Here is an excerpt from a story by Chip Knappenberger titled Presidential Debate: Climate Change Cheat Sheet
With the first presidential debate this Wednesday, and since both candidates have made recent high profile references to climate change and its impacts, perhaps this is a good time to review some basic climate change talking points that each candidates should have at his disposal.
Climate During the Obama Administration
• Over the course of the Obama presidency the rate of global warming has declined.
• Over the course of the Obama presidency the rise of the global sea level has slowed.
• Over the course of the Obama presidency the emissions of greenhouse gases from the U.S. have declined.
None of the above are a result of Obama Administration policies.
• Instead, the vagaries of natural climate variability have led to a (temporary) slowdown of the rise in both global average temperature and global average sea level.
• The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S is largely a result of a poor economy, a rise in the use (and affordable availability) of natural gas, and on-going improvements of the U.S. energy efficiency that were begun long before the Obama Administration.
Full story here
Mike Haseler says:
October 2, 2012 at 6:46 am
And if that doesn’t convince you, the US health care system is about as efficient as a windmill
=============
In SE Asia they have organized health care like an assembly line, replacing the cottage industry approach to health care practiced in most countries.
If anything it is the medical profession that prevents this mass production type of solution, using the argument that it would reduce the level of care. Imagine how long it would take to make a car, how much it would costs, and how poor the quality would be if car factories were organized along the lines of the medical industry.
Is CO2 pollution? Wish they would ask each candidate that.
Mike Haseler says:
October 2, 2012 at 6:46 am
MarkW: If you want to improve health care, the first thing you have to do is get govt out of the business of providing it.
Obama in a nurse’s uniform may be your kind of thing, but here in Scotland we have doctors and nurses organised by the state.
Seriously though, the whole point about a society is that as a society you care for those who are less able – and whether or not you like it, those who are less able are less able to afford to pay.
And if that doesn’t convince you, the US health care system is about as efficient as a windmill — loads of dole in for very mediocre performance.
=============================================================
Mark W is 100%correct
“here in Scotland we have doctors and nurses organised by the state.”
Not at all sure of what you mean here, but there is no way you can compare Scottish anything to American anything and be anywhere close in the size and scope.
“And if that doesn’t convince you, the US health care system is about as efficient as a windmill — loads of dole in for very mediocre performance.”
Medicare alone may waste 10-20% (50-100 BILLION)
That can’t happen in private business for very long.
“Seriously though, the whole point about a society is that as a society you care for those who are less able – and whether or not you like it, those who are less able are less able to afford to pay.”
America is the most generous nation on the planet. We already have ways of helping those that truly need/deserve it and having the federal government micromanage 1/5 of our economy won’t help.
99% of the time government is a hindrance to success
@ur momisugly Aussie Luke Warm, and MarkW, RE: Mitt’s Climate Speech.
Aussie has a great opening and MarkW has the elements of a finish. My try:
97 percent of the climate scientists will vote for the president no matter what. They dependent upon government for their research grants and jetset lifestyles, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them with professorships and sabbaticals, who believe that they are entitled to awards, tenure, more grants, to you-name-it without ever producing anything that is more science than politics — that that’s an entitlement. They will vote for this president no matter what I say. I cannot worry about those people. Fortunately for us, there are only 77 of them. (Yea, 77 of a very small cherry picked 79, look it up.) I am going after the support of tens of thousands of earth scientists and engineers and the tens of millions of tax payers that have serious doubts about US Government’s and UN’s plans and proposals to manipulate the earth’s climate by taxing and controlling the actions of its free citizens. We, The People, are the ones at a tipping point — of falling into the abyss of tyranny by the UN and our own EPA.
Finesse the GHG GW argument. Don’t accept it, don’t fight it. Ignore it. Dissect not the science but the politics. Deeply rooted in skepticism is that government proposals are impotent at controlling climate change but are designed to consolidate political power and wealth into the hands of a Climate Cabal.
Mike Haseler says:
October 2, 2012 at 4:47 am
If I were American, I’d vote Obama. The reason is simple, there will be no Kyoto Commitment at the end of this year and by the falling share price of wind turbine manufacturers it looks as if the world investors know that global warming will be dead on or shortly after the 31st December.
But on the 31st December, there will still be people in the US who cannot afford their health care….
Yet they will still get health care, that is, until the cost-containment Medicare bureaucrats decide not to pay for Granny’s hip replacement and ~”place her in a wheel chair with some pain medicine instead”….and then just wait…having provided the new and improved “health care” complete with “free” birth control as its first and political priority. Armed with that Model for the whole of Obamacare, what could possibly go wrong?
OT again. Anthony / Mods please take note. Delete if needed.
Anthony, via the MS command prompt and clearing the DNS cache. And using Firefox, still no luck accessing Jo Nova.
Her site is the only site i know that is inaccessible on the web. Can you please post a link that is known to be available for everybody?
I can’t even access her site via google or bing search results.
Sincere apologies for the OT posts.
[works fine for me . . http://joannenova.com.au/ . . mod]
Obama and Mitt Romney would be well advised to steer well away from talk of
global warmingclimate change. Most people no longer give a damn.First off: “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease((Gen. 8:22). However, unlike u.s. by history, MARXISM’S 1st tennet of speech is LIE, LIE, LIE, AND THEN LIE SOME MORE… DUH!
Man, I hope Bob Shieffer asks Obama if his economically crucial Energy Policy will be comprised by merely doubling down on solar panels and windmills or else simply moving right on to Algae, or both! Or maybe, will flowery verbiage be enough?
Anthony.
Thanks for your help. I will update my browser before i bother you anymore. I find it very strange. I’ll let you know on this thread how it transpires.
But all i get is:
Server not found.
All the best.
Mitt should go at SlickO in the debates on how he has used green money to buy swing states…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/obama-showering-ohio-with-attention-and-money/2012/09/25/8ab15a68-019e-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_story.html
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/sba
“• The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S is largely a result of a poor economy…”
Which is a direct result of Obama Administration Policies.
Matthew W says:
October 2, 2012 at 8:27 am
Sir, you conflate society and government. To two are not equal. If they were we would not have Obamacare as 53% of society did not want it.
mkelly says:
October 2, 2012 at 11:16 am
Matthew W says:
October 2, 2012 at 8:27 am
Sir, you conflate society and government. To two are not equal. If they were we would not have Obamacare as 53% of society did not want it.
===============================================
I conflate nothing.
I have no idea as to how you incorrectly think that I equate society and government.
Matthew W says:
October 2, 2012 at 11:37 am
Sorry Mattew I grabbed the wrong part of the post. I was talking to Mike Haseler. The comment was meant for him not you.
Obama’s climate accomplishments were also documented at:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/MissionAccomplished.htm
I’m sorry, but I’m not voting out of fear. Neither Obama, nor Romney will be getting my vote in November. My vote will go to a 3rd party candidate. Both parties are equally corrupt, and both will continue to run this country into the ground. I have seen nothing from either party in 12 years that leads me to believe that they have our best interests in mind.
Robert Olsen says:
October 2, 2012 at 2:15 pm
I’m sorry, but I’m not voting out of fear. Neither Obama, nor Romney will be getting my vote in November. My vote will go to a 3rd party candidate. Both parties are equally corrupt, and both will continue to run this country into the ground. I have seen nothing from either party in 12 years that leads me to believe that they have our best interests in mind.
————
I concur.
I trust Gary Johnson to do the right thing. He did it as governor..
O & R, I trust not so much.
cn
mkelly says:
October 2, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Matthew W says:
October 2, 2012 at 11:37 am
Sorry Mattew I grabbed the wrong part of the post. I was talking to Mike Haseler. The comment was meant for him not you.
================================
In that case, you are indeed very correct !!
“My vote will go to a 3rd party candidate.”
Been there done that from 1980 until 2000, voting Libertarian mostly, and I like Gary Johnson and Ron Paul – result: by the time of the final national election, you can’t influence anything that way. By that time your vote is more assuredly wasted on a 3rd Party than the waste you say is the case in voting for either a D or an R., simply because the 3rd Parties are already toast for that cycle.
In fact, Communists used to be a 3rd Party until they decided to invade the Democrat Party around 1984 because they knew they couldn’t win qua Communists as a 3rd Party. I saw it happen, but didn’t think it would work. Wrong!
No doubt if Republicans win this one, the job to turn them back to being truly Constitutionally Conservative [Classically Liberal] will have almost just begun, Tea Party excepted: maybe we can use the same tactic. But if the Progressive Communists win, crony capitalism/Socialist Fascism and Totalitarianism will then have both legs up on us…”we da’ people”.
‘Grats. You’re voting for Obama. Democrats never vote for 3rd party candidates, Republicans often do. The result is Democrat victories. Thanks a bunch, doofus.