Obama ignored US embassy advice on climate speech


Obamoron.

Obamoron…

Obama thinks that he can say pretty much what he likes – you know, being the messiah, US emperor ruling by executive decree etc. Despite being warned, by his own staff, not to make an attack on Australia’s climate policy, he just blundered on regardless:

BARACK Obama defied the ­advice of his embassy in Canberra to deliver a stinging attack on the Abbott government’s climate policies in Brisbane last weekend.

The US embassy, under the leadership of ambassador John Berry, advised the President, through his senior staff, not to couch his climate change comments in a way that would be seen as disobliging to the Abbott government, sources have revealed.

When The Weekend Australian put this information to the US embassy, a spokesman said: “As is the case with all presidential speeches, President Obama’s remarks at the University of Queensland in Brisbane were prepared by the White House.”

It is normal practice when the US President makes an overseas visit that the ambassador in the country he is visiting is consulted about the contents of major speeches. It is unusual, though not unprecedented, for an embassy’s advice to be ignored.

Mr Obama’s repeated references to the climate change debate in Australia, his accusation that Australia was an inefficient user of energy and his repeated references to the Great Barrier Reef, which has figured heavily in the climate change debate, have led observers to conclude that the speech was a deliberate swipe at the Abbott government.

Historians of the US-Australia relationship are unable to nominate a case of a visiting president making such a hostile speech for the host government.

Tanya Plibersek didn’t think his discourteous and inappropriate conduct was a problem, of course – no doubt because they are both lefty climate alarmists. The only problem she could see was when Julie Bishop administered the entirely justified verbal colonic in response – no doubt because Bishop is a filthy conservative.

Counter-moonbat of the Week: Bishop slaps down Obama


Don't mess with me, moonbats…

Don’t mess with me, moonbats…

If Tanya Plibersek is against it, there’s a good chance it must make a great deal of sense. As in this case.

Julie Bishop delivers a spectacular bollocking to climate-obsessed Obama after his laughable speech in Queensland at the G20:

FOREIGN Minister Julie Bishop’s office has written to the White House disputing Barack Obama’s claims about the Great Barrier Reef, arguing the world heritage icon is “not threatened” by climate change or environmental degradation.

Labor foreign affairs spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek branded Ms Bishop’s actions an “extraordinary attack on our close friend and ally”.

The ‘extraordinary attack’ by Obama on his close friend and ally goes unnoticed by Tanya. I wonder why?

The Australian this week revealed the Queensland government, as host of last weekend’s G20 summit in Brisbane, was considering a formal complaint to Washington over what it saw as an insulting and provocative speech by the US President that was based on “misinformation” about management of the Great Barrier Reef.

It is understood that US offic­ials contacted the Queensland government after the revelation in The Australian.

The Foreign Minister, in New York to chair UN Security Council terrorism talks, this morning said she was “surprised” by Mr Obama’s remarks and had since sent a “detailed briefing” to the Oval Office on the issue.

Ms Bishop said state and federal agencies had banned resource exploration and capital dredge dumping near the Great Barrier Reef, and were contributing $180 million annually to manage the health of the reef.

“I wanted to ensure the White House was well aware of the significant steps that the Australian government and the Queensland government were taking to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef is not threatened by climate change, by nutrient run off from agriculture, by mining or drilling,” she told Sky News.

Ms Bishop said she personally made clear Australia’s position on the reef to the US Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, only days before the Brisbane speech.

Mr Obama, speaking at the University of Queensland on Saturday, said climate change “here in Australia” means “longer droughts, more wildfires” and “the incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened”. (source)

Like all climate moonbats, as far as Obama is concerned, facts are just an inconvenience.

Sea change in America?


Sceptic's choice

The American people have discovered, rather late in the day, that Barack Obama did not possess the wisdom of King Cnut. The story of Cnut is often retold wrongly – that he was attempting to control the tides, and failed. In fact, he was demonstrating to his excessively worshipful people that he did not have the power of  a God to control natural phenomena like the tides.

Obama wasn’t so modest, and had no qualms about excessive worship. The Wall Street Journal asks “What happened to Obama?”:

In short, the spell that Mr. Obama once cast—a spell so powerful that instead of ridiculing him when he boasted that he would cause “the oceans to stop rising and the planet to heal,” all of liberaldom fell into a delirious swoon—has now been broken by its traumatic realization that he is neither the “god” Newsweek in all seriousness declared him to be nor even a messianic deliverer.

Humility isn’t usually a strong point with people suffering from a Messiah complex. And WSJ’s answer:

He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president, and it is this rather than inexperience or incompetence or weakness or stupidity that accounts for the richly deserved failure both at home and abroad of the policies stemming from that reprehensible cast of mind. (source)

Now Rick Perry has entered the race for Republican nomination, and unlike Obama, he won’t be making any attempt to control the weather:

Perry calls global warming “all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight.” Unlike many of the other GOP presidential candidates, he hasn’t expressed concern about climate change in the past, so he won’t have to do any back-pedaling. Notorious climate denier realist [apologies, this is the Guardian, after all – Ed] Marc Morano is a big fan: “Based on climate views alone, anyone who is holding their nose voting for Mitt Romney because there’s no other viable candidate will now rejoice to have an option with Rick Perry.”

The Texas governor will announce his intentions in the early primary state of South Carolina on Saturday, then head to New Hampshire andIowa to rub elbows with all of the other aspiring commanders-in-chief. As a social and fiscal conservative, governor of a state that’s been adding jobs (even if they’re low-wage), and owner of a full head of lustrous hair, Perry is expected to swagger to the front of the pack in the contest for the Republican nomination.

Perry served as Al Gore’s Texas campaign chair in the 1988 presidential race, just before switching his party allegiance from Democrat to Republican, but conservatives don’t have to worry that Perry holds any residual affection for the former veep. “I’ve heard Al Gore talk about man-made global warming so much that I’m starting to think that his mouth is the leading source of all that supposedly deadly carbon dioxide,” Perry said in 2007. (source)

At least the American people will have the choice of a genuinely sceptical candidate in 2012. Hopefully, Australia will have the same in 2013 (or before).

Excellent: Gillard to "push ahead with carbon price"


The socialist and the Marxist, or is it the other way round? Whatever…

Great news. I think we can reasonably confidently say: RIP Julia. You will go the way of Rudd, and Labor will be consigned to electoral oblivion for a generation:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard is determined to fight on with her controversial carbon tax, despite a new poll showing Labor’s primary vote has hit rock-bottom.

Labor’s primary vote plunged to 30 per cent in the latest Newspoll, with the Coalition leading 54 to 46 per cent in two-party terms.

Ms Gillard told reporters in Washington she had always understood arguing for a tough economic reform such as pricing carbon was “going to be a big debate”.

“It’s going to be a hard debate – but it’s one that I am determined to win,” she said.

Not a chance now, I’m afraid. You’re sunk. And then another big misrepresentation:

“We shouldn’t try to lead the world, but neither can we afford to limp behind. We have a high emissions economy.”

What she means (but cleverly doesn’t say to fool those listening) is that we have a high per capita emissions, because we have so many emissions-intensive industries in our economy and a relatively small population – inevitably therefore, our emissions are high per capita. But we only produce less than 1.5% of the total, which is not enough for the climate to even notice. So a carbon tax and any reduction in emissions that we make here in Australia, are <shouts>UTTERLY POINTLESS GESTURES</shouts>.

And don’t, DON’T, whatever you do click the link. It’s a nauseous arse-lick piece by Fairfax’s Michelle Grattan full of sick-making photos of Julia with Obama, and a frankly horrific video which plays whether you want it to or not – highlight is Julia blaming Abbott (or Mr Rabbit, as she calls him – elocution was never her strong point) for her poll slide – priceless.

LINK – you have been warned.

Obama politicises BP spill to push climate bill


Cheap politics

This environmental disaster could not have come at a better time for the Obama administration, desperate to push their economy-wrecking climate bill through the Senate, and he shamelessly hijacks the BP oil spill to lecture the American people on the evils of fossil fuels (despite the fact that cheap energy is what drives economic growth and prosperity – duh):

In his first Oval Office address, Obama compared the need to end the country’s “addiction to fossil fuels” to its emergency preparations for World War II and the mission to the moon. Hours after the government sharply increased its estimate of how much oil is flowing into the gulf, the president warned that risks will continue to rise because “we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.” He called for fast Senate action on an energy bill that has already passed the House.

“There are costs associated with this transition, and some believe we can’t afford those costs right now,” Obama said. “I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy, because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security and our environment are far greater.”

In other words, because of one spill (albeit a big one) we should take our economies back to the Dark Ages, right? I can just see people abandoning their SUVs on the roadside as we speak…

Read it here.

Obama cites healthcare to avoid the toxic bore


Look, Obama needs to have a credible sounding reason for cancelling his trip to Australia. And “pushing the healthcare bill through” sounds pretty good, but we all know the real reason, don’t we?

Rudd’s like the nerdy kid in the playground who hangs around the cool kids, but the cool kids wish he would just go away…

Obama's climate plans in tatters


All going wrong

You wait ages for an Obama story, then two come along at once. The UK Telegraph reports on Obama’s woes in pursuing his deep green agenda. Not only is the cap-n-trade bill going nowhere, but the EPA’s endangerment finding (that labels the essential, harmless trace gas CO2 a “pollutant”) is being challenged in the courts:

President Barack Obama’s climate change policy is in crisis amid a barrage of US lawsuits challenging goverment directives and the defection of major corporate backers for his ambitious green programmes.

The legal challenges and splits in the US climate consensus follow revelations of major flaws in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which declared that global warming was no longer scientifically contestable.

Critics of America’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are now mounting a series of legal challenges to its so-called “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health.

That ruling, based in part on the IPCC’s work, gave the agency sweeping powers to force business to curb emissions under the Clean Air Act. An initial showdown is expected over rules on vehicle emissions.

Oil-rich Texas, the Lone Star home state of Mr Obama’s predecessor George W Bush, is mounting one of the most prominent challenges to the EPA, claiming new regulations will impose a crippling financial toll on agriculture and energy producers.

“With billions of dollars at stake, EPA outsourced the scientific basis for its greenhouse gas regulation to a scandal-plagued international organization that cannot be considered objective or trustworthy,” said Greg Abbott, Texas’s attorney general.

“Prominent climate scientists associated with the IPCC were engaged in an ongoing, orchestrated effort to violate freedom of information laws, exclude scientific research, and manipulate temperature data.

“In light of the parade of controversies and improper conduct that has been uncovered, we know that the IPCC cannot be relied upon for objective, unbiased science – so EPA should not rely upon it to reach a decision that will hurt small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and the larger Texas economy.”

Makes Penny Wong’s claim that there is a global trend towards greater climate action even more ludicrous.

Read it here.

%d bloggers like this: