There’s tautology:
In grammar, the use of redundant words. In logic, a tautology is a formula which is true in every possible interpretation. Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein first applied the term to redundancies of propositional logic in 1921
and then there is tauntology:
The practice of making remarks in order to anger, wound, or provoke someone.
Which one do you think our ‘commander in chief’ prefers? Obama gave a speech to an audience of college graduates at University of California, Irvine in which he expounded on his advanced views of climate change:
“They say, ‘Hey, look, I’m not a scientist.’ And I’ll translate that for you: what that really means is, ‘I know that manmade climate change really is happening but if I admit it, I’ll be run out of town by a radical fringe that thinks climate science is a liberal plot,'” he said.
“There’s going to be a stubborn status quo and people determined to stymie your efforts to bring about change. There are going to be people who say you can’t do something. There are going to be people who say you shouldn’t bother trying. I’ve got some experience with this myself,” Obama said.
“It’s pretty rare that you’ll encounter somebody who says the problem you’re trying to solve simply doesn’t exist. When President Kennedy set us on a course to the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it,” he continued.
“But nobody ignored the science. I don’t remember anybody saying the moon wasn’t there or that it was made of cheese,” Obama said.
Wow, grade school level logical fallacy. How…unpresidential.
I’m sure Obama’s mind, the taunting of the significant percentage of people in the United States who don’t think climate change is a significant problem worth doing something about is a winning strategy.
From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/12/new-gallup-poll-shows-climate-change-near-the-bottom-of-things-worth-worrying-about/
From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/11/despite-climate-edicts-from-the-white-house-even-liberals-dont-think-climate-change-is-a-top-priority/
Except in this case, Obama isn’t smart enough to realize that divide and conquer isn’t a winning strategy. Of course when you feel like you can do things without a mandate, and just dictate policy instead of following the path of democracy, I suppose the phrase “what difference does it make?” might apply to unpresidential tauntology.
Obama is listening to advices by John Holdren and John Podesta. What a team!
Hey, the Pres. is right. I never thought of it that way, but on closer examination climate science is full of holes and the more you stick your nose into what is going on, the more it stinks.
Perhaps it really IS made of cheese. Probably a really smelly french cheese too.
This is definitely a credible hypothesis. I wonder whether POTUS has a science and technology adviser who could give us his “personal opinion” on what sort of cheese it is.
You have elected him twice. Stop complaining.
rogerknights says:
June 15, 2014 at 10:24 am
ferdberple says:
June 15, 2014 at 6:27 am
When President Kennedy set us on a course to the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it,” he continued.
Among them was Werner von Braun, and he was right. He wanted to build an orbiting station that could be used to assemble rockets to go to the Moon in ten years, and then Mars, etc. Now we’re at a dead end, as a result of JFK’s policies.
=====
But the real reason for a manned moon landing was not scientific endeavour, it was a political move. Which brings us back to the reason why climate science is made of cheese.
shield our children from gun violence
Teach them how to use one.
What I find funniest about the moon comment, is the modellers that landed us on the moon do not think it is an issue either…. http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/
The reality is this: divide-and-conquer has worked very well for President Obama for the last six years, and he obviously expects his style of government to continue to work well for him and for his successors well into the future. The President demonizes his political opponents for lack of action on climate change, but he himself has not gone nearly as far as he could legally go in forcing a reduction in America’s carbon emissions, using the authorities he already holds as President.
The leaders of America’s environmental movement will not publicly acknowledge the fact that the EPA now has all the tools it needs to implement the most stringent of measures against America’s continued reliance on fossil fuels, and without a single word of new legislation being needed from the Congress to force a particular environmental policy agenda on the country. The courts have upheld the EPA’s authority under existing law to regulate carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant, and they have refused to support court challenges to the scientific validity of the EPA’s endangerment finding.
The EPA is to energy policy what the Federal Reserve System is to economic policy, with the important exception that the EPA is not an independent agency and is directly controlled by the Executive Branch. No other government agency has as much power to promote one specific energy/environment policy at the expense of some other energy/environment policy. If it wanted to do so, the EPA could even go so far as to implement a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated carbon tax. The precedent has already been set by the Supreme Court that a revenue collection mechanism which is being labeled as a “fine” can be implemented in ways that make it a legally enforceable tax.
As long as it follows the processes and procedures that existing legislation directs, the EPA can do whatever it wants to in placing regulatory burdens upon an entire industry, or even upon an entire segment of the economy — burdens which have the impact of directly favoring one policy agenda over some other policy agenda. The authority that the Congress and the courts have granted to the EPA is such that the Obama Administration could, if it wanted to do so, unilaterally implement the most far-reaching, the most finely-crafted, and the most effective carbon emission reduction measures that any global warming activist could possibly ask for.
But the Obama Administration is doing something very different, they are promoting one fossil fuel energy resource — natural gas — over another fossil fuel energy resource — coal. More to the point, while promoting themselves as being against fossil fuels and for taking effective action on climate change, they have adopted a policy which guarantees that America will eventually be covered with fracking wells from one side of the country to the other. It is divide-and-conquer at its very finest.
Perhaps Obama thinks the recent WaPo / ABC News poll indicates popular support for his moves on climate change. Here’s a rebuttal of that report by Roy Spencer here a few days ago:
“They say, ‘Hey, look, I’m not a scientist.’ And I’ll translate that for you: what that really means is, ‘I know that manmade climate change really is happening but if I admit it, I’ll be run out of town by a radical fringe that thinks climate science is a liberal plot,’” [obama] said.
————
Tauntology: deride and conquer.
But if you disagree with this President it’s because you’re a racist, you hate people with darker skin. Unless you have darker skin than this President, which means you’re a racist who hates people with lighter skin. Unless you have the same skin tone as this President, which means you’re a self-hating racist.
Either way, the solution to eliminate virtually all racism is also the prescription for saving Medicare and Social Security from future insolvency: Everyone goes outdoors into the sunlight until everyone gets tanned the same color on all possibly visible skin. Clothing optional.
PS, albinos and others unable to tan will be colored by tattooing appropriately, but it will be paid for by the government for the greater good. The government appreciates your gratitude.
George Steiner says:
June 15, 2014 at 11:03 am
You have elected him twice. Stop complaining.
=================================================================
I had a total of 2 votes in the last two presidential elections. Neither were for him.
One of his supporters, a poll worker in Cincinnati, was convicted of voting for him up to 6 times in the last election alone. I don’t know what she did the previous election.
But all that aside, no matter what country, no elected leader of any country should be or is immune from criticism when they are being dishonest with the facts.
JohnH says: “…before too long, 97% of climate models will have failed to predict the prior 18 yrs of surface temperatures. ”
Hey John, try to keep up. ESA directorate of Earth Observation has just declared that surface temperature is a “lousy” indicator of climate. So any silly ideas about sticking to the facts will not work. The facts don’t matter My, you’re so 20th century !
Remember the President of the United States of America has just told us climate science is made of cheese.
So here we have a further clue as to just what KIND of cheese it really is. We already know it stinks and is full of holes, we now also know that when left exposed to heat and the light of day, it becomes very fluid.
Obama was playing to the Mid-Term Congressional election in November to help the DNC candidates.
It’s likely that His and the DNC numbers are stronger among mid-to-late 20s grad school socio-demographic than the GOP (could be their polling is gimped too as Cantor’s was but for different group-think erroneous assumptions).
On a different plane of through, we could forgive JFK’s remarks by saying that he was on medication for his WWII injuries, whereas for Obama, we can just say that he is still a stoner.
Ha ha
It’s also worth noting that when cheese reaches this kind of fluid state it is no longer fit for human consumption and it is illegal to sell it to the public. It has to be thrown in the skip.
Deride and conquer. Buddy up with the 23% that think climate change is an important issue and piss off the remaining 77% who have more pressing concerns like losing their homes and their jobs.
Not I. It was the 47% who pay no federal income taxes who elected him, plus a few well-off liberal Democrats. The problem is they inhabit the states with the most electoral votes.
/Mr Lynn
Greg said on June 15, 2014 at 11:46 am:
That can’t possibly be true, my country is universally feared for our prowess in making liquid spray cheese in a pressurized can. Are you saying that’s not edible food?
From Greg on June 15, 2014 at 11:33 am:
You must not know about the right sort of cheeses. When I leave Swiss out it transforms into emergency replacement gasket material. You can transform milk into casein plastic, one of the earliest commercial plastics. Too bad I can’t get a sheet of Swiss without the holes and of a uniform thickness, it’d be nice to keep in the toolkit.
From the George Will column cited by Joel O’Brien:
Call us the “Sensible Selvage”!
Obama said
“You’re going to have to learn more about these issues. Even if you’re not like Jessica and an expert, you’re going to have to work on this. You’re going to have to push those of us in power to do what this American moment demands. You’ve got to educate your classmates, and colleagues, and family members and fellow citizens, and tell them what’s at stake. You’ve got to push back against the misinformation, and speak out for facts, and organize others around your vision for the future.”
I hope the graduates do that.
Rocks. Not cheese. Rocks.
If it were cheese, the French would have beaten us there.
Maybe Barack ought to resign and give Biden a chance. 😉
From rogerknights on June 15, 2014 at 12:28 pm:
Sounds like a scene from a new horror flick:
Scarecrow Surprise
Waiting in the fields is for the birds.
Coming November 4, 2014
The Sad days for America grow sadder each day
He just reads the teleprompter. He has no intellect.
Television science.