text:
Chris Christie — Global Warming Around His Waistline
As Chris Christie continues to play footsie with a presidential run, we should be aware that the New Jersey governor is yet another example of the politician as scientific know-nothing, warning of the dangers of anthropogenic global warming. Christie — a graduate of the University of Delaware in political science [sic] with a law degree from Seton Hall — has decided global warming is real. How does he know?
Says Christie: "I'm certainly not a scientist, which is the first problem. So I can't claim to fully understand all of this, certainly not after just a few months of study. But when you have over 90 percent of the world's scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role, it's time to defer to the experts."
No, it's not. Anyone who understands anything about the history of science knows that kind of reasoning is antithetical to the scientific method (repetitive testing of an hypothesis) and to the search for truth. Of course, that's what our uneducated politicians have to do, trust the experts they choose, since they themselves have no background. Only a handful with medical degrees are qualified to have any kind of opinion about global warming at all.
Frankly, Christie worries me with this simple-minded statement. (Ironically, of all the candidates, including the incumbent, the only one with substantive scientific or technical training is Herman Cain, who has a degree in mathematics from Morehouse and computer science from Purdue.)
One more thing. My friend Scott Johnson, with whom I normally agree, is unconcerned with Christie's girth. I would certainly concur that we have had more than enough nanny state nattering about our excessive avoirdupois from such pot-to-kettle hypocrites as Michelle Obama. And Scott's prediction that big bellies will come back into fashion with a Christie presidency might be true.
160 Comments, 67 Threads
1. f47
why were repubs excited by the thought that a rino would be running for pres?
/sarche may be ok for nj – but i want a real tea-party-er to run. run Sarah run!
October 1, 2011 - 7:27 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Ann Coulter is a self-described conservative. Why in hell she's been begging Christi to run is beyond me unless she is a RINO at heart – Christi seems to be one even if he tends to lean right of some RINOs on a few key issues. His stance on AGW would be problematic if he tosses his hat into the ring.
Anyone know for sure where Coulter stands on issues like AGW – and other issues near and dear to conservatives' hearts? Maybe she writes books to bash liberals for the money?
October 2, 2011 - 9:50 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Chris in California
If you want to know where Christie really stands or whether or not he will follow the constitution, look at his statements on Gun Control. He has done NOTHING to stop the madness in New Jersey as far as their insane gun control laws is concerned. He has made statements supporting gun control. He is therefore unfit to be the president of our country since he has failed to follow his oath of office as Governor. Regardless of NJ's laws, the constitution of the U.S. overrides it on this issue. It is an absolute, not restricted to congress or any other body. "…The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
October 2, 2011 - 1:24 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Abdul Kareema Wheat
I've always wondered how a state can deny a constitutional right as the 2nd amendment? How can you cross a states border with your permit in hand, into NJ and be told flat out that you'll be locked up?
Does the constitution end at a states borders? And why doesn't the Federal government sue states that refuse to acknowledge our rights? They'll sue a state that wants to enforce the law….but not a state that ignores the constitution? And it's not just NJ…the least free states are of the original 13! NJ, NY, RI, CT, MD are the least free states in the country. With terrible crime rates, crushing taxes, over population.Forget California…..they are truly paradise lost. Completely, totally bonkers and insane.
October 2, 2011 - 2:20 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Can you explain to me what is wrong with NJ's gun laws? I just googled it and I didn't find anything different from my state of LA. You can carry/buy guns, you just need a permit.
October 2, 2011 - 7:26 pm Link to this Comment
It's not just AGW and the assault on the 2nd amendment that disqualifies Christie. He also appointed a Muslim to the Federal Bench (AND THE MUSLIM HE APPOINTED WAS NOT A MODERATE MUSLIM). Then he swaggers out in front of the microphone and tries to shout down those who would express concern. Christie also has other minor RINO tendencies (which I happen to agree with… so I won't bother mentioning them). Cain is the only Republican who is not a RINO who has a chance to win the nomination…. and the Presidency.
October 2, 2011 - 3:53 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Marc Malone
In the last election, she endorsed Congressman Hunter. This guy had been in Congress for 28 years, and he was king of defense pork for his district. His only private sector experience was his own law firm.
Coulter proves herself to be just another undiscerning voter. She endorses whomever excites her in some way, giving no consideration as to qualifications, nor the overall strategic picture. She does well, when she does research, but apparently, only then.
October 2, 2011 - 4:33 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
stuart rose
Well, Ann is no RINO at heart- God, how can she be given the them's fightin' words titles of her books, and the vitriol she aims at even fairly tame liberals.
But I share your bafflement about her infatuation with Christie. Now, she'd probably trot out Bill Buckley's axiom that the GOP needs to nominate for the White House the most conservative candidate who is electable. But Christie fails on several counts- for me, his demonizing of those who blasted his choice of an Islamist sympathizer for a judgeship as Islamophobes. One wonders if he even understand the term "Islamist".October 4, 2011 - 3:15 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Mark v
Coulter is a RINO. It's going to become more and more obvious as time goes on. Watch for it.
October 5, 2011 - 2:41 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
2. Habib
"But when you have over 90 percent of the world's scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring…".
Not only is this notion that "90% of the world's scientists" are in agreement fallacious reasoning—the argumentum ad verecundiam logical fallacy—, it is also a lie. If a politician must base arguments on such foolishness, he could at least investigate whether a plurality of real scientists ever did agree thus.
October 1, 2011 - 9:40 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Quite true the 'argumentum ad populum' is a logical fallacy too. After all MOST Germans loved Hitler and look how wrong they were and in the Middle Ages everyone KNEW that the earth was flat. This Green NAZI Global Warming SCAM, which changed suddenly to Climate Change when they found out the Globe hadn't actually warmed for 15 years or so. But of course Climate Change is happening it is and has ALWAYS happened that much is undeniable . But what is NOT happening and something which no Scientific Study has ever proven is that the miniscule amount of all CO2 emissions (0.03% I believe is the figure) that MAN adds to to the environment is the bit that makes the earth get warmer. We are in between Ice ages and are most likely heading for a warmer period you know when there is lots of CO2 to make plants GROW and feed more people like in the Middle Ages when mankind blossomed. Ask any GEOLOGIST not a Meteorologist, who cant even tell you if it will rain tomorrow. The Geologist will look at his core samples and tell you that a HOTTER Climate ALWAYS precedes CO2 growth and NEVER follows it.
October 2, 2011 - 2:02 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Two other points:
1) I read we are now in the longest solar minimum period of recorded history.
2) CERN super collider experiments shows solar flare plasma bursts that reach earth actually produce cloud cover which leads to cooling. Ergo, without them, warming.Question: who is the anthropomorph on the Sun doing the dirty deed?
BTW, Simon: thanks for the "…political science [sic]…"
October 2, 2011 - 5:36 am Link to this Comment | Reply
There's a difference between climate change and global warming. The climate is always changing, and it runs in cycles. We just happen to be in a warming phase right now. AND, all animal life contribute to the warming effect, about .001%. The sun, as it cycles, causes the rest.
October 2, 2011 - 10:41 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
I agree with you, Habib. 90% of the world's scientists??? Do we even have a complete list of "the world's scientists" … and some recorded data where they have provided their support such that we can do the math to know that the 90% figure is supportable?
October 2, 2011 - 1:47 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
3. Dick Stanley
Christie's gigantic belly is obscene. Who wants a president who can't even control himself at mealtimes?
October 1, 2011 - 10:41 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
For all the whining, wailing and shedding of tears on "Biggest Loser," and all the money to be made on magical diets… it's just not that dramatic a task. It's ridiculously easy to lose weight. Americans are just addicted to garbage, and they are constantly looking for some way to lose the weight without changing their habits.
October 1, 2011 - 11:46 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Dick Stanley,
Your comment displays remarkable intolerance and outright ignorance. I find it offensive.
Genetic differences in the human species have created people of many types—short and tall, pale and dark, stupid and smart, thin and heavy—there is no end to the differences our individual genetic inheritances create, and there is no "correct" type. Body shape and metabolic rate are heavily influenced by genetics and not always a matter of moral failings.
October 2, 2011 - 2:25 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Nothing to do with calorific intake then?
Your argument is absurd.
October 2, 2011 - 3:30 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Being offended is easy. Sucking it up and moving on is hard…
October 2, 2011 - 6:38 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Losing weight is easy in theory. It goes like this: Eat less.
The problem is implementation. And here we enter into the area of psychology. Eating less is as difficult to do as stopping a heroin addiction.
For overweight people virtually all feelings of happiness and satisfaction is tied into the physical activity of eating. So to them eating less is the same as being less happy and satisfied.
October 2, 2011 - 8:17 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Chris in California
No, it's not. Any drug addiction can be cured by quitting even if that's enforced by someone outside of the person stopping. You HAVE to eat. Tapering off is the hardest thing to do that you can find. And having been brought up by depression era parents whose idea of proper eating is to clean your plate because you may not get another meal for awhile, whose attitude was drummed into you with a belt as a small child, it's not always possible to reduce your intake voluntarily. "Eat it or Wear it" I was told any number of times as a small child. "You will sit there till you finish it" was another. There's children starving in India" was still another. Not finishing a meal on my plate is one of the hardest things I ever had to try and learn. Quitting smoking cold turkey was much easier.
October 2, 2011 - 1:31 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
"Eating less is as difficult to do as stopping a heroin addiction."
That's because for some people food IS an addiction, but one of the hardest to treat, because humans have to keep eating — one can't ever stop eating, whereas one can, with help, stop using heroin. For food, it's a question of when/how often, portion size, and burning off excess calories. (in short, exercise)
Interesting how things change over the years. Used to be that heavier men were seen as better mates because they would be better providers; being heavy not only signified wealth, but meant that person could more easily stand years of no/poor harvest. By the same token, heavier women were preferred not only for being able to withstand lean yrs. (sorry, couldn't help the pun), but were considered more apt to procreate many viable offspring.
Now the trend is reversed: people better off are able to afford the pricey "good" foods and personal trainers. The old adage, "You can never be too thin or too rich" isn't really all that old!
October 2, 2011 - 2:00 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
You are all wrong and KZ is right. The majority of obese people who go on starvation diets fail to lose weight. This is shown in study after study (cf Gary Taubes). The view of obesity caused by overeating and a weakness of character is a result of junk science starting in the 1960′s. In fact, the current beliefs about diet are exactly like the AGW thing – 90% of nutrition "experts" all have this view, and they are all wrong.
October 3, 2011 - 9:34 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Good one. Listen to yourself. You have any idea how moronic that sounds? Concentration camps were filled with overweight people right? sure. Well denial is a common psychological response to addiction. I really do not care what the "experts" say. You don't have to be an expert to know that when you eat less, you store less fat on your body.
Every single overweight person I know put 2-3 times as much on their plate as me. And then some cake. And not just a cake. A frikin humongous cake. And after the cake, more cake and then chocolate. And every second sentence out of their mouth is "have some more", "You need meat on your bones" etc. It really is not rocket science. A meal should be the size of a fist. The overweight people I know fill their plates with food at least three times the size of a fist. And they never miss a meal, ever. When they cook for 3 people, they'll have a huge bowl of rice, 15 chicken wings, a huge bowl of mashed potatoes. And then you have to suffer through their usual bull of how they can't lose weight…..yadayadayada.
The french are not overweight. Why? They don't eat breakfast. Instead of breakfast, they have a cup of coffee and a cigarette. Think about that for a minute.
October 4, 2011 - 11:50 am Link to this Comment
Forgotten Man
Why not Clinton and Kennedy couldn't control themselves around females and so others couldn't control themselves with the bottle and Wilson and Roosevelt had to much control over our lives.
October 2, 2011 - 8:00 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
clear mind
OK everyone, time for a weight-check. Before you go lambasting others, check your scales.
Then yesterday, one of the flabbiest writers at the WaPo had the unmitigating gall to write an article about Christie's weight. If you've every seen Eugene Robinson, he's as fat as they come, and he had the balls to write about Christie.
Time to chill folks, and Roger needs to write about subjects on which he is informed, not just has an opinion.
October 2, 2011 - 10:36 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Jim Baker
I will vote for Christie, or anyone else the Republicans decide to nominate, over Obama the communist. The obscenity is in the White House. Chew on that, Mr Obama troll.
October 2, 2011 - 4:05 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
4. Dave Surls
'Says Christie: "I'm certainly not a scientist…"'
Yeah, it shows.
October 1, 2011 - 11:50 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
5. KLSmith
My nightmare scenario is that he wins the nomination, it looks like he's cruising to an epic win over Obama and then he croaks a couple of days BEFORE the election. Thus handing a win to Obama.
Roger is right; Christie is very heavy and the presidency is grueling. He is way beyond chubby and I'm not trying to be mean. To me, the guy just looks like a heart attack waiting to happen.October 2, 2011 - 12:55 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Not to worry — THERE WILL BE NO EPIC WIN OVER OBAMA by anybody! The Tea Party influence and majority opinions expressed in websites like this one will see to it that there IS NO candidate in the debates with enough of Republican Party support to win. Doesn't sound like YOU are going to vote for Christie, so why do you assume people like you will?
To get that epic win he'd need a lot of changed thinking on part of conservative and tea party Republicans PLUS good bunch of votes from people like me — independents who really can't stand either party in toto.
I would vote for Christie if he publicly tells the Koch brothers to go to hell–otherwise not. And if he runs THIS TIME AROUND, he'll have to sell his soul to them in the process. For his own good and the country's, Christie needs to wait until 2016. By that time all this turbulence will shake out–there may just be a 3d party for Conservatives and a re-constituted Republican Party that can pick up independents and conservative Democrats.
He can learn about foreign policy, lose weight, refine his governorship skills and accomplishments and emerge in 2016 as ideal MIDDLE candidate who (IF HE PICKS UP BUDDY ROEMER'S VIEWS ON TRADE POLICY IN THE INTERIM) will lead to an epic win.
October 2, 2011 - 4:39 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Terry Gain
Not to worry — THERE WILL BE NO EPIC WIN OVER OBAMA by anybody! The Tea Party influence and majority opinions expressed in websites like this one will see to it that there IS NO candidate in the debates with enough of Republican Party support to win.
Nonsense. The economy is flat lined and the scandals are growing. The combination of Obama's incompetence and arrogance is insufferable. The nation will rally around the GOP nominee (whoever she or Mitt is) and Obama will be routed. 2012 will not be the end of the world, but it will be the end of the stupid, soft-headed, Obama experiment.
October 2, 2011 - 6:40 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
"I would vote for Christie if he publicly tells the Koch brothers to go to hell".
So, as an "independent", to be fair, you wouldn't vote for Obama or any Democrat unless they publicly told Soros, Buffet and Bill Gates "to go to hell"? I doubt it. Your hatred of the Koch brothers is a liberal symptom. Your proclamation of "independence" is an illusion invented by your mind to pretend fairness. Do a little more homework and learn where Democrats get their funding. You'd be surprised. It's certainly not from people on the welfare and food stamp rolls.
October 2, 2011 - 9:40 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
should they also stop donating to liberal charities too? they donate a lot of money to a lot of causes. perhaps they should close all their businesses (not sell, lock the doors) so they won't be able to influence anyone.
October 2, 2011 - 10:43 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Robert Walker Rogers IV
To anyone with a scintilla of social or political antennae,
the phrase, "I would vote for Christie if he publicly tells the Koch brothers to go to hell…" has very ugly undertones. In fact, they're not undertones, they're right out there.It's not 1920 or even 1930 or 1940, anymore, and the clear and despicable implications of this sort of comment is unacceptable, Aurora 1920, in 2011.
October 2, 2011 - 10:49 am Link to this Comment | Reply
6. alex
Climate change is occurring, there is empirical evidence for this in every tree aged more than 300 years, in every sea sediment more than 18 inches thick, in any dig more than 3 feet deep…it surrounds us in every way imaginable. The earth has never been environmentally stable more than several thousand years, and we are overdue for severe change if the earth matches its past history.
The question is how much humanity contributes….which must be a minute if even measurable amount. Mild volcano activity releases millions of tons of "greenhouse" gas into the atmosphere….Moderate volcano activity will release hundreds of millions of tons within a few hours. A major volcanic eruption has the potential to wipe out most of humanity if lasting long enough.
The ocean releases 200 million tons of methane into the atmosphere every year..this is all part of earths geology.We have been lucky to enjoy technological advance the last 500 years because we have been blessed enough to focus on science, instead of trying to survive 800 year long droughts, or tsunami's lasting several days, or floods that rise several feet per year, or massive volcanic eruptions as our ancestors did.
Most people have no idea how difficult or treacherous the earth has been to our ancestors, A short study of geology or recent earth science will reveal just how hard life was in our past, and how difficult life will be again.
But Humanity has little to do with this, it is just how the earth works.
October 2, 2011 - 1:43 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Robert F
Well written, Alex. I would only add that the Sun is also influential, and also beyond Man's reach to influence. In fact, the Sun is currently setting us up for a new little ice age.
October 2, 2011 - 4:52 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
John J
"Most people have no idea how difficult or treacherous the earth has been to our ancestors, A short study of geology or recent earth science will reveal just how hard life was in our past, and how difficult life will be again."
How can you compare a primitive, nomadic, scrounging existance with modern man? In all of recorded history, whatever climate changes occured, we dealt with it. With stone tools, with no tools, we dealt with it. Do you really think we can't deal with it when we have air conditioning, nuclear power, jet air travel, and all the other advancements of today? Our politics is broken, but if we just stop shooting ourselves in the foot, we'll be just fine.
Things change. Just since the Middle Ages, certain towns in England which had important harbors are now tens of miles inland. Their current occupants are descendents of the former sailors. People adapt, as long as governments don't hold them back.
It's interesting that you should mention the effects of the oceans and volcanoes. Way back when there was no grant money to be had by supporting AGW, everyone just assumed that the Earth had perfected a cyclical loop, and that there must be a self reinforcing balance that never lets heat nor cold completely take off. The only evidence at the time was logic (and quite frankly, it still is). Civilization has known hotter times and cooler times. If the Earth was capable of straight line linear heating or cooling, we would have become what all the other planets are: freezing cold or melting heat, at extremes beyond which life can survive. So, for us to have lasted this long, something must be working correctly.
I maintain that if you simply remove the grant money, all will be just fine. That's what really causes "global warming".October 2, 2011 - 5:49 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
This belief has led people to vote for politicians promising poorly thought out environmental laws which promise natural salvation, but instead just give us a degraded standard of living. They don't seem to understand the difference between passing laws that can actually improve local conditions (like big fines for littering) and laws that are pointless and do nothing, like the coming light bulb ban.
October 2, 2011 - 11:46 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
A "mild" erupting volcano such as the one that grounded planes over Europe for days last year contibutes in one day approximately 0.03% of CO2 of what man does in a single day (300+ continuously erupting Icelandic-type volcanes = man's continuous CO2 input).
Ice ages have come and gone and there are reasons for it such as a change in orbit around the sun, the earth's tilt changes, 10 Krakatoas erupting close together or a major meteor strike, etc.
As none of these events are occuring, in fact the sun is at an historical minimum — leads scientists to make predictions based on what other major events have been occurring. These man-made events include denuding the world's carbon-sink forests to the size of 1 England per year and adding 1 trillion tons (with a 'T') of CO2 and counting. Contrary to what you read in the misinformation blog's, climate models are getting very good at predicting climate and these predictions are "alarming".
But don't take my word for it — just ask the NSA, the CIA, the Defence Department, the US Navy, the Conservative Party of Britain, the Vatican, Exxon, Shell, BP, The Peroleum Institute of America, 97% of the PUBLISHING climate scientists and ALL (as in every single one) of the world's science academies what their opinion is.
October 2, 2011 - 11:36 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
7. Aqua
Alas, Christie's intelligence and sharp witted personality are impressive … as is his sincerity and believability … as is the way he's taken hold of New Jersey and handled the unions, and etc. Impressive. Imagine him in debate with the O … even, I, who can't stand the O, would pity him. If he does run against the O, he'd run circles around him and he'd win, hands down.
But, alas, again, there are some major drawbacks in his thinking, and some major areas in which his views and intentions are simply unknown.
He's not a man who will be taken advantage of, and will present a very strong face to international adversaries, not to mention domestic leftists and democrats. (Stronger than any of the current candidates.)
I can see him handling Putin, A'Jad, the Chinese, Pakistan, the Euros, and etc., extremely well …
But where exactly does he stand on foreign policy … we don't really know, do we?
Would he appoint John Bolton, or someone as strong, as Secretary of State — or at least as Ambassador to the U.N. again?
His understanding on AGW is wrong and shallow, and a very big detriment. He doesn't seem to see the political implications and deceit around it … and it's underlying motivation of redistributing wealth — our wealth (what we have left of it). Has he come out in favor of Cap 'n Trade? How does he feel about Solyndra and the Gov subsidizing that industry?
Have you heard him ridicule and demean any idea of the existence stealth (legal) Islamism, infiltration and the malevolent influence of Sharia finance … ? He believes it's "Islamophobia." He doesn't see the harm that opening our laws to Sharia law will do. He doesn't see the harm in accommodating and giving in to demanded special privileges — a plot of pushing slowly to erode our laws — as has been done in Europe.
These last two, as far as I'm concerned, are disqualifiers … but I think (hope) he's taken these positions because … he's a very hard worker and his work as Governor has taken up too much of his time … he's just been too busy to do the research needed and really study up to thoroughly understand these two issues.
I can't help thinking that if he found the time to educate himself thoroughly, that he could see the light. (It's just a wish, maybe, because I'm so impressed with his sincerity and correct thinking on so many other matters. His speech at the Reagan center was so great.
If only someone who he'd pay attention to could get him a copy of Andy McCarthy's "The Grand Jihad" … (Maybe if Michael Mukasey sent it to him?)
I don't know which is the best book confronting the AGW theories and Climate Gate … and the "90% of Scientists" claim.
(Regarding the 90% of Scientists and other claims: It's natural for most lay people who don't have a lot of time to really investigate into this — to be impressed by this claim — as well as so many of the other claims. (I watched part of Al Gore's recent telecast … some of which was really frightening … even I, who disagree totally, felt moved and somewhat rattled by it. That stuff is designed well to get to you emotionally!)
He strikes me as a very honest man, and if he could just get more and better information … I believe he'd come around … if ….
(His weight should never be an issue — that's ridiculous — Yes, the presidency is grueling … but his Governorship hasn't been a piece of cake either.)
October 2, 2011 - 1:55 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
"Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths" by Ronald Bailey. Chapter 1 is all you need (though they others are helpful, too.) Also, Nigel Lawson's An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming is excellent from start to finish.
October 2, 2011 - 5:01 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Really? You thought that was good journalism? I thought I was reading an article out of CELEBRITY HOROSCOPES.
October 2, 2011 - 11:40 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Best book on the scam of global warming: "Air Con" by Ian Wishart. It is meticulously researched and written in layman's language. Read this book and you will clearly see how bogus the science is.
October 2, 2011 - 6:31 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Jeff Perrin & JK – Thanks for the book recommendations.
I just read here below that Christie was in favor of the Ground Zero Mosque; and that he wants to close all coal mines in New Jersey.
I didn't know he went that far. That's too far for me. I hope he doesn't run. What a pity.
October 2, 2011 - 12:53 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Ronald Bailey is a journalist; Nigel Lawson is a journalist and politician; Ian Wishart is a journalist. Not a whole lot of solid science background with any of them.
October 2, 2011 - 7:02 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
8. Aqua
The O complains about what Bush left him … that's a joke compared to what he will leave the next president in 2012.
After repealing Obamacare, if we are to stabilize as a nation, 75% of regulatory agencies and useless bureaus will have to be deeply cut or closed down — firing many employees (which will add to the unemployment rolls and will be its own horror show).
Aside from looming economic armageddon, the O will have left the next president, us, and the world in an extremely dangerous and weak position. Much will have to be reclaimed and resurrected. It will take 10 times the effort any other president has had to exert. We may very well be in a "hot" war with Iran, or even Pakistan … or who knows?
Herman Cain is great in so many ways … I like him so much … especially regarding economic domestic issues. He'd be a fine inspirational leader. A good, very decent man. But … I fear he's not used to dealing with the dirty tricks, deceit and nastiness that he'll have to deal with — domestically and internationally — and will succumb to them. He's nobody's fool, but he does seem to take people at their word. How will he handle the likes of deceptive scoundrels, i.e., Putin and A'Jad? And how would he be as Commander in Chief? He also doesn't understand the idea of stealth (legal) Islamism … and was "persuaded" by — some people from CAIR or the MB — that it's only actual Terrorists who are to be defeated. He's very naive about this issue, and can so easily be swayed.
And how he would fare against Obama? I don't know.
I still like Perry too, although his stand on the role of government … as in his defense of Texas' vaccination program … where he said he'd always "do what's best" (or some such words) for the people (even though he did say he went about it the wrong way) … It gives me pause … though he did say it was a "Texas as a State" matter … and not the place for the Federal Gov't. And then, I wonder how informed he is about stealth (legal) Islamism. There still remains an issue about him regarding that.
Romney? He's just so slick … and seems to say whatever will get him elected. We've certainly had enough of a president who says whatever will please whichever group he happens to be talking to. Because of that, it's hard to say what he will actually do. He doesn't seem to have real objections to huge government — not really.
Bachman? I like her, but not as president. There's just something about her demeanor that I find disturbing, though I can't exactly name it. She seems nervous, and her judgment (not her ideas — I like them) seems off. I don't care for the way she attacked Perry nor her discussions about the vaccine afterward. The left will have a field day with her … and I can't see her winning against Obama.
October 2, 2011 - 2:25 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Christie seems to have a few qualities other than girth that some Americans could be repelled by. He's weak on upholding the 2nd Amendment. He doesn't object to Obamacare. He doesn't object to Muslims in the judiciary.
He stood up to the teachers'racket/union.
It's hard to figure how he would act or not act as President, because the country isn't New Jersey. He did spend most of his career working for Leviathan. Our concern shouldn't be about Christie's girth. Our concern should be about Leviathan's girth, and what Christie would do about that.October 2, 2011 - 2:54 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Plenty of fat people live quite a long time. The presidency is not an athletic competition. And if the president is under too much stress, I would suggest that the real problem is that we have allowed one president after another to usurp power that is not granted to the presidency in the US Constitution.
The real problem with Christie is that he completely does not understand the dangers of Islam. See: [LINK] for more.
October 2, 2011 - 6:09 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
"He doesn't object to Muslims in the judiciary"
Should we also object to Jews in the judiciary? Or Catholics? Or Evangelicals?
Please, at least try to remember what this country is supposed to stand for!October 2, 2011 - 7:17 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
""He doesn't object to Muslims in the judiciary"
Should we also object to Jews in the judiciary? Or Catholics? Or Evangelicals?
Please, at least try to remember what this country is supposed to stand for!"I do remember what this country stands for. Muslim principles and Sharia law isn't it.
October 2, 2011 - 7:32 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
No, we cannot exclude ALL Muslims from the judiciary or anything else. But … unfortunately, because of much of Sharia law … and the stealth (legal) planned inroads … and doctrine of "taquiya," they would have to be very carefully vetted. I believe true moderate Muslims would not object to this, considering what we are confronted with.
It is unfortunate and tricky considering our commitment to religious freedom, but is needed in the case of Islam, because of its dual nature (the acceptable true personal religion and the unacceptable political).
There are Muslims around (I couldn't say how many) who are very good people — who, under no circumstances wish to live under Sharia law in any respect. Whether or not the clerics accept it, these people consider the drastic political directives of Sharia to be from an ancient time, and not relevant to today's world. I've heard them speak, seen their writings, and have known several personally. It's these Muslims that should be included, encouraged and given support. But true vetting is a must.
October 2, 2011 - 11:00 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Yes, we can exclude whomever we want to exclude from the judiciary. It's the multi-culti, all religions are equal, dummies who say we can't and they are wrong.
October 2, 2011 - 11:45 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Angry Pamela Geller Fanboy
Can someone tell me the difference between an Ahmadi and a Wahhabi? NOTHING, I TELL YOU! MUSLIMS ARE A DEATH CULT! Now, back to snorting cocaine off of my copy of the Fountainhead…
October 2, 2011 - 11:50 am Link to this Comment -
Patrick of Atlantis — There's a difference in multiculti insistence upon INCLUDING on the basis of race, religion, or whatever, as opposed to merit — and NOT EXCLUDING the meritorious for the same reasons.
October 2, 2011 - 12:45 pm Link to this Comment
"It is unfortunate and tricky considering our commitment to religious freedom, but is needed in the case of Islam, because of its dual nature (the acceptable true personal religion and the unacceptable political)."
- – - -
I'd suggest it's even worse than that. Under Islam, it is acceptable to LIE to infidels if that will advance whatever cause currently being pushed.So not only would it be tricky, but almost impossible to do thorough vetting. As usual, I'll add the disclaimer that this wouldn't apply to those Muslims who have lived here all their lives and are demonstrably American in nature & character. Still, I can't be the only one worried about sleepers, or those home-grown, self radicalized jihadists.
October 2, 2011 - 2:13 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
10. james conrad
I dont understand why the base keeps lusting after more candidates, is it because they think Obama is so beatable and each faction is pushing their fav? It's gonna be a tough race,no matter how one slices n dices it. There is no messiah, no perfect canadidate so enough already,dance with the one that brought you and just WIN!
Full Disclosure: I went all in for Romney the other day and contributed to his campaign based on the debates held so far,may the force be with him.October 2, 2011 - 3:14 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
james conrad:
Didn't you get the message? He's a Mormon, then call him Mittens, and in the minds of many he's toast. Never ever acknowledge that he is the only candidate now and in the last six months or so that has shown in the polling data that he would defeat Obama in 2012. Romney Stoppers never die, they just say bring out another candidate as the most recent one self-destructs.
I'm afraid the propagandists at Fox News are going to have a collective heart attack. As late as Friday the Rupert Murdock puppets gave Rick Perry probably at least a half million dollars worth of free face time passing it off as an interview with Carl Cameron. He was in front of prop of red, white and blue banners and given fifteen minutes to strut on camera and take cheap shots at Mitt Romney.
Imagine that, a proven liar with free time on the "Fair and Balanced Network."
Bill Chrystal, another phoney conservative should be ashamed of himself. At least Juan Williams, Chief Defender of Obama shows his true colors. Too bad Chrystal doesn't have the courage to do the same.
October 2, 2011 - 7:21 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
11. Bob
Christie is wrong on climate change and wrong on the second amendment. As much as I like him as governor of New Jersey, I think these positions make him much less attractive as a candidate.
Roger applies the fallacious logic about Christie's weight that he decries in Christie's rationale on AGW. Contrary to the popular nanny-state logic, fat folks are not going to croak if you say boo or they are under stress. We aren't asking the Pres to be a marathon runner. Up to a point, obese folks may live a bit longer than the thin ones. I don't think his weight is, or should be a real issue.
Christie would feel a bit better if he dropped about 100 pounds. Been there.
October 2, 2011 - 3:19 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Roger's logic is not fallacious regarding Christie's weight. Roger is simply telling the truth, like it or not.
By his own admission, Christie's weight topped out at 550 pounds. He stated on the record that it was due to his inability to control himself and the result now is that he has multiple health problems related to extreme obesity.
Empathy is one thing but refusing to face the truth is something else. It's you who is suffering from fallacious logic, not Roger. A man with this degree of lack of self control has no business becoming the President of the United States.
It's all on the record. You can look it up if you're interested in facts.
October 2, 2011 - 7:33 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
12. gmmtnman
While I agree with you in regard to Christie you showed that you too are a bit out of touch with this statement: "Only a handful with medical degrees are qualified to have any kind of opinion about global warming at all." Some PhDs in the sciences, not MDs, are the people qualified to have an opinion about global warming.October 2, 2011 - 4:13 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
It's pretty clear he misspoke and meant science degrees.
October 2, 2011 - 7:46 am Link to this Comment | Reply
13. Evan Jones
I have personally conducted an extensive evaluation of the USHCN climate network. My conclusions are as follows:
– Warming over the last 30 years (in the US, at least) is real.
– It appears to be exaggerated by a factor of two.
– There is no positive feedback in evidence.
Therefore, the warming is very modest, not accelerating, and is absolutely no danger, whatever.
As for "extreme weather", Global ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) has been on a downward trend since the 1950s, and hit a record low in 2010. So, if anything, there is a corelation of less hurricane activity and mild warming.
Temperatures over the last 30 years also appear to correlate very well with the "Big Six) Oceanic/Amospheric cycles (PDO, AMO, NAO, SO, AO, AAO), all of which went from cool phase to warm phase (on schedule) between 1976 and 2001.
There has been no warming trend from that point on.
So, when it comes to Global Warming:
Size Matters.
So does the Motion of the Ocean.
October 2, 2011 - 4:23 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
wrong. we must implement green communism right now or we are all doomed. everyone should be forced to buy solyndra solar panels, air conditioning and v6 engines must be banned. Otherwise in 100 years the world will warm 3oC and blond people will disappear.
October 2, 2011 - 11:08 am Link to this Comment | Reply
14. hamilcarb
"Climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role…" is a very minimal statement. The legitimate questions revolved around HOW MUCH warming (or what range of possible warmings) can be fairly extrapolated into the future (ie a lot less than the alarmists would say), HOW MUCH human activity-related carbon emissions play a role (also probably less than is claimed), what a fair accounting of ALL IMPACTS might look like (impacts being a neglected area of study), and what sort of rational, cost-benefit based responses it would behoove us to consider. Christie's comment was reasonable and conservative and it's ludicrous to rake him over the coals for it.
October 2, 2011 - 4:40 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Thank you for saying something reasonable. Christie's statements about ceasing coal production in New Jersey are more troubling , however.
October 2, 2011 - 11:47 am Link to this Comment | Reply
15. Bob
I like Governor Christie a lot and I'm willing to take his word that he's not running, which he has said repeatedly and emphatically. If he now flip-flops and says he's running, the Dems can make plenty of hay just playing back his own statements that he's not ready to be president and is definitely not running. The Republicans have other good candidates and should not be begging him to get in. As Roger Simon points out, Christie is not without his problems, including less experience as governor than Sarah Palin. I don't understand why some conservatives, like Ann Coulter, think he's the end-all and be-all of candidates. Whomever the Republicans pick, you can be sure Barry and his minions will be out attacking in full force. Let's just pick someone and get behind him. As Mark Levin said: "I'd vote for an orange juice can before I'd vote to give Obama another term."
October 2, 2011 - 4:43 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
I heard Ann Coulter say this morning that on the most important issue, abortion, Christie is pro-life, as is his wife. I cringed.
If Ann really thinks that is the most important issue facing our federal government, she could become my ex-favorite. The reason the TEA Party did incredibly well in the mid-term election was NOT because it wanted Big Government to assume control of one more thing, women's pregnancies; TEA Party candidates avoided that issue entirely. Rather it is important that Big Government get smaller, with a return to more recognition of the Constitution and the principles embodied therein.
If it ever appears that the TEA Party's overriding goal is to give Big Government even more control over our lives, it will fizzle and lose more than a few Republicans and many independents. On the other hand, the Supreme Court had to twist the Constitution to and fro in order to find a right to abortion–but only in the first trimester. ??? A return to more honest recognition of the Constitution and its principles is the pro-lifers' best bet for getting anything close to what they want.
Cristie's possible belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming is frightening. If he will merely follow the lead of Obama and his anti-capitalist appointees, we will have made little progress by throwing that crowd out.
October 2, 2011 - 9:16 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Oh, Polly, THANK YOU for displaying common sense. I'm an independent — well, more "libertarian lite" as well as a TEA partier — but how anyone can think social issues are thee MOST important right now is plain wrong. (To be fair, I really dislike Coulter, and always have. I can't hear *what* she's saying because of the *way* in which she says it.)
I guess I'm more of the live-and-let-live school, and laissez faire on social issues — until or unless govn't wants me to PAY for implementing social policies of ANY type. Smaller govn't is always better, and much less likely to abuse its power, due to the fact it doesn't HAVE that much.
October 2, 2011 - 2:25 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Maybe Coulter's position on Christie is affirmation of the old saying that everthing and everbody has a price. The answer is usually found in another old saying, follow the money.
Unfortunately, money trumps principle far too often in the age in which we are living. Many people say that if you cling to principles, it makes what you have to say incoherent, idiotic and on and on and on. I personally wear such remarks as a badge of honor.
October 2, 2011 - 7:45 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
16. tommy gunn
The Global Warming lie needs to be addressed in this election. Think of the damage that a president can do who believes in this bs. Look what congress almost did pass the 2000 page cap and trade bill. Look what Obama is doing with the EPA in closing 20% of our real coal power capacity and the horrific nonsensical investments in solar and wind mills which blight the landscape. This lie has done much damage because we have tolerated these radical enviro wackos so we may as well take them on too. Add this to growing list of lies that need to be exposed and reformed–social security is NOT ok, medicare is not OK, fannie and freddie, the post office, amtrac, the EPA, DOE these are not OK in spite of liberal protestations that everything is ok and just needs more money!! Enough is enough!
October 2, 2011 - 4:49 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Chris in California
Actually Tommy, you are wrong one one point. The U.S. Post office is a constitutional function of the federal government, called for in section 8 as follows:
"Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
October 2, 2011 - 1:50 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
17. Benton H Marder
So, according to Christie, some 90% of the scientists involved believe in anthropogenic climate change? I'm reminded that the intelligence community swallowed whole the claims that Saddam Hussein had substantial weapons of mass destruction, thus impelling the USA to conquer Iraq. Persia was the major beneficiary of this action in so many ways. Do I trust the scientists any more than I trust the intelligence community? Hardly. Then, I remember the Velikovsky Affair, but that is quite another story, albeit highly discrediting the scientific community of the day. In essence, the thesis was demonised without examination.
October 2, 2011 - 4:59 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
18. cedarhill
So, the point is who should be nominated for VP should Christie win the nomination and subsequent election and then the big fall? For starters: Rubio or Palin or anyone other than Romney and "Moderate" before OR after their name.
October 2, 2011 - 5:00 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
19. messup
One wonders with this kind of reasoning, what Mr. Christie would do to defend the US Consitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.
So, let's suppose a majority (or 90%) of some political entity, group or representative organization say, George Soro's "priorities" organizations, were to confront Mr. Christie with examples of how well a command economy would be beneficial to the USofA. With his reasoning, he would be easily swayed into accepting (on face value) such a statement, working diligently to implement the tenets of a top down government. How easily swayed Mr. Christie is.
As for his upholding our US Constitution's Second Amendment, he has already stated his position as regards the Second amendment…he is for Gun Control.
Why do the We The Elite People in Washington DC insist on trotting out individuals with little or no vetting, credentials or in depth experience in government or private sector and expect We The People to go along with these charades?
Washington DC's Elite structure composed of RNC, DNC, MSM and yes, our "too big to fail" friends over at Wall Street must be dismantled and done away with. These nefarious creatures have bestowed their mis-management of our government, economy, education, and yes, church/state gobbely-gook, putting us in this state of affairs.
The only candidate able to do the work of We The People is Mr. Cain. Vote Cain. Cain Can.
Romney = flip-flopper
Perry= in state tuition reimbursement for illegal aliens with CITIZENSHIP GUARANTEED upon graduation. If this isn't an ANCHOR BABY PROGRAM, then what is it?
Paul= strict Libertarian. Good, but twists like a pretzel.
Bachmann = foot-in-mouth disease
Vote 2012. God Bless AmericaOctober 2, 2011 - 5:02 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Cain = foot in Fed disease (He is on record stating that he would not audit the Fed. He seems to be as big a crony capitalist as Perry.)
Michele Bachman is the only true conservative in the field. She has the highest grade at NumbersUSA of all candidates for her stance against illegal immigration.
Michele is the only candidate who has tried to remove the millions automatically put into Obamacare anually by Nancy Pelosi.
Rep. Bachman was the number one target of the Democrat Party in each of her reelection bids. (If you're not catching flack you're not over the target.)
Rick Perry misled everyone in the last debate when answering Bachman's charge of crony capitalism, by saying that he was lobbied by a 31 year old cervical cancer victim when he signed his executivie order for vaccinations of young girls. He did not meet that woman until several months after the signing when the Texas legislature was in session deciding if the vaccination decree would stand. He used her for lobbying purposes.
As to ill effects of vaccines, eugnenicist, one worlder Bertrand Russel is quoted as saying "Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so."
Michele Bachman stood against this sick twisted type of government and caught the flack and ridicule to prove it.
October 2, 2011 - 9:33 am Link to this Comment | Reply
20. Pragmatist
There is no MAN MADE Global Warming, there never has been any MAN MADE Global Warming, there never will be any MAN MADE Global Warming. See that big yellow thing that comes up in the sky every day well that is what has a major influence on Climate that and the Earths own volcanic activities. MAN is so insignificant in his effect that from space you can hardly even tell he is there.
October 2, 2011 - 5:16 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
21. Pragmatist
BTW before anyone starts to talk about Rubio being Christie's VP just think he is NOT a Naturally Born Citizen just like Obambi isn't . To be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN you need to be born in the USA of TWO Citizen parents.
October 2, 2011 - 5:19 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Terry Gain
The GOP may have waived article 2 section 1 of The Constitution in order to accommodate Obama but is it realistic for Democrats – people who play for real – to do the same for Rubio?
October 2, 2011 - 7:00 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
This is not so, and it so simple, with a few seconds of research on legitimate legal websites, to discover this. There is just too much misrepresentation on this subject on PJM. If one is born in the US then one is a natural-born American citizen. Just because someone doesn't want to believe something doesn't make it so.
October 2, 2011 - 9:36 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Terry Gain
You are wrong. The weight of authority is that to be a natural born citizen you must be born in the United States of parents who are both citizens
October 2, 2011 - 11:47 am Link to this Comment | Reply
22. Benson II
Of course all the Rino Republican elites are lusting after Christie. It's like they want to lose to Obama. Christie isn't even middle of the road on important issues like global warming (hoax) Muslims in governemnt, the ground zero mosque, gun rights, etc.
Just like they wanted McCain they now want Christie. I have from the beginning enjoyed Christie's news conferences and his run in's with the Unions but that doesn't make him a good candidate for president. Republican elites are determined to give us another McCain we can't let that happen. Perry, Cain and Gingrich are still the best answer as far as overall (not all) policies are concerned and would run circles around Obama and bring stability and adherence to the constitution back to governing. Even Romney would be better than Christie by far.October 2, 2011 - 5:30 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
23. AJ Weberman
Of course global warming is real. Keep lying to appease the rich Jews who sponsor you and you will only strengthen Jew hatred among young Americans. Remember the Bible says the Jews will always be a minority so can your arrogance and become part of the world
October 2, 2011 - 5:35 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
24. Libertyship46
"Says Christie: "I'm certainly not a scientist, which is the first problem. So I can't claim to fully understand all of this, certainly not after just a few months of study. But when you have over 90 percent of the world's scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role, it's time to defer to the experts."
A few hundred years ago, almost all scientists said the world was flat. What's also amazing is that these same scientists were not proven wrong by another scientist, but by an Italian captain with three ships. When scientists are just so certain about something they can't really prove, they're usually wrong.
October 2, 2011 - 5:48 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
25. Dwight
Not sure what to do with Christie's gut has an impressive gift of gab under pressure, the best of the bunch and is apparently tough and tenacious, although one would have to have followed him closer than I have to say for sure. Has Christie said that he is in favor of cap and trade? Where has that 80% statement taken him in terms of policy proposals?
Anyway, it makes sense that human released CO2 contributes at least something to global warming, but the question is, how much compared to the sun and other "natural" dynamics AND can anything practical really be done about it? What does cap and trade accomplish, really?
There IS an valid underlying question about the wisdom of burning up our petro reserves as fast as we can for the lowest price possible in order to stimulate growth, or to tax heavily, go slow on development of new wells, and thereby prolong the amount of time the supplies will last, but increasing energy prices across the board, and alas slowing growth.
We will go back and forth between the two policies, depending which party is in power. In the end, we will have to remove every mountain that has coal beneath it and drill in every wilderness and ocean bottom until some alternate energy source fills in. Nuclear is the only one known to have the potential to create the amount of power needed, but we all know what comes along with nuclear. Some day we may HAVE to have it, whether we like it or not.
October 2, 2011 - 6:11 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
In the 1950′s, scientists told Texas that they were almost out of natural gas. So, all the homes built were all electric. Now, they have natural gas in abundance. But, you can't unbuild the homes. So, Texans pay exorbatant heating bills in the winter for electric heaters.
I think it was in the 1970′s that scientists told us we were almost out of oil. Now we know, without all future supplies that will be found, that we have hundreds of years of oil supply.
America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Obama tells us to save it and admits that elecrical bills will skyrocket.
You seem to be in the Obama flat earth camp.
We've been down this road before as I illustrated. Let's not be fooled again!
October 2, 2011 - 10:23 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Flat earth? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
October 2, 2011 - 7:52 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
"There IS a valid underlying question about the wisdom of burning up our petro reserves as fast as we can for the lowest price possible in order to stimulate growth……"
According to some projections back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, we should have run out of oil by now. Oil engineering has always come through and found ways to drill deeper or recover more from depleted or exsisting wells. If the government ran our oil companies, this never would have been possible, as it's the "greedy" profit motive that drives such innovation. It's called capitalism. Then of course there are the oil sands and shales that Canada is exploiting, while we in the US are sitting on our butts to satisfy the greens.
October 2, 2011 - 10:26 am Link to this Comment | Reply
26. alex
"How can you compare a primitive, nomadic, scrounging existance with modern man? In all of recorded history, whatever climate changes occured, we dealt with it. With stone tools, with no tools, we dealt with it. Do you really think we can't deal with it when we have air conditioning, nuclear power, jet air travel, and all the other advancements of today"
Actually we are far weaker to deal with climatic change because we are so dependent on technology instead of personal resource. Look what a tiny tsunami did to Japan…in the scheme of things the Japanese tsunami was small, an average historical tsunami is many times larger and delivered in dozens of waves and increasing cycles.
One moderate volcanic eruption, which modern humanity has not experienced, will shut down global air travel for indeterminate time, months if not year(s), any air breathing engine will have trouble as fine ash will corrupt internal combustion, international shipping will crawl to a stop, agriculture will be in global shock as the sun is darkened for months – years(s), and then these issues will cascade and multiply through supply chains.
I would argue that Humanity has become so specialized with abilities, a mild change that barely effected our ancestors will wreak havoc with today's "just in time" delivery of goods and services that serves global logistics. People are simply not equipped to fend for themselves as our ancestors were.
Global Climate change is a smokescreen, there are real and serious problems we need to deal with that are actually within our ability to improve.
October 2, 2011 - 6:31 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
27. Trainwreck
Why does the republican establishment gush over this RINO like teen girls at a Bieber concert, and see him as the Second Coming of Reagan? That RINO across the river, Bloomberg, has said "global warming is worse than terrorism." I am sure AGW will be a priority for a Christie administration while concerns about sharia and jihad will be pooh-poohed.
October 2, 2011 - 6:37 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
It would be terrible if a Christie administration blocked oil and gas exploration. We have resources to become energy independent only if the government reverses direction and allows development.
October 2, 2011 - 7:13 am Link to this Comment | Reply
28. eman
Christie claims he has studied AGW for months and then he makes such a statement.
Christie appears to be some sort of low-tax, low-spending RINO.
He is an example of a transitional species between RINO and Conservative.
My remark to him is, "Thanks for coming in today. Don't call us, we'll call you. Next."
October 2, 2011 - 6:39 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
29. A physicist
Christie can kiss goodbye any chance of support from the insurance industry.
These hard-nosed CEOs appreciate that AGW is real, serious, and accelerating.
They won't support a candidate who panders to Big Carbon and Muslim Oil.
Perfect storm for climate change
Business Insurance Weekly
URL: http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20111002/NEWS06/310029985October 2, 2011 - 6:49 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Ever Present Bowtied Climate Troll
O noze, preciouses!! I forgotted to read what the article says!!
"One of the things that I'm announcing today is that there will be no new coal permitted in New Jersey," he said. "From this day forward any plans that anyone has regarding any type of coal-based generation of energy in New Jersey is over. We know that coal is a major source of CO2 emissions. We will no longer accept coal as a new source of power in the state and we will work to shut down older dirtier, peaker and intermediate plants that emit high greenhouse gases. We need to commit in New Jersey to making coal a part of our past. We're going to work to make New Jersey number one in offshore wind production." – Chris Christie, evil climate change denier!!!! OH NOZE!!! WHERE IS ADMIRAL TITLEY???
October 2, 2011 - 7:29 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Um, Christie is saying he believes in AGW.
As for me, I just kind of wonder why all these "hard-nose CEOs" aren't SCREAMING about replacing coal plants with nuclear ones and SCREAMING about saving hydro-electric dams.
It kind of makes me suspect that these "hard-nose CEOs" are really just cynics pandering to political fashion and perhaps, since as you note they work for insurance companies, looking for a chance raise rates and feather their own nest.
October 2, 2011 - 9:03 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
A physicist
Lemme get this straight, Bill.
Yah don't trust military leaders, business leaders, the Pope, the World Scouting organization, hunters and fishermen, or the world's scientists, engineers, and mathematicians.
Because … uhhhh … they're all part of a huge global conspiracy.
On the other hand, you *do* trust Rush Limbaugh, Muslim Oil, and Big Carbon.
Because … uhhhh … "Rush is Right"!
It's clear why folks increasingly view ideology-first AGW skepticism as being kinda dumb, eh?
Who Funds Contrariness on Climate Change?
Scientific American, March 2010
URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=who-funds-contrariness-onOctober 2, 2011 - 9:25 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Lemme get this straight, Bill. Yah don't trust military leaders, business leaders, the Pope, the World Scouting organization, hunters and fishermen, or the world's scientists, engineers, and mathematicians.
You mean like scientists like Ivar Giaever? Hey, you think you know more about the weather than Joe Bastardi?
But since you need to get it straight, I'll type slow and use words of as few syllables as possible:
I don't trust people who have been caught in lies and who use political means to squelch scientific dissent.
I don't trust people whose life choices and political causes are inconsistent (sorry about the multi-syllables) with their cry of doom.
Got it straight now?
If you think AGW is a crisis don't whine at Rush. Bash Jane Fonda and the other anti-nukes. Start fighting to save hydro-electric dams.
Fight for policies that lead to eliminating traffic bottlenecks even if it means waiving Davis Bacon and streamlining environmental permits procedures.
Fight for policies that encourage telecommuting.
I don't see the I-believe-the-world-is-burning-to-the-ground crowd doing these things.
It makes one go hmmmmm.
October 2, 2011 - 10:30 am Link to this Comment | Reply
30. Bill Lawrence
All the candidates have flaws. If you demand perfection all we are going to end up with is Obama.
Or Romney, who is not that much better.
I can happily get behind Christie for president. Unlike, Dole or McCain or even Dubya, he actually fights with Democrats and their enablers.
With that said, I'm still a big-time Perry guy.
Go Rick!
October 2, 2011 - 6:56 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
It's quite sad that someone as politically impressive as Christie is
afraid to refute this man-made global warming nonsense. The man-made
global warming fraud exists for only one reason – to allow big-government
worshippers to separate the general public from it's money and it's liberty.
That's it. The only type of person who subscribes to this half-baked
theory are those who stand to benefit financially (see Al Gore) and
politically (see Al Gore, Democrats, totalitarians worldwide and apparently
Christie).It's truly ridiculous that some people believe mankind can manipulate
the earth's temperature by changing our behavior. If someone does possess
this talent, it would be nice if they could get around to influencing the
weather patterns in Chicago – I'm tired of these brutal winters……October 2, 2011 - 7:21 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
A physicist
The embrace of willfully ignorant ideology-first AGW skepticism is a key reason that so many of the Republican candidates look like clowns (not to mention, PJM/Tatler columnists too).
Meanwhile in the real world:
Putin ponders climate change in Arctic Russia
"The climate is changing. This year we have come to understand this when we faced events that resulted in fires," Putin told climate scientists.
A two-month heatwave, Russia's worst on record, killed 54 people in forest fires, destroyed a quarter of the grain crop and shaved at least $14 billion off the economy.
Putin, who has sought to burnish his action-man image flying firefighting planes and facing angry fire victims, was clearly stunned by the extent of the natural disaster, likening it to Nazi Germany's attack on the Soviet Union.
Governor Cristie's main weakness is that his new-found willingness to grapple with climate change is not strong enough & not fast enough.
That's why it's way past time that American conservatism stopped pandering to the unholy triparte alliance of Big Carbon, Muslim Oil, and a misinformed political base.
Putin ponders climate change in Arctic Russia
URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/23/us-russia-climate-putin-idUSTRE67M3G920100823October 2, 2011 - 7:37 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
"Governor Cristie's (sic) main weakness is that his new-found willingness to grapple with climate change is not strong enough & not fast enough."
I shoor do wish my willingness was faster! How many letters after yore name do you gots to write pretty sentences like that?
When it was Mr. Hamm's turn to talk briefly with President Obama, "I told him of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. I wanted to make sure he knew about this."
The president's reaction? "He turned to me and said, 'Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.'" Mr. Hamm holds his head in his hands and says, "Even if you believed that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development? It was pretty disappointing."
Plz give us the obligatory response about Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Chu knowing the "Truth" about climate change, kthxbye.
October 2, 2011 - 8:38 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Isn't Vladimir Putin an example of a totalitarian creep who would benefit
politically and financially from any rules imposed to fight the fraud
known as 'global warming'?Putin cares nothing about the environment – he is only interested in
taking dictatorial contol over Russia. Since nobody (except Obama)
believes in Communism anymore, global warming will be used as the
reason to reassert total government power (his).Citing Putin as an 'authority' on global warming actually makes
my case and is something you should actually be embarrassed about.October 2, 2011 - 10:48 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Dr. Dave
You must be "A physicist" by virtue of gravity dropping you on your head. I know a boat load of physicists and engineers and not a ONE of them believe in the BS that is the AGW fraud.
October 2, 2011 - 11:56 am Link to this Comment | Reply
32. Duvid Ben Shlomo
Roger–You write, "Only a handful with medical degrees are qualified to have any kind of opinion about global warming at all." I assume you're joking, but I'm afraid I don't get the joke.
October 2, 2011 - 7:26 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Just a guess – if you look at the MD's in congress, you get an interesting bunch of cranks and weirdos from Jim McDermott to Ron Paul.
October 2, 2011 - 7:48 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Dr. Dave
Unlike lawyers and those with worthless degrees in journalism or PoliSci, physicians are actually schooled in REAL science. Yup. Real stuff like chemistry, biology, organic chemistry, physics and higher math…and this is BEFORE they study medicine. Medicine teaches the proper application of statistics as well as critical thinking. VERY few physicians I know believe in the AGW fraud. There are a few however…and they're all brain dead liberals.
October 2, 2011 - 12:06 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
33. tanstaafl
So, both Chris Christie and Mitt Romney have succumbed to all the high falutin' distortion and agenda driven scientism on the subject of anthropogenic global warming.
Not good at all.
October 2, 2011 - 7:29 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
34. Terry Gain
Obvious typo but if you substitute scientific for medical it still doesn't make sense.
October 2, 2011 - 7:30 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Meet the resistance:
Best web site with articles for debunking the eco-hysteria:
October 2, 2011 - 7:31 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
maybe he wanted to say "doctoral degrees" (as in PhD) instead of medical?
October 2, 2011 - 7:32 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
I dunno about the significance of the Piled Higher and Deeper degree when it comes to the fashionable AGW push.
Michael Mann of the infamous "hide the decline" statement in an email and the selective use of Siberian tree ring data (and so much more) could serve as the poster child, loaded up with all the "right" credentials.
Oh yeah, Putin (mentioned above) he's as reliable as Al Gore on this stuff.
October 2, 2011 - 7:56 am Link to this Comment | Reply
37. A physicist
Very little of Mr. Simon's essay made any sense at all.
Our American republic is *not* a science lab, and can't be run that way.
Politicians, CEOs, physicians, engineers, and military leaders all have to make tough decisions based on the best available evidence.
Mr. Christie (and Mr. Huntsman, and at times in the past Romney and even Perry) all now-are/once-were absolutely right that best available evidence overwhelmingly says "AGW is real, serious, and accelerating."
It's far past time for professional pundits like Mr. Simon to accept this reality.
Because clinging to ideology-first skepticism and willful ignorance — no matter how soothing and politically convenient that willful ignorance may be — serves only to harm American conservatism and our nation.
When you remove the politics, climate science makes business sense
URL: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2016301442_peirce26.htmlOctober 2, 2011 - 7:57 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
See whatcha did Roger ?
Awakened the sleeping propagandist.
(over and out)
October 2, 2011 - 8:02 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
There is only one set of data that confirms rising temperatures. And that set of data was fraudulently manufactured. And even if the temperature is rising, it still doesn't confirm AGW. All it does is not disprove it. And that's just not good enough.
October 2, 2011 - 8:24 am Link to this Comment | Reply
38. Forgotten Man
Maybe it is time to get Christie's position on the meaning of theSecond Amendment.
October 2, 2011 - 8:02 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
39. eman
The real problem with AGW is it is not true.
The Earth may be in another Ice Age death spiral such as it suffered about 600 million years ago. Back then the Earth was smothered in ice from pole to pole. More recently, about 30 million years ago the Earth began its present cooling trend, and about 3-5 million years ago the cycles of ice ages began: ice advances to cover whole continents, hangs around for a while, then retreats, and repeats. Right now we are about 10000 years into a retreat phase.
There is no known reason why a subsequent glacial advance phase must stop where others stopped before, or even to retreat.
If we want a healthier more fecund Earth we should increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere. It's good for plants, frees up land and sea for productive uses, and may just save all our descendant's asses someday.
October 2, 2011 - 8:02 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
40. Lloyd Lofthouse
Do you know what an opinion or a theory is? I don't think so.
The theory that carbon emissions are causing the current trend in Global Warming is not a hoax. It is a theory/opinion and there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support that theory/opinion.
The other theory, which is what you believe, is argued as if it were a fact, but it is also an opinion supported by circumstantial evidence.
Moreover, there is no telling which theory is correct or if both are wrong.
If the theory that carbon emissions are responsible for the current trend in Global Warming is true (and there is no away to prove it), then the human race as a species may have everything to lose, but the people alive today won't be the ones to see experience the worse when the human species goes extinct in the next few thousand years because it won't happen overnight, and it may take tens of thousands of years before the light goes out on humanity.
On the other hand, if the anti-Global Warming crowd is wrong, what do we have to lose? Jobs and profits for corporations that deal in coal, oil and carbon emissions like the old coal burning power plants that generate a significant amount of electricity for the United States. The cost of installing filtering systems and upgrading those plants will be expensive and will mean higher energy costs to the public putting a strain on the economy, which is already suffering.
The Science Daily says, "The atmosphere is a complex, dynamic natural gaseous system that is essential to support life on planet earth.
Stratospheric ozone depletion due to air pollution has long been recognized as a threat to human health as well as to the earth's ecosystems. Worldwide air pollution is responsible for large numbers of deaths and cases of respiratory disease.
The World Health Organization estimates that 4.6 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution.
Research published in 2005 suggests that 310,000 Europeans die from air pollution annually.
Direct causes of air pollution related deaths include aggravated asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, lung and heart diseases, and respiratory allergies.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/a/air_pollution.htm
It is a fact that people die due to air pollution. That type of death isn't fast and it means much suffering for the victims but when there are almost 7 billion people on the planet and only 4.7 million die annually due to air pollution, which means most of the people don't see this as a threat to them and don't care.
However, when the threat is to the entire species, then it serves the industries that would be hurt if we actually did something to stop polluting the environment to find a cause they could attack and the only one is Global Warming since the believe that it is caused by carbon emissions is only a theory and not a fact.
In addition, the earth doesn't care if humanity ceases to exist ten thousand years from now because of this stupid argument about Global Warming, because a few hundred thousand years after humanity is gone and isn't polluting the environment anymore, the earth will heal itself from the wounds and find a balance again and whatever life survives will go on. Another species might even climb the ladder and build civilizations. After all, other life forms on this planet have what could be considered hands that could develop the ability to build things as our hands do. By that time, there will be new oil and coal in the ground to exploit and the process may start all over again until some intelligent rat or raccoon species that evolved and built a civilization has a debate on the same issue.
After all, it only took a few million years for our species to evolve to where it is today, and it is possible that other intelligent species have been here before us but died off during dramatic global climate changes, which has happened more than once and according to the data, two of the largest extinctions did take during a period where carbon emissions did increase in the atmosphere accompanied with increased global temperatures and that is a fact supported by evidence—not an emotional driven theory based on possible voodoo science supported by the oil and coal industries.
October 2, 2011 - 8:05 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
If I wanted to hear about Pascal's Wager, I'd go here:
October 2, 2011 - 10:29 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Thank you for your emotional driven opinion based on possible voodoo science supported by the ethanol and carbon-credits industries. Your argument would be even more convincing if some of the intelligent species you speak of, the ones which were eradicated by climate change in the distant past, had left us warnings of our misguided ways . Maybe you could dig some up in your basement .
While digging you could figure out that it might not be wise to grant control of the emission of CO2 (0.04 percent of the atomosphere), to the government . You would lose the right to exhale , and industries would lose the right to generate inexpensive power.
You could also consider that the 9th and 10 amendments dont say : Congress and the executive are granted the right to regulate carbon emisions . In fact they say quite the opposite .
October 2, 2011 - 10:34 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
If you overlay the graphs for CO2 in the atmosphere and temperatures during the 20th century, you find that the CO2 levels follow the the temperature rise.
Any scientist worth his weight in salt would have done this and realize that Man Made Global Warming is a myth, like a flat earth.
October 2, 2011 - 10:35 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
The hoax isn't the theory. The hoax is what they want to do about it.
My theory is that the world will end in 2012. That's not a hoax, it's a theory. If you give me a gazillion dollars, I'll talk to my friends in the heavens and persuade them not to do it. That's the hoax.
October 2, 2011 - 12:43 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
The hoax isn't the theory. The hoax is what they want to do about it.
Bingo. The only consensus is the policy goal, and the policy goal wags the science dog. Because C'nT is wanted by an odd cabal of ideological weirdos and financial opportunists, the science MUST support the policy goal. Thus we get a half-baked theory based on solid radiation physics, but ignoring fluid mechanics, and then they buttress that with goofy stuff like Mann's hockey stick. Yeah, I'm so convinced that a statistical model that automatically picks out a few tree rings that follow the hockey stick shape until 1960, and then turns around again (hide the decline!!!), and then throw most of the data out makes up for their lack of any fluid mechanical understanding.
October 2, 2011 - 2:00 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
The only consensus is the policy goal, and the policy goal wags the science dog. Because C'nT is wanted by an odd cabal of ideological weirdos and financial opportunists, the science MUST support the policy goal.
Bingo x 2.
October 3, 2011 - 6:47 am Link to this Comment | Reply
41. Timtom
Roger: The Presidency is the world's toughest job only if the POTUS takes his responsibilities seriously. Hussein doesn't; Clinton didn't either.
October 2, 2011 - 8:16 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
42. davidinvirginia
I like Christie…as governor of NJ. Those foaming at the mouth for him to run for President are either a)squishes of the David Brooks/NY Times "conservative" type or b) haven't bothered checking out anything about him other than his public battles to bring fiscal sanity back to NJ (and those are certainly laudable).
Not only is he completely clueless and basically ignorant about the global warming mythology; he's also about as close to being pro-sharia as one can be without converting to Islam. Not the sort of leader we need in today's world, no matter how good he is at pressers and answering questions in town hall meetings.
October 2, 2011 - 8:23 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
43. gremar
Even Barack Obama — a lithe, devoted basketball player
Sorry Mr. Simon, Barry is a skinny, chain-smoking, man-boobed punk who shoots basketball for the camera. Big difference.
October 2, 2011 - 8:47 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
44. altoman
Anyone, thats right anyone, that can't shut there mouth at appropriate times, runs the risk of a)morbid obesity or being a politician!
October 2, 2011 - 8:59 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
45. proreason
re the weight issue, what is the bigger health risk…smoking or weight?
I guess excessive wieght is something to be concerned about, but isn't Christie 49? Hasn't he been in pressure situations all of his life? Is facing down the unions in the blueest state in the country stress-free? If it turns out he has an history of heart problems, it's something to worry about. Otherwise, forget it.
As for global warming, Christie would have been a fool to make a big deal about it in New Jersey. He ran as a fiscal conservative, not as the guy to transform the state to 360 degree conservatism. That's why he won. Now, if he makes Carbon Credits a centerpiece of his campaign, scratch him off the list. Otherwise, find something real to complain about.
My concerns are whether he has had any time at all to think about issues other than NJ's fiscal problems. Does he even have a perspective on foreign affairs, Israel, the size of government, tax policy, Social Security, Keynsian economics, the EPA insanities, drilling, etc., etc? At this late stage, I don't want somebody winging it. Because if he hasn't formed a clear point of view about that stuff, then he is going to be adopting his backers point of view, and his backers are the Republican ruling class.
Having said that, if he turns out to be the best Obama-slayer, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
October 2, 2011 - 9:29 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
46. skip gainer
Chris Christie is turning out to be a bigger joke than global warming. I believe the old guard republicans want christie to run be cause he will be like half the people running now newt,romney and perry, democrats in republican clothes. Christie`s political baggage would destroy him and let obama win allowing the continuing theft of taxpayer money, no Constitution, open borders and the implementation of obamacare with amnesty for illeags.
October 2, 2011 - 9:52 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
47. shaun
"…that's what our uneducated politicians have to do, trust the experts they choose, since they themselves have no background. Only a handful with medical degrees are qualified to have any kind of opinion about global warming at all."
I disagree. All it takes is honesty and sound methodology to be a superb scientist. Feynman said it takes a special kind of honesty: "I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, [an integrity] that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen."
There are thousands of titled and lettered folks out there who are terrible scientists. On the other hand, there are hundreds of thousands of untitled and unlettered folks who are superb scientists. Scientific methodology is in fact how we learn about the world as we grow from infant to adult. Children are fantastic scientists. They observe, hypothesize, test, and do it all over and over again.
There is simply no reason that any politician "must" abandon his own honesty and methodology and bow to the experts. Take the support from honest experts by all means. But there's not a single thing in science which cannot be fundamentally grasped by one with a decent sixth-grade education.
I don't think the republic can survive many more proudly scientifically illiterate candidates or office holders.
October 2, 2011 - 10:51 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
48. Sam
So Christie is not a scientist and because of that should not tell us about science issue.
Meanwhile pundits who are not doctors should tell us about Christie's medical issues."I would certainly concur that we have had more than enough nanny state nattering about our excessive avoirdupois from such pot-to-kettle hypocrites as Michelle Obama."
October 2, 2011 - 11:26 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
49. Ruebacca
I am a chemist in the pharmaceuticals industry. I just want to add to the conversation that scientists are aloud to be wrong. A doctor or engineer get sued if they are wrong. I have worked for weeks on assumptions or intuition that have been wrong. The key for me is to run a robust experiment that answers the question.
IMHO going from 260ppm CO2 to 400pm CO2 will have no effect on the heat capacity of an open system like our atmosphere. I could be wrong. Please give me millions to study this question. I need the money for a boat in the Caribbean where i can study this question.
October 2, 2011 - 11:28 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Terry Gain
Good grief Ruebacca. That won't get you even one of Obama's red cents. I've rephrased it for you.
Can we safely take the risk that going from 260ppm CO2 to 400pm CO2 will have not destroy our way of life and indeed make the planet uninhabitable. I'm will to eschew opportunities that are open to me to make substantial money and instead to study this issue at great personal sacrifice but I do require some modest funding to keep body and soul together.
October 2, 2011 - 12:59 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Terry Gain
Good grief Terry, you need an editor.
October 2, 2011 - 1:31 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
50. Dr. Dave
Christie is a big, fat lawyer. So frame the argument in terms he's likely to understand. Gather up all the nation's top trial lawyers. I'm quite certain at least 90% would agree that tort reform is a terrible idea. Why? They know which side of the bread their butter is on. You think climate "scientists" who suckle off the teat of government grants are any different? No more "problem", no more funding, no more tenure, no more celebrity and probably no more job for a lot of these guys. It's in their own self-interest to propagate this stupid AGW fraud.
October 2, 2011 - 12:18 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
It's in their own self-interest to propagate this stupid AGW fraud.
Too many guys n' gals pursuing the grant money.
And they'd better reach the conclusions that the money granters want.
The linkage of money & scientific inquiry has screwed the whole thing up. We have turned the beauty and glory of Pure Science (melodramatic, I know, but to a large extent true in our not-too-distant past) into Scientism.
October 3, 2011 - 7:00 am Link to this Comment | Reply
51. Dexter60
Nice job, lots of good comments.
One can also make the case that AGW is caused by taxes.But one touch is missimg — where does it say our government is supposed to fix the weather anywhere, whether we like it or not?
October 2, 2011 - 12:48 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
52. ricpic
Would I be thrilled to pull the lever for Christie? No. Romney? No. Perry? No. But given the alternative, a second term for Obama, MY MORTAL ENEMY! there isn't the slightest chance that I would not pull the lever for Christie, Romney or Perry. And I am one of millions. The pundits have no idea what's coming because they do not feel the threat viscerally. I do. Millions do. The coming election is anyone but Obama, period!
October 2, 2011 - 12:59 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
53. Daezy
Christie is also the only Republican Governor who did NOT sign on with the other 26 states filing against Obamacare!
If he decides to join the race to the White House, he should be GRILLED on this. Will he repeal Obamacare or not?!?
October 2, 2011 - 1:08 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
54. sablegsd
Gun control, global climate BS and he appointed a koranimal to the bench. I would never vote for him.
October 2, 2011 - 2:16 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
55. Dr Steve
Roger, thanks for pointing out that Gov Christie shares the 'global warming couch' with Nancy Pelosi & Newt Gingrich. NEVER vote for such a schmuck.
On a brighter note, if Christie becomes 'the fatty in chief' then I can give up all those sit ups while I pay $10 for a gallon of gas and freeze in my home in the winter!
October 2, 2011 - 2:33 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
56. Emma
"pot-to-kettle hypocrites as Michelle Obama"
Roger, are you honestly suggesting that Michelle Obama is fat?
October 2, 2011 - 3:11 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
57. Lois
A good measure of the length of s solar minimum is the number of days in which the sun had no spots. You can see the stats on the last 12 or so solar cycles here: http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html. The most recent solar min is a long one, with many spotless days. But it's not the longest min in history. It just has a good, healthy size.
October 2, 2011 - 4:36 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
58. Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.
I really wish that Christie were not so stupid.
October 2, 2011 - 8:28 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
59. A physicist
It's simple.
Mr. Christie has accepted that the scientists are right-on-the-facts.
Mr. Christie knows he can't win against scathing editorials like this.
A Round, Warm Earth
Debunking the Republican Denials of Global Climate Change
URL: http://irregulartimes.com/onclimatechange.htmlOctober 3, 2011 - 8:18 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
60. Doug Johnson
Look, there's no use in crucifying the guy. Christi is doing a lot of good in New Jersey. He has displayed toughness and courage and he needs our continued support in the endeavors where he is making a great positive difference. He has his place in our conservative dynamic, just don't let him play scientist. In our defensive line against the unions, he's my man for nose tackle.
Christi keeps saying he isn't running for president, if he does, he will be regarded as a lot more principled than Romney. He would actually split the moderate GOP votes with Romney, better paving the way for a conservative of our liking.
October 3, 2011 - 8:53 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Who would then lose to the Marxist? Wouldn't that be a great outcome?
October 3, 2011 - 8:52 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
61. ReasonableViews
Global warming is only ONE of Christie's problems. His positions on gun control, immigration and global warming will ultimately be the reason that he does not run. There's an excellent analysis here http://bit.ly/pmQ2zT that explains why. Basically, he can't please NJ voters and GOP primary voters at the same time. It's a losing proposition, and he's smart enough to see that.
October 3, 2011 - 10:52 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
62. Ragnar
"The modern presidency is a 24/7 high-stress job beyond the imagination of the people of Taft's time, a hundred years ago."
Bull. The President is in full control of his schedule. He doesn't have to take pictures with the little leaguers in Ottumwa, and he doesn't have to preside over every meeting of his staff. The President is an Executive; competent people hire competent staff, set goals and policies, and let the experts do their jobs.
October 3, 2011 - 11:20 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
A physicist
Ragnar, if Mr. Christie assigns competent scientists to advise him on climate change, how would his administration handle the resulting anguished screams of ideology-first climate-change skeptics, well-funded Big Carbon lobbyists, Muslim Oil fundamentalists, and deep-pocket Russian oligarchs?
Mr. Christie has not convincingly shown he can stand against lobby pressures.
October 3, 2011 - 11:55 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Competent scientists would be a large change from the Lysenkoist frauds promoted here by the Church of Global Warming Catastophe.
What the catastrophe-mongers HATE with a blind partisan passion is the idea that "climate scientists" should follow the Scientific Method. The demonstrable fact is that the Hockey Stick is a fraud, Upside Down Tijlander is a fraud, short-centered principle components analysis is a fraud. The public admission by Phil Jones that secret data and secret processes is policy for "climate scientists" was well understood by honest observers long before Climategate outed them to the public.
And if funding levels matter, you Global Warming religious fanatics are FAR, FAR more awash in cash from national socialists like Soros, the watermelons at WWF, Greenpeace, etc. Not to even mention the eight BILLION dollars a year you get from Big Brother to promote end-of-the-world fantasies.
The fact is that unpaid real scientists like Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit, Anthony Watts at WattsUpWithThat, Andrew Montford at BishopHill and a few others devoted to honest science has effectively documented that there is no science in "climate science".
October 3, 2011 - 2:03 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
63. A physicist
Gosh Andrew … ain't it a plain fact that all the global warming research in the whole world, for one entire year …
… could be paid-for with forty minutes of oil-and-coal revenues?
Follow the money, eh?
World Energy Consumption
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumptionOctober 3, 2011 - 6:40 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Following the money is precisely what you catastrophe-mongers DON'T want to do, isn't it? You don't want to discuss the $750,000 payoff by that national socialist hero George Soros to James Hansen (or all the other money he is getting from far left causes: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/03/hansen-rakes-it-in/)
Of COURSE you don't want to discuss all the other money flowing into the pockets of you religious fanatics promoting Imminent! Global! Disaster!
You don't want to discuss the FACT that Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts and Andrew Montford and Willis Eschenback and the others who have exposed the multiple frauds like Yamal, Sheep Mountain, PCA, Tijlander, etc are NOT in anyone's pocket. Whereas your "climate scientists" are swallowing down a torrent of money from special interests devoted to destroying science.
And the last thing you ever want to discuss is the deliberate, massive violation of the Scientific Method by the Hockey Team and the IPCC, no?
One can only wonder who you are and who might be paying you to troll here with your libel-by-implication that those of us who believe in the Scientific Method are being paid off by Big Oil, Big Coal, etc.
October 3, 2011 - 9:32 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
64. Andrew
On the ethics of "climate scientists"
Phil Jones to Michael Mann:
"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I?ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."
October 3, 2011 - 9:50 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
65. Andrew
"Physicist" claims that Big Oil is funding skeptics. Of course he provides no proof or citations – how typical.
Actually it's the other way around, as documented in the Climategate emails:
===========================================================From: "Mick Kelly"
To: m.hulme@xxx
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100
Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxMike
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
etc. By email? In person?
I hear that Shell's name came up at the TC meeting. I'm ccing this to Tim
who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
I'm talking to Shell International's climate change team but this approach
will do equally for the new foundation as it's only one step or so off
Shell's equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it's
within the remit.
______________________________________________Mick Kelly
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
______________________________________________October 3, 2011 - 10:16 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
66. mcurse
Global warming is became the most common problem in present world.
——-October 4, 2011 - 1:46 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
67. Bobby Wong
My best friend's mom makes $77 an hour on the computer. She has been out of
job for 9 months but last month her check was $7487 just working on the
computer for a few hours. Read about it here NuttyRich dot comOctober 7, 2011 - 8:45 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Comments are closed.