This is the classic definition of insanity.

                  As for hydrogen fuel, there is a universal rule that cannot be contravened - there is no such thing as a free lunch. Everything has a cost when you use it. Hydrogen will as well. Meanwhile, until we come up with a substitute for all of the things we make out of oil, we need it more than ever, and not for fuel, either. Nuclear power and hydrogen power do not create fertilizers, medicines, fabrics, plastics and all of the other things that keep our modern world going.

                  Comment


                  • #10

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Food industry executives call on Congress for climate change action

                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      WALLACE: Your reaction to the summit and to the contention by some in the Obama administration that climate change is, if not the biggest, certainly the most immediate threat to our national security?

                      FIORINA: Well, that's delusional. It is delusional for President Obama and Hillary Clinton and anyone else to say that climate change is our near-term most severe security threat. It is ISIS, period, followed closely by Iran and perhaps Russia.

                      President Obama continues to think that somehow our behavior causes terrorism, so he says the climate change summit is a powerful rebuke. No, it's not. The terrorists don't care that we're gathering in Paris other than it provides a target, just as he said, well, Republicans are giving terrorists a recruiting tool when we don't think Syrian refugees should be allowed to enter this country if we cannot properly vet them.

                      http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ina-reacts-to/
                      Carly Fiorina is again displaying a remarkable inability to look past the end of her own nose. Climate change is for real, although we can debate until the cows come home about its causes; I personally believe that human actions are causal factors in its exacerbation. The threat of climate change to food supplies can certainly be considered a threat to national security insofar as they are likely to cause instability in the affected regions. Moreover, when you have major food produces exerting pressure on governments to take actions, I would have to argue that it is indeed high time to take the issue seriously.

                      The briefing was held to call attention to a letter signed by CEOs of some of the world’s biggest food companies, which asks governments to set “clear, achievable” science-based targets for carbon emissions reductions. Ceres circulated the letter, which was published in full-page ads in the Washington Post and Financial Times.


                      Signed by the CEOs of companies including Mars, General Mills, Unilever, Dannon North America, Ben & Jerry’s, Kellogg, Nestle USA, New Belgium Brewing, Stonyfield Farm and Clif Bar, the letter says that climate change is “bad for farmers and for agriculture” and warned that “drought, flooding and hotter growing conditions threaten the world’s food supply and contribute to food insecurity”.
                      http://www.theguardian.com/sustainab...s-donald-trump

                      The chief executives of the world’s leading food companies have published an open letter to global leaders pledging individual and collaborative action on climate change and urging governments to forge clear international agreements at this December’s climate debates at COP21.

                      Mars, Incorporated, General Mills, Unilever, Kellogg Company, Nestlé USA, New Belgium Brewing, Ben & Jerry’s, Clif Bar, Stonyfield Farm and Dannon USA penned the letter, which states: “Climate change is bad for farmers and agriculture. Drought, flooding, and hotter growing conditions threaten the world’s food supply and contribute to food insecurity. As world leaders convene in Paris you will have an opportunity to take action on climate change that could significantly change our world for the better.”
                      http://www.mars.com/global/press-cen...eId=94&Id=6737

                      Climate change is bad for farmers and agriculture. Drought, flooding, and hotter growing conditions threaten the world’s food supply and contribute to food insecurity,” states the letter, which will appear in today’s Washington Post and Financial Times. “As world leaders convene in Paris you will have an opportunity to take action on climate change that could significantly change our world for the better.”
                      http://www.ceres.org/press/press-rel...climate-action
                      Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                      Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                      Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                        Carly Fiorina is again displaying a remarkable inability to look past the end of her own nose. Climate change is for real, although we can debate until the cows come home about its causes; I personally believe that human actions are causal factors in its exacerbation. The threat of climate change to food supplies can certainly be considered a threat to national security insofar as they are likely to cause instability in the affected regions. Moreover, when you have major food produces exerting pressure on governments to take actions, I would have to argue that it is indeed high time to take the issue seriously.



                        http://www.theguardian.com/sustainab...s-donald-trump



                        http://www.mars.com/global/press-cen...eId=94&Id=6737



                        http://www.ceres.org/press/press-rel...climate-action


                        At no point did Ms. Fiorina dispute the existence of climate change, no one does.

                        She simply said that it was delusional to state that climate change was our most serious national security threat.
                        WALLACE: Your reaction to the summit and to the contention by some in the Obama administration that climate change is, if not the biggest, certainly the most immediate threat to our national security?

                        FIORINA: Well, that's delusional. It is delusional for President Obama and Hillary Clinton and anyone else to say that climate change is our near-term most severe security threat. It is ISIS, period, followed closely by Iran and perhaps Russia.

                        President Obama continues to think that somehow our behavior causes terrorism, so he says the climate change summit is a powerful rebuke. No, it's not. The terrorists don't care that we're gathering in Paris other than it provides a target, just as he said, well, Republicans are giving terrorists a recruiting tool when we don't think Syrian refugees should be allowed to enter this country if we cannot properly vet them.

                        http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/20...ina-reacts-to/
                        Last edited by The Doctor; 01 Dec 15, 06:29.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The thing that is really delusional, is the notion that this conference will have any affect on the weather...



                          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...899.12295/full

                          If AGW is as bad as the Gorebots say it is, we could undiscover fire tomorrow and it wouldn't make one bit of difference to the natural process of climate change.

                          Fortunately, the models (like RCP 8.5) have been 97% wrong since 1993 and are getting more wrong over time...
                          Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval). This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models. By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty.

                          The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade. The divergence between observed and CMIP5- simulated global warming begins in the early 1990s, as can be seen when comparing observed and simulated running trends from 1970–2012.

                          The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years. [S]uch an inconsistency is only expected to occur by chance once in 500 years,

                          http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/ov...past-20-years/

                          PDF of paper... http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/s...%20Warming.pdf

                          This falsifies the AGW hypothesis...



                          The only difference between AGW and Creationism is the fact that AGW is favored by left wing politicians.
                          Attached Files
                          Last edited by The Doctor; 01 Dec 15, 07:41.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                            Carly Fiorina is again displaying a remarkable inability to look past the end of her own nose.
                            Not true. She is focused on the real threats to America that we can and should be dealing with. Obama lives in a fantasy world of his own inside his head, completely out of touch with reality. We have deadly riots in our streets and cities on fire and Obama flies to Paris to talk about the climate. The man is clinically insane.

                            Climate change is inevitable and we can do nothing about it when the rest of the world is polluting like mad and the scientists continue to tell us that Man has nothing to do with it. Even the Doc swears to us that Man has nothing to do with global warming, so what is it we are supposed to do to fix a problem we have nothing to do with?

                            Meanwhile, Super-Stupid is wrecking the entire economy of America with his Islamo-socialist daydreams, but his fantasies are costing trillions that we don't have and the number of working taxpayers is dwindling every day, while the welfare rolls are steadily growing. The gulf between Obama's lack of reality and the world we live in is the size of the Grand Canyon and growing exponentially, and we only have to look at the disaster he created with Obamacare to understand clearly why we want no part of whatever he is daydreaming about this time, such as "climate change". THAT is what our primary problem is.

                            Want to do something positive about "climate change". Start working on how to adapt to it and make it work for us, because it isn't going away.

                            Meanwhile, deal with the real problems, like Islamic terrorism, a depressed economy, over-regulated businesses and industries and the need for more, not less, low cost energy to keep America competitive.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Meanwhile, even the friendly press is starting to wake up to Obama being a failure.

                              http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinio...Kz&ocid=SMSDHP

                              The presidency has changed Barack Obama. His hair has gone gray, which is to be expected, and he looks older, which is also to be expected, but his eloquence has been replaced by petulance and he has lost the power to persuade, which is something of a surprise. You can speculate that if the Obama of today and not Winston Churchill had led Britain in World War II, the Old Vic theater would now be doing “Hamlet” in German.

                              The president has lost his voice, that is certain. The numbers say so. Obama has the approval of only 44 percent of the American people. During his time in office, Congress and much of the nation have gone Republican — statehouse after statehouse, governor after governor (soon to be 32) — an astounding feat when you consider that the GOP has become the Know-Nothing Party in all its meanings.
                              Actually, what's happened isn't that his eloquence is gone, but rather that Obama can't give a speech on anything that contains substance. He's a master at rhetorical speech, saying nothing but whipping a crowd up into a favorable emotional state.
                              But, once he does that he fails on every following account to actually turn rhetoric into action or results. People have grown used to the rhetoric now and he can't even motivate the crowd anymore.
                              It is one more indication of just how much a empty suit and mediocre intellect and leader he really is.

                              This week he's blathering on about climate change and the US public yawns and isn't listening to him. Congress isn't about to fund his initiatives and he'll once again find himself with some useless UN treaty he's signed onto unable to get Congressional approval for it.
                              It is a delusion of reality that Obama lives in.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X