Political Gamesmanship Of The Left And How It Will Backfire

I’ve been watching a recent political drama unfold recently.  I’ve been hesitant to write much about it for two reasons.  1) The issue is highly charged and can easily turn very ugly.  and 2) The cards hadn’t been played until today.

Note:  This is a political post.  This is not a moral nor religious post.  While it may be inevitable that the conversation may stray from the political perspective, it is my hope insistence that it remain semi-civil.  Lewdness will not be tolerated. 

As we all know, today, the president came out in favor of Gay marriage.  This has been orchestrated and building for the last couple of months.  And, now there is dancing in the streets and whatnot by the people who favor same sex marriage.

I don’t believe this was orchestrated by the administration.  Obama didn’t want to make this statement.  Had he wanted to, he would have a long time ago.  And, if he was waiting for the optimal time to make political points, the timing today couldn’t have been worse for him.  This was thrust upon him by his base.  He had to make this statement and soon.  For people who haven’t been watching, go here and sift through the archives.

Romney stated, today, that marriage is between a man and a woman.  He didn’t have a lot of options, either.  A large part of his base would have insisted on this statement soon anyway. 

So, here the country is, with a nice delineation between presidential candidates.  Which, is entirely symbolic.  Marriage licenses are issued by the states. These statements have no bearing on reality.  This wedge issue was forced by the extreme left.  I can only imagine they think this will score political points for Obama in an attempt to cast Romney as a hard right candidate. 

Here’s why this backfires.  This issue comes up before the various states constantly.  And, they are constantly shot down at the polls. For those still not paying attention, North Carolina voters passed a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as solely between a man and a womanYesterday!  How stupid is that?  North Carolina is the 30th state to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

This will only be seen as a slap in the face to the North Carolina voters.  Up until today, North Carolina was seen as a swing state (a state that could go either way), but would probably end up voting for Obama.  I think this changes things there.  And, NC carries significant weight in the electoral college.

Supporters of same sex marriage are the most vocal.  Opposition to it isn’t.  These pronouncements are close enough to the election for people who deeply care about this issue that they won’t forget.  For those who don’t deeply care, but have sympathies for same sex marriage, this will be long forgotten…….. unless.  Unless this is made to be a presidential election issue.  In which case, it would irk the heck out of the electorate.   

As I’ve stated a few times in the past, I don’t agree with the lifestyle.  But, I don’t dwell on it.  If someone wishes to live that way, it isn’t for me to say whether they can or can’t, nor is it for anyone else.  I’ll leave that between them and God.  As far as the institution of marriage goes, it’s been so debased by now, I’m not sure that the “license” holds any resemblance to what it is suppose to mean.  If it did, I’d probably be more animated about the issue, but it doesn’t, for the most part.

And, this brings us to the crux of the political side of this issue.  If we are to have a 6 month nation wide discussion on this issue, I’ll be so pissed that I’ll actively seek out anyone who made this a wedge issue (extreme leftists and their enablers) and actively campaign against them. 

While we’ve got people obsessed with a piece of paper with some idiotic seal on it which in today’s world means nothing other than an additional tax option, we’ve got wars going on.  We’ve got an employment participation rate lower than it’s been since 1981!  We’ve got unelected bureaucrats running roughshod over our energy and fuel sector.  We’ve got a foodstamp president that thinks the answer to that problem is to send more money its way.  After nearly 4 years we still have millions of people upsidedown on their houses.  We’ve got an education system sucking so much capital out of our system, that its only competitor for federal money is that damned foodstamp program!  We’ve got a border so porous that if the imbecilic terrorists had an operating synapse we’d all be blown to bits by now!  We’re still pumping $billions into solutions to the imaginary problem of global warming and paying ideologues pretending to be scientists who people are still listening to.  We’ve got a significant percentage of our young people occupying….. space, thinking they’re entitled to something.  And these assholes want to talk about a symbolic, meaningless statement from our presidential candidates?  Why don’t you guys and gals put that stuff aside for a bit and let’s work on some real problems this country faces.

About these ads
This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Political Gamesmanship Of The Left And How It Will Backfire

  1. Gary Meyers says:

    Well, all I have to say is “ditto”. I couldn’t agree more!

    • suyts says:

      Thanks! It’s appreciated.

      • Latitude says:

        ditto ditto ditto……………………………..I think you hit them all

        Where I live, anyone would go crazy if they even paid attention to gay issues…I don’t think anyone here does…………at least no one I know

      • suyts says:

        We’ve only a thousand or so more important issues at the moment. Let’s all take a break and address the issue of symbolic gestures by our presidential candidates……. that will fix things!! Because, some moron wants the right to pay alimony.

        I’d almost feel sorry for Obama, but, that’s the path he chose. If you ask me, this cost him dearly in the election. It’s a bit funny when one thinks about it.

      • suyts says:

        You might want to stay up for my next post!

        • Latitude says:

          I think he tried Osama….then gay issues….anything to keep from talking about his record, the real problems….cause them someone might ask him how he would fix them

          I’ve got to hit the sack…….spent the afternoon trying to do damage control between two lawyers……I’ll look first thing in the morning………LOL

        • suyts says:

          Well, yeh, he’s dancing, bobbing and weaving…. anything other than talking about the issues. Politically, this is what he should do. His hand was forced.

          Hang in there. It gets better.

  2. DaveG says:

    Obama is on the ropes his war against the right was sort of understandable, but the war against the middle is becoming his down fall. His base (the collective) is shrinking and will continue, you can never trust a democrat they are never in it for the good of the country or the people, it’s always about the socialist cause and of course the money funneled to the few! Socialism is never for the good or beneficial to the people in the long team only to the overseers. Look at Europe for proof of this, it is collapsing and will take forever to recover. Obama and his UN agenda is driving America to the Cliff edge and the gay marriage thing doesn’t seem like a big deal but in reality it is one more nail in the coffin.

    In 1980 I traveled extensively in the ex Soviet Union, the poverty, rationing and poor health of the population from The Baltic to the Black sea was shocking and universal, Beautiful teenage girls were willing to sell themselves for a Tea shirt, plastic shopping bags, a cheap pair of sunglasses ect… and blue jeans were like gold. The many old royal palaces(1000′s of them doting the landscape) had been restore to there past grandeur and occupied by the Communist district commissars along with the finest western good and luxury’s.
    Obama and his circle will make out like bandits if we let him, and guess who will end up in the grand houses of America.
    yeah, socialism is good for the people, my ares!

    • suyts says:

      Yes, I’ve seen the same thing in other parts of the world. It’s heartbreaking. It’s infuriating that some scumbags would wish to bring that here.

      And, you’re right, the effects of socialism is collapsing much of Europe today. After the Greek elections, we saw panic in the finance world and then some reassurances. More faux capital was promised. But, the world is running out of places to go. We can’t lower interest rates much lower. We can’t print much more money.

      At some point, people will be forced to realize that we have to work. And not just work at moving capital around, but creating wealth. We have to work the ground.

  3. Matt says:

    Oh, dear gawd, how can human minds get things so twisted! You people are listening to way to much Rush Limbaugh instead of thinking for yourselves!

    I don’t know where to begin… I’ll start with the poster’s article where he says: “I don’t agree with the lifestyle. But, I don’t dwell on it. If someone wishes to live that way”

    As a gay man, take my word, it is not a lifestyle choice. Getting tattoos and piercings and hanging out at bars with your buddies is a lifestyle choice. Who you are attracted to is born into you by your creator. There has never been a time in my life when I changed to be gay. It always was and always will be… Just like your being straight. And the same God that you believe in is the one who made me this way. Get it through your think simple skulls!

    The existing financial problems were created by big business lobbying congress for more and more lenient regulations on what they were busy doing on a very small patch of a very small island named Manhattan. Most of them are Republican. I know that for a fact. And they think they know what is right for the world, because they view things from a very sheltered, one-sided vantage point. They, and you, don’t believe in Socialism, because you believe that every “man” can fight for themselves. The problem is when you aren’t a man, or white, or born into a high enough social strata to be able to educate yourself properly and access and educate yourself regarding all of the resources than enable you to do things like… plan for your own retirement and never need to depend on public assistance. But you will never know that because you have knowledge that they don’t even know exists. Get that through your head too. Not everyone knows what you do, nor do they always have the luxury of learning, even if they knew there was something to learn!

    And finally, the problems in Europe were caused by these same people and Socialism is the one thing holding the society together. When you lose your job and need unemployment, or when your mother doesn’t qualify for health insurance anymore and you lose your job and have to dip into your retirement and now you can’t afford to pay your mother’s health bills and she must depend on the only thread of hope for medical care she has, Medicare, tell me how evil Socialism is. Sheesh. I could write a book, but since none of you are bright enough to understand it, I’ll be done now.

    • suyts says:

      Oh, please don’t be done. You are more than welcome to stay and converse. And, welcome. I’ve more to say in response, but, I thought for the purpose, this would be more expedient.

    • miked1947 says:

      Matt you seem to be living in a different world than the one I live in where the so called social programs have sapped the wealth of the nation that was built by the capitalist movement.
      The conservatives that want to live and let live rather than force unwanted issues down other peoples throats.
      You can live any life style you choose. I do not wave my life style in your face and most of the GLBT folks I have worked with and related to in civil discourse have not attempted to force the issue as they were comfortable with their life style choice. YES I said “LIFESTYLE CHOICE”. It is something I have extensively researched while researching LIFE and how people live. But then life styles have only been an interest of mine since I was in my teens.
      I will admit I am Anti Tribalism in any way, shape or form. You my friend are Big time displaying Tribalism.

  4. suyts says:

    First of all, I find it ironically humorous you start with some grandiose assumptions in attempt to correct my “assumptions”. To start with, AFAIK, Rush is on the radio during working hours. I have a job and I don’t get to listen to the radio while I work. I think this year and last, I’ve probably heard him less than 5 hours total. He’s provocative, but, I’ve no idea what his specific political positions are. The thoughts you see expressed in the posts are mine and mine alone.

    You state, “As a gay man, take my word, it is not a lifestyle choice…..” That’s fine. If the topic were on the subject, I’d have some observations and questions. But, it isn’t and as I’ve stated, I think there are many more important subjects to sift through. I would make one observation, if you wish people to see your perspective, insults are rarely effective.

    Your view of the economic crisis can only be described as simplistic at best, more likely willfully ignorant, but at worst a deflection for your ideology. When they passed laws effectively forcing banks to make loans to people who couldn’t possibly pay them off, you’re going to blame Republicans? Sorry, we try to deal with reality on this blog. Did banks, in turn, push for deregulation? Of course they did. They had to. Were they still culpable? Yep.

    Your assumptions about me and the people who frequent this blog, in my estimation are wrong. I really can’t speak for the others here. I’ve no idea if they are white, purple, gay, or martians. Me? I’ve never once been described as having been “born into a high enough social strata”. Who knew? I can’t wait to tell my mom! She’s going to be so retroactively proud!!

    You stated, “Not everyone knows what you do, nor do they always have the luxury of learning, even if they knew there was something to learn!”…… Indeed, that’s why I’m here. The failure of our educational system is heartbreaking and wealth depleting. I can’t give them what is necessary, but I can point the direction. And call bullshit when I see it. Your 4th para was nothing but bullshit.

    Finally, if you had a grasp of reality, you’d see that socialism is what got them there to begin with. Oh shit! It turns out not everyone can retire at 50! Worse, some people actually have to create wealth to support the non-workers! I know! That’s so unfair! Where do you think this imaginary capital comes from? How does it get generated? Do you think countries just fire up the printing presses and play Monopoly? This didn’t occur because of events in the last 5-8 years. The current fiscal crisis is occurring because of the cumulative effect of things which have been building up for decades. There is an end to the freebies. Economics and physics demand this end. And, if the U.S. doesn’t pay attention, we’re next.

    BTW, I worked myself through college with 4 kids and a wife while I did it. It’s okay to whine here, but sympathy is hard to find. And, while I consider myself as a fairly sharp guy, there’s some frequent readers who are really very intelligent. Casting dispersions their way only makes people laugh at you. There’s much more to say, but I’ll leave it here for now. Again, welcome. Please stay and exchange thoughts and ideas.

  5. miked1947 says:

    This is a states right issue plain and simple and has no place in national campaigns.
    For my answer to those looking for sympathy I let them know they can find it in the dictionary near syphilis where it belongs.

  6. kim2ooo says:

    Personally, I think what Mr Obamas tipping point is in his appointees…People will vote against Mr Obama because they dislike his appointees. Ms Jackson, Mr Holder, Kathleen Sebelius etc. It will be the dislike of his choice of alignments [[ advisors ] and political appointees – that will be the factor.

    These were “hiddens” in his first election.

    Yes, I believe he was forced to “game” the gay marriage card.

  7. kim2ooo says:

    In SUPPORT of what Suyts orginally posted here:

    ““Would I have preferred to have done this in my own way? In my own terms without there being a lot of notice to everybody that this is where we were going? Sure,” Obama said. “But all’s well that ends well.”

    Biden’s comments Sunday were impromptu and not designed to nudge the president forward, sources familiar with his thinking said. The vice president has expressed regret for stepping on the president’s plan to announce his shift in views later this month.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/biden-apologizes-to-obama-for-same-sex-marriage-

    The scary part, to me.
    Would I have preferred to have done this in my own way? In my own terms without there being a lot of notice to everybody that this is where we were going? Sure,”

    /

  8. ThePhDScientist says:

    And, this brings us to the crux of the political side of this issue. If we are to have a 6 month nation wide discussion on this issue, I’ll be so pissed that I’ll actively seek out anyone who made this a wedge issue (extreme leftists and their enablers) and actively campaign against them.

    Interesting – I guess for some people, as that video points out, this literally is a life and death issue. Certainly, I also agree that the country as a whole has more pressing problems namely the economy (and the thought of returning to crony capitalism with continued insistence that tax breaks for millionaires creates jobs). Of course, you and I, can conclude this because we enjoy the freedom to marry the one we love, but what about those who don’t enjoy that freedom, perhaps this is an important “wedge issue”?

    Perhaps, this could be paralleled with the fight over health care. To many Americans this isn’t a hugely pressing issue (though perhaps if they truly understood health care’s effects on our long-term budget they’ll understand why it is indeed so pressing). But again for people enjoying their employment-based coverage, why should we care about health care? Though I suspect those workers without employer-based coverage, those who developed a chronic disease and were dropped or had their premiums substantially increased might feel this is an important “wedge issue”.

    Finally I have to say I still get a guilty pleasure in seeing all your confident, pseudoscientific statements denying global warming while simultaneously seeing your literal belief in the bible. It’s a bit of wanting to have your cake and eat it too – no? There’s a reason why over 90% of members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheist or agnostic – the science doesn’t support a literal interpretation of the bible, and the science doesn’t support global warming denialism…

    • suyts says:

      PhD, you seem to be under the assumption that life should be fair and that government can remedy the unfairness. It can’t. The very nature of government is to constrain liberties. The more government exerts its authority, the more liberty is constrained. Please give that simple truism some thought.

      The picking and choosing of social injustices is also a bit confusing. But, here’s how I look at it. …… in order for us to afford nice goodies like free health care for all, we need to be able to afford it, first. Social injustices almost always stem from poverty, and the hate and ignorance it fosters.

      I’m happy to see that NAS has solved the point of origin question. When do they plan on sharing their scientific finding? It’s funny, you imply that I’m a literal translationist of the Bible. But, the other day, one of my brothers in Christ implied that I wasn’t the other day. Go figure.

      You’re right, science doesn’t support the literal interpretation of the Bible. It is a question of faith and belief, not science. Which, is okay, if I could just have a small part of Max Planck’s ability, then I’d be happy, as would most of the people of NAS.

      Go here…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

      Science may not support Christianity, but it sure has stood on it’s shoulders, no?

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        No suyts, I don’t believe life has to be fair. I will always have better health care then probably you and most of the rest of the people in the world. Why? Because when I go to work I walk through the doors of one of the top hospitals in the country. If I got cancer, I’d have access to the most cutting edge treatments that aren’t even in clinical trials yet. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not. I worked hard to get where I am, so maybe I deserve a little extra. HOWEVER, does that mean I should be complacent? Should I ignore the millions of people that don’t have health care. Can we develop a more efficient, cost-effective system where some level of care is provided to millions more people and I can still maintain my Ferrari-Level care? We put a G-damn man on the moon – of course we can!

        Anyway, my point was that it is particularly amusing to me when people ignore mountains of evidence for global warming, but then advocate things like creationism etc. Not saying you’ve done specifically that – though you are quick to brush off the things that don’t seem to fit your agenda. Hey it’s faith not science. Still, I wonder whether you are truly interested in the actual science, or are you really interested in finding tidbits of information or evidence that might support the preconceived notions you’ve already got floating around in your head?

        And there you go referencing Max Planck. This perfectly parallels how the rest of your arguments, particularly your global warming arguments work. Let’s ignore mountains of scientific evidence (in this case the dozens of nobel prize winning scientists and hundreds of other scientific geniuses in the National Academy) to point out that one piece of evidence (in this case Max Planck) supports your position. Sorry Suyts, just as in the global warming argument the balance is not resting level. All of the non-believing scientists and all of their accomplishments vastly outweigh even the great Max Planck. And nope, no one has solved the origin of the species – so what!?! They put the earth at billions of years old, not thousands. They’ve convincingly shown that Adam and Eve (or Steve? :) came from the apes. Noah’s Ark and the big flood – not even close… Do I need to go on? Again the teeter-totter is leaning on the side of science not the Bible.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          And lastly you’re wrong the government can very easily provide fairness to the marriage issue, and I’ve already described how. 1) Grant marriages to all couples or 2) government no longer issues “marriage” certificates to anyone. If legal contracts are needed defining two persons as a “couple” then the government may issue those contracts to any couple (gay or straight) and “marriage” can be relegated to the churches.

        • suyts says:

          Can we develop a more efficient, cost-effective system where some level of care is provided to millions more people and I can still maintain my Ferrari-Level care? We put a G-damn man on the moon – of course we can!

          And then you state……

          Let’s ignore mountains of scientific evidence (in this case the dozens of nobel prize winning scientists and hundreds of other scientific geniuses in the National Academy) to point out that one piece of evidence (in this case Max Planck) supports your position.
          ========================
          Sure, we can develop a more efficient cost-effective system. It is called bringing everybody up. I don’t define to the least common denominator. I ascribe to the highest factor! Consider….. allow for the creation of wealth. Allow for all to participate in the creation of wealth…….. done.

          The second part of your comment which I copied isn’t just a bit insulting, it makes a mockery of your intellect. You shouldn’t do this. While I mentioned Max Planck, I also asked you to go to a link. I’ll post it again…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science ….. I’ll put those people against your “non-believing scientists” any day. And the thousands who are believers, today. I mentioned Planck because of his observation, not because I thought he was the only, or the best, representation of a Christian scientist. The fact is, Christianity supports science. Scientists simply act to determine what God has done…. regardless of what the particular scientists believe.

          And then there’s this statement…..” They’ve convincingly shown that Adam and Eve (or Steve? :) came from the apes.”….. which, deserves it’s own comment. See below

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          Well Suyts your solution for health is uninformed and foolish. Those of us working in health care start with the very simple, very realistic fact. America has excellent health care, BUT we have one of the most inefficient, costly, and wasteful ways of administering it. On all levels and for most conditions we spend massively more money and achieve worse outcomes. There’s a great article published on that very issue. Though I think you need a subscription to get this particular one, with some searching you can find excerpts on the web.

          http://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/2008/04000/Fact_and_Fiction__Debunking_Myths_in_the_US.1.aspx

          So no, the simple and favorite political solution of tax breaks for everyone that are sure to “create jobs” and thus provide more people with jobs that provide those workers with expensive, wasteful, and inefficient health care is not the sustainable long-term solution to our health care mess. We have to start with the basic understanding that our health insurance system is abysmal! As we all know private insurance was a consequence (or accident) of war, not some thoughtfully planned solution for paying for health care. I could go on and on, but enough has already been written on this subject and is easily found on the web.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          PS Your list of Christian scientists is (and was) duly noted and still conspicuously short!

    • DirkH says:

      ThePhDScientist says:
      May 31, 2012 at 4:00 pm
      “and the science doesn’t support global warming denialism…”

      Do they hand those PhDs out with creal boxes these days?

      Please show that the IPCC’s GCM’s have predictive skill. Please, conclusively refute the existence of negative feedback in the climate system.

      I’ll believe you when you have shown that.

      Until then, skepticism is the only justifiable position for a rational person; your usage of the invented term “denialism” shows that you’re an ideologue.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        Oh here we go again with the classical denialism! Please refute my one mundane point whilst we all ignore the mountain of valid scientific evidence supporting the no longer debatable issue of man made global warming.

        P.S. No they don’t hand out PhDs in cereal boxes these days, which is precisely why so few of the global warming denialists have one. Interesting correlation, huh?

        • DirkH says:

          “whilst we all ignore the mountain of valid scientific evidence supporting the no longer debatable issue of man made global warming.”

          You are probably completely untouched by any physical or mathematical knowledge. The IPCC doesn’t make future predictions as those would be, by definition, falsifiable but PROJECTIONS which are, by definition, unfalsifiable. Please show how an iterative computational model with finite resolution can model a chaotic system without deviating from the real development of the system exponentially over time.

          Hint: Look up the definition of “chaos”.

          As long as you have not shown how this can work we can safely dismiss the model projections; without even pointing to the last 15 years of abysmal failure of the models. Even stronger: A rational person MUST dismiss the models if he doesn’t want to be lead astray by imaginary future scenarios which will not materialize.

          Without the models, the IPCC’s warning of a catastrophe are meaningless.

      • suyts says:

        PhD, he’s asking you to actually show that mountain of valid scientific evidence supporting man made global warming. “.

        PhD, simply repeating the mantra doesn’t make it so. Show me, us, anyone…. evidence of CAGW. There is none. Go ask your friends, go find some alarmist scientist. Tell them to bring their “evidence” here. I’d be more than happy to present, and discuss the “evidence”. Mind you, I give more weight to empirical evidence than I do models….. especially models which don’t reflect reality.

        Bring it.

        • ThePhDScientist says:

          The World already has my friends. 97% of “real” scientists believe in global warming and call you all out as quacks and frauds.

        • suyts says:

          Sigh, PhD, you are simply repeating a mantra. Show me the 97%. I find it fascinating that you’d first tell me that scientists are largely atheists or agnostics, and yet, you spout religious dogma.

        • kim2ooo says:

          ThePhDScientist says:
          June 1, 2012 at 5:37 am

          The World already has my friends. 97% of “real” scientists believe in global warming and call you all out as quacks and

          frauds.

          ==================

          Evidence please.
          Define “real” scientist.
          How many “real” Scientists are included in your 97% survey?
          The survey was sent to 10257 scientists…what was the number of responders? [ Hint: The real consensus of scientists who

          agreed with the survey is 0.73% (75 divided by 10257) - that means If Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, then why do

          99.27% of scientists disagree? ]. http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pnas-2010-anderegg-1003187107-1.pdf

          Here is a list of just 50 former IPCC experts whose voices your prejudiced ears refuse to hear.
          1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th

          century has been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

          2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature

          changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

          3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree

          that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each

          succeeding report.”

          4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key

          driver of climate.”

          5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is

          wrong.”

          6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

          7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would.

          Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.”

          8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a

          discernable human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic

          climate change is due to human activities.”

          9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that

          carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly

          measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria

          that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

          10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities

          to model it.”

          11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon

          dioxide uptake.”

          12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is

          projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and

          believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC

          scenarios.”

          13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of

          investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

          14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor

          started after [NASA's James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980′s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the

          basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”

          15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st

          century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme

          weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

          16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

          17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile

          toward anyone who questions their authority.”

          18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ’2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities

          are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that

          claim was “only a few dozen.”

          19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and

          harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

          20. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global

          warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

          21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-

          existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

          22. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of

          any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”

          23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the

          whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for

          publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

          24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have

          discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

          25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and

          sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

          26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like

          something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

          27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by

          pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

          28. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what

          scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

          29. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no

          net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

          30. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying

          the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite

          of what the scientists said.”

          31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict

          the lead authors.”

          32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a

          great exaggeration and also misleading.”

          33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate

          models. No, the science is not settled.”

          34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”

          35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call

          of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific

          principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

          36. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC

          Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true

          and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

          37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions … predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t

          be predicted due to uncertainties.”

          38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being

          distorted by people who are not scientists.”

          39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the

          science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”

          40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

          41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite

          data altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18

          years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”

          42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all

          historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2

          emissions and climate change.”

          43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims

          of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal.”

          44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists

          held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

          45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically

          valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”

          46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change

          is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why

          it happened.”

          47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

          48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated

          by advocates.”

          49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

          50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on

          the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines… a few of my

          future studies will not see the light of publication.”

          Dr. Ivar Giaever, The physics professor who scooped the Nobel Science Prize in 1973 sagely notes, “It is amazing how stable

          temperature has been over the last 150 years.”

          Truth is that all 5 official data sets show global cooling since 2002 while a third of all stations sustain a long term

          cooling trend for their entire history. http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/hadcrut3-raw-data-released.html

          http://thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/3542-hadcrut3-30-of-stations-recorded-a-cooling-trend-in-their-whole-history.html

          As a “PhD Scientist” can you answer what happens, in Normal Science, to your hypothesis
          when a divergence to that hypothesis appears?

          hypothesis appears?

        • DirkH says:

          97% of all climate scientists agree
          In fact, that’s 75 of the 77 climate scientists who answered the following two questions with yes:
          1 When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
          2 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
          http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax

          They first asked all branches of science but as the outcome was not to their liking they filtered out the climate scientists. Naturally, climate scientists are biased to believe or pretend to believe in a human influence – most of them would lose their jobs if the alarm about the climate would subside and funding would be scaled back to normal.

          Scientists who didn’t bother to answer are not included in the percentage count.

  9. ThePhDScientist says:

    Sigh, Suyts, I’ve already provided you with a very simple solution to advance your mantra and be taken seriously. Participate in the scientific process! You and Dirk should coauthor a paper and discuss your CAGW argument! What’s stopping you from this? Let true experts in the field consider your arguments and respond to them. Put it out there for the public to see. The fact that you all are either unable or unwilling to do this speaks volumes toward your credibility on these matters…

    • suyts says:

      “Let true experts in the field consider your arguments and respond to them. Put it out there for the public to see.”

      PhD, I don’t think you understand. This is exactly what I’ve done. This is what Dirk does. The traditional avenue of scientific understanding, specifically in the climate field, has become corrupted beyond redemption. (see various discussions of various email correspondence) It produces sophist pieces of work such as Foster and Rahmstorf ….see here if you want a chuckle….. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/

      If one wishes to engage or learn about climatology, one accomplishes this on the blogosphere. Clearly, this isn’t a permanent solution. But, for today, this is the only place. If you want specific areas, I can recommend very knowledgeable people. (Most have actually published in some journal or another.)

      I may publish at some point. But, my work doesn’t uncover anything new or anything which isn’t otherwise already known. OTOH, it couldn’t be any worse than what this article describes….. http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/news/forests-more-valuable-for-carbon-storage-than-as-source-of-carbon-neutral-fuel-study-shows

      So, one never knows. In the meantime, our thoughts on climate are out there for the world to inspect, discuss, and debate.

      • ThePhDScientist says:

        I don’t buy it. Lame excuses as to why you “CAN’T” publish in accredited journals. Good science is always publishable – so publish some good science and get some real street cred….

      • suyts says:

        Like I said Ph…. I just might. I don’t believe I used the word “CAN’T”. I was pointing out that as far as climate science goes, the science is on the blogs. While there are always cheers when bloggers do publish, it doesn’t change their “creds”.

    • DirkH says:

      PhdScientist, I notice you don’t have a counterargument.

      You and the rest of the gullible warmist have fallen for a very simple confidence trick – trusting the soothsaying of an objective machine without looking at the man behind the curtain.

      Models are useful, but their usefulness is limited. In the case of weather models, for about 5 days. Climate models? I don’t know of a single quantification of their usefulness as a forecasting tool.

      The late Steve Schneider and James Hansen have made a career out of trickery.

      • DirkH says:

        “Climate models? I don’t know of a single quantification of their usefulness as a forecasting tool. ”

        Correction: There were a few papers which ruled out predictive skill on local, regional and global scale. There was no positive confirmation so far of predictive skill, or a quantification of the time horizon over which forecasts had predictive skill. This is of course no wonder as the modelers freely admit many missing pieces; Schneider’s genius was his “honesty or efficiency” choice … a call to action in the absence of science BY SCIENTISTS… Without Schneider, it all unravels.

      • suyts says:

        Schneider was a piece of work.

        • DirkH says:

          Look what I found in the wikipedia of all places, from a 1971 paper by Schneider et al:
          “However, it is projected that man’s potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection… should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.”
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Schneider

        • DirkH says:

          …and Schneider stems from GISS, just like pro-nuclear Hansen. Looks like GISS has been playing its part in the energy wars and picked its side a long time ago, and never changed it.

        • suyts says:

          Lol, yeh, Steve “I was afraid of global cooling before I was afraid of global warming” Schneider, chose to be effectively dishonest. But, he said each “scientist”, would have to choose for themselves which level of dishonesty would work best for each one.

        • DirkH says:

          The 1971 paper shows what a versatile tool the models were and are in the hands of the efficient. It already avoids the term “prediction”….they knew what they were doing.

    • Latitude says:

      This is ridiculous…..only people in a publish or perish field…..academia…..prop themselves up with that garbage

  10. kim2ooo says:

    Trying to clear up the formatting in my last post:

    ThePhDScientist says:
    June 1, 2012 at 5:37 am

    The World already has my friends. 97% of “real” scientists believe in global warming and call you all out as quacks and frauds.

    ==================

    Evidence please.
    Define “real” scientist.
    How many “real” Scientists are included in your 97% survey?
    The survey was sent to 10257 scientists…what was the number of responders? [ Hint: The real consensus of scientists who agreed with the survey is 0.73% (75 divided by 10257) - that means If Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, then why do 99.27% of scientists disagree? ]. http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pnas-2010-anderegg-1003187107-1.pdf

    Here is a list of just 50 former IPCC experts whose voices your prejudiced ears refuse to hear.
    1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

    2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

    3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

    4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

    5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

    6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

    7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.”

    8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

    9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

    10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

    11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”

    12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”

    13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

    14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980′s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”

    15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

    16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

    17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”

    18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ’2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”

    19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

    20. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

    21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

    22. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”

    23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

    24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

    25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

    26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

    27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

    28. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

    29. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

    30. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

    31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

    32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”

    33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”

    34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”

    35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

    36. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

    37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions … predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t be predicted due to uncertainties.”

    38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

    39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”

    40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

    41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”

    42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”

    43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal.”

    44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

    45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”

    46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

    47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

    48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

    49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

    50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication.”

    Dr. Ivar Giaever, The physics professor who scooped the Nobel Science Prize in 1973 sagely notes, “It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years.”

    Truth is that all 5 official data sets show global cooling since 2002 while a third of all stations sustain a long term cooling trend for their entire history. http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/hadcrut3-raw-data-released.html

    http://thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/3542-hadcrut3-30-of-stations-recorded-a-cooling-trend-in-their-whole-history.html

    As a “PhD Scientist” can you answer what happens, in Normal Science, to your hypothesis when a
    divergence to that hypothesis appears?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s