Obama testifies on global warming

That second picture, the one from behind, must be just for Paulo. We all know how much Obama's ears turn him on.

I think it's fitting that the Swamp posts three photos, but not one word of what he actually said. Shows everyone what the Swamp thinks is important in promoting their candidate.

ALL HAIL OUR NEXT PRESIDENT, BARACK OBAMA!

What say you Paolo,Brucie,JohnJD and his "postfriends"?

I'm with you, Bruce. Just what did he say?

Generally, "testimony" is taken from somebody who actually knows something. Just what does he know about this subject?

Or is this just another posting from the "All Obama, all the time" Swamp reporters?

Any guesses as to his testimony? Facts or expert opinion? I guess he's more experienced than I thought.

It was an open senate meeting on global warming. Both Obama and McCain spoke about the related bill they are co-sponsoring.

Apparently, Obama was not the only presidential candidate "testifying" (Clinton and McCain were the others), and all I can seem to find is that they were expressing their "views," surely based on a lot of intensive research. Swamp, where are the pics of the others? I guess the "testimony" on this issue was not relevant to anything whatsoever.

Just seeing the "Rock" made my heart flutter.

Thank you Dembune!

Point of information: McCain and Joe Lieberman first introduced this bill in 2004. Obama, as usual, is just attaching his name to a bill after all the hard work has been done. Several other senators (Olympia Snowe, etc.) have done this with this bill now that it's fashionable, but John and Joe should get credit for introducing this bill way back in 2004.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/climate/2004-11-17-mccain-warming_x.htm

Swamp, where's the Swamp story on the op-ed piece in today's Libune by NYU history prof and former Obama classmate Jon Zimmerman? You know, the one that says Obama is as woefully unqualified for the presidency as Bush was when he ran four years ago? If your paper thought it was important enough to run, it seems to me it should be important enough to garner attention in this space. A link:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0701300268jan30,1,2886837.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed

It's on the front of the Chicago Tribune website, two clicks down from the Swamp. Been there all day, in plain sight.

I know that, Mark, I agree that it belongs there. But why no Swamp item? That's my question. Seems to me like such a story would prompt Swamp inclusion for any other candidate just based on the news value. Everything else that's related to Obama seems to get its own post because of his position as an Illinois senator and as a declared presidential candidate.

I'm really not trying to be controversial or nasty, I just want to know what the rationale is. Is it because it's an op-ed piece and not from the Washington bureau?

Yeah, basically because it's one person's -- very interesting and well-written -- op-ed piece, not a staff article. It's displayed where all readers can see, though. And now you've pointed Swamp readers to it as well, so there it is. Thanks for asking, and for reading.

Mark - Huh? It would be nice to see that article brought up here in the Swamp as a topic for comment.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0701300268jan30,1,2886837.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed

Comment away.

Mark,

Jeffy and Brucie want a chance to "Swiftboat" Obama,go ahead and give it to them,I like listening to them whine.

How about a post on McCain's involvement in the Keating scandel Mark?

Wow, sounds like somebody woke up on the wrong side of the swiftboat. If Keating Five is the best you've got, then you've got nothing. It's laughable, really.

Usually I'd never stoop this low but for a partisan campaign stooge like you, I'll make an exception, John E: McCain was taking a beating and fighting for the rights of every America in a North Vietnamese POW prison while Obama was snorting blow in a $10,000 a year private school and complaining all the while about how difficult his life was. That's a fact and that's the difference between experience and hype.

Jeff-

You're confused. Bush was the one "snorting blow" while McCain was in the prison camp. Obama was still in grade school. He experimented with drugs later.

It's too bad McCain has become such an ardent supporter of an administration which tortures prisoners. You'd think his experiences would make that repulsive to him.

One senator wants to escalate troop levels to police a civil war in a lost cause, the other wants to effectively redeploy according to the ISG. That's the difference between who takes the oath of office in Jan. 09.

It's the contrast of their formative years I was speaking about, Tony, not the actual time when they were doing it. Yes, I know McCain is older than Obama.

McCain was in the military fighting for his country as a young man. Obama was in an elite private school using drugs as an escape because he felt so disenfranchised (read about it in his book).

McCain's just as disgusted as anyone about the torture policy, but in politics you often have to compromise. He got the best compromise he could out of Bush, which was laudable considering McCain had to spearhead the fight to keep the Geneva Conventions language intact.

Well guys there is a short view on McCain here remember Bush and boys swiftboated him We have the tapes called the real John McCain to bad it will be played over and over again just like the swiftboat veterans for truth where

Wow. What concern you show for the reputation of a fellow Nam vet and decorated POW, Dale. You should be given a medal for not being a partisan. McCain wasn't quick enough to respond to the whispering campaign in 2000, don't expect him to make the same mistake twice.

Jeffy,

Am I supposed to over look all of what Capt. "Surge" McCain did in his past just because he was a POW?
McCain finished 895th out of 900 in his class at Annapolis so I don't think we should call him the next military Einstein who is going to fix everything in Iraq.

He's running for President,..remember?

Where was "Surge" McCain at when the Bushies were Swiftboating John Kerry?

Where was war hero McCain when Kerry flubbed a joke recently.

I'll tell you where he was Jeffy,HE WAS PLAYING POLITICS,he was sucking up to the Evangelical Bushies!

Say what you will about Kerry but those medals where his and if he wanted to flush them down the toilet,then that's his right.
At least he wasn't hanging out in Texas geting drunk as a skunk and doing blow like President Rambo was doing during Nam.

The fact that McCain is siding with the Bushies nowdays makes me want to puke!

The Straight Talk Express is now the Swift Boat Express.

Jeffy,

Why don't you give it a rest with all the "John McCain is such a swell guy" garbage.

That's the same thing I heard about Jr. in 1999.

Everyone here best notice that Dale "Mr. Veteran" Peters just endorsed the idea of lying and smearing the reputation of a man who not only spent six years in a Hanoi pit of hell and received two to three beatings a week because of his refusal to renounce the US' involvement in Vietnam, but also received the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Bronze Star, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit. I guess politics really does trump everything.

I won't waste my time with John E. His rants say more about him than anything about someone like McCain, whose record speaks for itself.

p.s. Those rants were, however, good for a laugh. John Kerry "flubbed a joke." Ha! Oh, I'd forgot about that one. Thanks for bringing it up. I can't imagine why he pulled out of the race last week.

Hey John E and Brother Dale,you guys remember that partisan hack Bill who used to blog here,he was a big McCain supporter just like Jazzy Jeff.

Go figure!

Jeff = Bill

Back to the matter at hand: If Bush was unqualified, Obama must be even more unqualified (Bush, served six years as an executive, Obama, two as a senator). Why have all the democrats changed their tune so much on the value of experience in two presidential elections? Doesn't Jon Zimmerman at the very least have a point? Why the change now? And don't say because it's our side doing it.

why didn't you print anything about what he said today. I would have liked to know about this.

John E.

I want you definition of "swiftboating"

Perhaps pictures serves the issue of Global Warming the best, because the issue has no substance.

In the second picture you can see the humongous
size of those ears! He could hear a squirrel pass gas ontop of a 150 foot tall Oak Tree on a hot,muggy summers day in July.
Anyway,a new book is coming out in March,called "The Chilling Stars" written by a physicist(not a former vice president that didn't carry his own state in the 2000 election) and it explains that global warming is a 1500 year solar-linked cycle and is not caused by human activity.
Let's face it...this global warming hype is just not true.
Paulo

Jeff/Bill,

Aren't you concerned that war hero McCain caved on W.'s torture policy?
Can't lose those NeoCon Evangelical votes huh?
Whose being partisan now,Bill?

Experiance?
W. and Cheney had a wealth of it and look at the fine mess they have made of things.

Terry,

If Al Gore said it,it can't be true huh?

Speaking of things related to global warming, please read the column today from Clarence Page re: Katrina. I found it enlightening as to what's actually going on now in New Orleans vs. what the common perception is among far too many people (including many who post on this blog).

Jeff,
From a Humanist perspective, what would you have done if your civilian population centers were being bombed from thousands of feet from above by sophisticated fighter jets and you were lucky enough to shoot one down and the pilot came parachuting down into the town square? Would you feed him cookies and crumpets?

Perhaps pictures serves the issue of Global Warming the best, because the issue has no substance.

Posted by: Terry | Jan 30, 2007 9:58:03 PM

Yeah, right Terry.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070131/NEWS07/701310413/1009

I'm sure you know so much more than the 2000 scientists whose work has gone into the IPCC report.

John, are you really saying what I think you're saying? That the North Vietnamese were right to torture our pilots? They should've followed the Geneva conventions. Just like we should today. But back in Nam we weren't just paying lip service to Geneva.

Bush didn't have a wealth of experience. He had six years as the governor of a state with a weak governorship, just like Obama has had two years as a senator and no executive experience. That's Zimmerman's point about consistency.

Who is this Bill you all speak of? If he's a McCain supporter I already like him.

No pictures, just substance. They are currently meeting in Paris, new reports will be out this year.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Welcome back Neutral Lady! Any news on the short story front?

I'm not suggesting torturing McCain was right or lawful.

Bubba,

'All work and no play makes NL a dull girl.'
(repeat 1000 times)

"Who is this Bill you all speak of? If he's a McCain supporter I already like him.
Posted by: Jeff | Jan 31, 2007 11:31:46 AM"

Jeff,
Very droll, Bill.

I'm sure Juanito would agree.

Bubba, C.M.,
Now there you guys are, dancing around out there on the thin ice.

Hey Jeff, I haven't see Dale Peters support any attempt to lie or smear McCain or anyone. I would also say he has more of a right to be critical of McCain than most anyone including you since he also fought in Vietman. I sure as hell would rather have someone like Peters at my back than those like you. Congrat's, you've now reached the level set by Paulo, Bruce, and the rest of the Bush and fool's apologists.

Mr. Peters is in my 'dream foxhole', along with the 92 year old 'boom boom' lady from Atlanta. She smoked three Atlanta swat guys, then went down hard. RIP They knocked down the wrong door that night. Bet they are still shaking their heads.

John E.

Maybe you are catching on.

Tony,

Follow the research money. Keep putting this THEORY (not scientific LAW) forward and see where all the research grant money comes flowing in.

There is global warming. Is it proven beyond a scientific doubt that it is man-made? Not even close.

Terry, with your sterling scientific credentials, how could I not agree with you? All those other scientists with their PHD's and research, no need to look at that, when we have Terry and his truthiness.

Tony,

You ask a question that I cannot answer. As far as "all those other scientist with their PHD's and research"; there are another group of "all those other scientist with their PHD's and research" that say the opposite.

It's like expert witnesses at a trial.

Terry, when your supposed other experts have a conference at which over 2000 scientist from across the globe submit their anti-warming research in an open forum like has gone on at the IPCC conference in Paris this past week, I may listen.

Until then, I suggest that you may want to look at the IPCC conclusions with an open mind.

My mind is open, it hasn't been proven that man causes global warming. That is why it is called theory not law.

There are scietists from Harvard, MIT, Colorado, Colorado St, etc....

Terry,

At the IPCC conference, it was decided that there was an over 90% probability that man was causing global warming. The way the IPCC works, is that the determinations have to be unanimously approved by all the nations involved. The only arguements weren't that it was overstating the probability, but that it's understaing it. They very nearly stated that there was a 99% probability.

Terry, you're getting very very lonely in your position that man isn't causing global warming.

Believing in what is right isn't always popular, and beliving in what is popular isn't always right.

The International Panel on Climate Change - believers from all over the world. The members come in with belief systems established - lack of objectivity.

Going to the IPCC looking for someone who doesn't believe in global warming, would be like going to a meeting of liberals looking someone to believe in supply-side economics.

Terry,

It's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and it's open to any member country of the UN. It's not just scientists, Terry.

So your vast left wing conspiracy includes Governments like China, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.

Oh, And the United States of America. Yes, Terry, even as they try to pressure scientist to down play it, The Bush administration acknowledges that Global Warming is man-made.

There are true believers from all corners of the earth.

Have you ever thought that the source of global warming might have anything to do with the sun?

"Have you ever thought that the source of global warming might have anything to do with the sun?"

And where's your scientific proof? Peer reviewed papers? How about a couple of thousand qualified scientists who agree?

Do a google search on this.

Remember about 5 weeks ago as New York was having 70 degree temps, people in shorts in Central Park, all the MSM reports on global warming? Where are those MSM reporters now?

Do a google search on this.

Remember about 5 weeks ago as New York was having 70 degree temps, people in shorts in Central Park, all the MSM reports on global warming? Where are those MSM reporters now?

Terry, now you're just making yourself look silly. You've previously argued that you don't believe Global warming is man made because 10,000 years of data isn't enough. Now you use the example of a few days fluctuation in temperature to prove your point.

I guess you got desperate when you couldn't find any widely accepted scientific data to prove your point, huh?

And to answer your direct question..They're still reporting on global warming, especially the IPCC report and it's implications.

Tony,

You don't understand my point. Five weeks ago when temps were in the 60's and 70's, the MSM had news piece after news piece on Global Warming, now that the temps are sub-zero, no news pieces. Why is that? I know that monthly swings or even annual swings were neither prove or disprove the theory of global warming. I just don't think the MSM, or the American public, gets it.

According to MOnday (2-5-07) WSJ, the IPCC report you quoted was "written mainly by policymakers (not scientists) who have a stake in the issue."

"Take rising sealevels. In the 2001 report, the U.N.'s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by (the year) 2100 was three feet. Lord Monckton notes that the upcoming report's high-end estimate is 17 inches, or half the previous prediction. Similary, the new report shows that the 2001 assessment had overestimated the human influaence on climate change since the Industrial Revoluion by one-third."

"According to the (computer) models, for instance, global temperatures were supposed to have risen in recent years. Yet according to the US National Climate Data Center, the world in 2006 was only .03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2001 - in the range of measurement error and thus not statistically significant.

"The models also would have predicted that sea levels would rise much faster than they actually have."

"Meanwhile, new scientific evidence keeps challenging previous assumptions. The latest report, for instance, takes greater note of the role of pollutant particles, which are thought to reflect sunlight back to space, supplying a cooling effect. More scientists are also studying the effect of solar activity on climate, and some believe it alone is responsible for recent warming."

"We're told that the upcoming report is also missing any reference to the infamous "hockey stick," a study by Michael Mann that purported to show 900 years of minor fluctuations in tempatures, followed by a dramatic spike over the past century. The IPCC featured the graph in 2001, but it has since been widely rebutted."

I'll take this seriously when I see a few things happen:

Senators Kerry and Kennedy quit fighting any development of windmills of the coast of Cape Cod.

VP Al Gore stop flying around in private jets.

VP Al Gore and wife Tipper, downsize from their four residences, including one 10,000 square foot house in Tennessee. I wonder how much energy it takes to heat/cool that monster.

I could go on when it comes to hypocraicy of the left on global warming, but I think you get the point.

Terry-

Last week when temps were not abnormanly warm, the MSM had piece after piece about global warming. Why was that?

By the way Terry, an editorial in the Wall Street Journal is hardly peer reviewed science is it? Still haven't found any of that, have you?

Scientists change their determinations with the evidence, that's what they do. This is what happens in science. Scientists from all over the planet share their research and data. As time goes on their theories get more and more accurate. Ok, maybe the ocean only rises by 17" by 2100 rather than 3 feet. That's still a devastating impact to coastal areas.

You know what one of the impacts it may have Terry? It may put the sand you currently have your head buried in under water. Even the science hating Bush administration admits that man is having an effect on clobal warming.

Just out of curiosity terry, what's your view on the "Theory of Evolution"?

wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!