Bill Clinton is STUNNED that Someone Would Lie to Him

Our beloved former president is quite taken aback that someone didn't tell him the truth:

The Bill Clinton who met privately with California's superdelegates at last weekend's state convention was a far cry from the congenial former president who afterward publicly urged fellow Democrats to "chill out" over the race between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama.
In fact, before his speech Clinton had one of his famous meltdowns Sunday, blasting away at former presidential contender Bill Richardson for having endorsed Obama, the media and the entire nomination process.
"It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.
According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.
But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.
It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.
"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.

Bill, could it be that Richardson determined that lying is OK, because the leader of a certain administration, for which he worked, lied repeatedly and got away with it? "Do as I say but not as I do" seldom works.

But Richardson denies that he ever guaranteed the Clintons an endorsement:

Still, word of Clinton's blast shot all the way back to the New Mexico state Capitol, where Richardson spokesman Pahl Shipley reiterated Tuesday that his boss had never "promised or guaranteed" Bill and Hillary his endorsement.

Who is telling the truth? Unless the Clintons have it on tape or something, we will never know.

Who Wins in November?

I blew my prediction that Romney would beat out McCain for the Republican nomination. So, take it for what it is worth.

The problem for both Hillary and Barack is that they are both to the left of center in their own party, even more so for the country as a whole. I don't like McCain but he appears to attract many Democrats and Independents. Recent polls have shown him ahead of both Democrat candidates in some blue states. This will enable him to take the battle to their turf, while the Democrat nominee tries to hold his/her base

Here are the results of the last few presidential elections, in decreasing order. I have omitted 1980, 1992, and 1996 because they were three-way races.

1984:
Reagan: 525 electoral votes
59% of popular vote
Mondale: 13 electoral votes
41% of popular vote

1988:
Bush Sr.: 426 electoral votes
53% of popular vote
Dukakis: 111 electoral votes
46% of popular vote

2004:
Bush Jr.: 286 electoral votes
51% of popular vote
Kerry: 251 electoral votes
48% of popular vote

2000:
Bush Jr.: 271 electoral votes
48% of popular vote
Gore: 266 electoral votes
48% of popular vote

My guess: McCain will win by at least the same margin Bush Sr. defeated Dukakis in 1988. The margin might even be better than that, but unlikely it will be as good as Reagan's landslide of 1984.

Woe is Me: Provocateur's Rating is Abnormally Low



Created by OnePlusYou - Free Online Dating

Hat tip to Helen

How Clueless Can the Left Be?

Apparently there is no limit. Read this editorial in the New Republic:

That's what makes the road to the Denver convention so damn frustrating. John McCain is heir to a presidency whose accomplishments now include an economy careening toward a deep recession; on issue after issue, public opinion mirrors the Democrats' policies. This should be the one election that even the party of Dukakis couldn't screw up.

First of all, we are not certain that there will be a recession. There might be, but if so there is no reason to believe that it will be deep. It may be very brief and mild like the last two recessions. This is wishful thinking on the part of Democrats. They want a recession so they can blame it on Bush. Just like they blamed the 2000/2001 recession on Bush, even though it began during Clinton's last year.

Furthermore, even if there is a deep recession, the lefties might not be able to successfully blame it on Bush. The Democrats control both houses of Congress, and the voters might give some or all of the blame to them. And even if the Democrats and their perpetual allies in the media are able to give Bush the blame, it might not transfer to McCain. He and Bush have often been at odds in the past.

"on issue after issue, public opinion mirrors the Democrats' policies". I know of at least one position that public opinion does not mirror the Democrats' policies. The authors of the editorial address this issue:

Where it once looked like Bill Clinton and Al Gore had helped purge the party of the lame identity politics that had ruined Democratic candidates for a generation, discussions of race and gender have returned with a vengeance. Supporters of Clinton and Obama compete to prove who is the bigger victim--opponents are casually tarred as sexist or racist.

This issue was never 'purged' by Clinton or Gore. It was only swept under the rug. Democrats favor racial preferences for ethnic minorities. And anyone who opposes them is casually tarred as sexist or racist. It is no wonder then, that the Democrats have not carried the majority of the popular vote in a presidential election since 1976. Nor have they carried a majority of the white vote since 1964.

In the current campaign, neither candidate has come close to approaching his [Bill Clinton's] level of clarity, especially when it comes to the issue that offers Democrats the simplest path to the presidency: the economy. They have failed to articulate a critique of the wild Bush-era deregulation that has allowed the greed of banks to run amok.

There have been no significant acts of financial industry deregulation during Bush Jr's administration. Riegle-Neal, which allowed interstate banking, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which allowed commercial banks to engage in investment banking, and vice-versa, were both passed during the Clinton administration.

Raul Castro Says Cubans May Have Cell Phones

The Fidel and Raul Castro regime, in their infinite munificence have deigned to allow their Cuban slaves to own cell phones. However, it has not yet been decided if they many make calls on them, or what, if anything, they will be allowed to say during a call.

I'm sure that the left here in the USA, and their allies in the media, are going to wag their tails and praise Raul as a 'reformer', who is 'bringing democracy' to Cuba. They have been fawning over Fidel and Raul ever since 1959.

For those of us who don't know what it is like to live in a communist regime
(most Americans), read the testimony of someone who has. Ayn Rand when she testified before the House Unamerican Activities Committee in 1947:

Rep. John R. McDowell: You paint a very dismal picture of Russia. You made a great point about the number of children who were unhappy. Doesn't anybody smile in Russia any more?

Rand: Well, if you ask me literally, pretty much no.

McDowell: They don't smile?

Rand: Not quite that way; no. If they do, it is privately and accidentally. Certainly, it is not social. They don't smile in approval of their system.

McDowell: Well, all they do is talk about food.

Rand: That is right.

McDowell: That is a great change from the Russians I have always known, and I have known a lot of them. Don't they do things at all like Americans? Don't they walk across town to visit their mother-in-law or somebody?

Rand: Look, it is very hard to explain. It is almost impossible to convey to a free people what it is like to live in a totalitarian dictatorship. I can tell you a lot of details. I can never completely convince you, because you are free. It is in a way good that you can't even conceive of what it is like. Certainly they have friends and mothers-in-law. They try to live a human life, but you understand it is totally inhuman. Try to imagine what it is like if you are in constant terror from morning till night and at night you are waiting for the doorbell to ring, where you are afraid of anything and everybody, living in a country where human life is nothing, less than nothing, and you know it. You don't know who or when is going to do what to you because you may have friends who spy on you, where there is no law and any rights of any kind.

Another Relic from the Clinton Administration Rears Her Ugly Head

Why is it that Democrat women tend to be the ugliest? Between the Oinkubus, Madeleine Albright, Janet Reno, and the beauty pageant queen in this photo, it seems like the uglier they are, the further they get in Democrat politics.

Jamie Gorelick (I promise I won't say anything about her last name) was Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration. During this time, she helped put into place a wall that made it difficult for intelligence agencies like the CIA to share information with criminal investigators. This is one of the reasons why Mohammed Atta and other terrorists were able to operate with impunity in the USA up to the time they committed the suicide attacks on 9/11.

In addition, one of the other attorneys in Gorelick's law firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP was representing a Saudi terrorist who had been sued by families of 9/11 victims.

And yet, Gorelick was appointed by then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Dachle to be on the commission investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This was equivalent to putting G. Gordon Liddy on a committee to investigate the Watergate bugging.

Now we learn that Gorelick is one of the attorneys representing Duke University and various officials at Duke who are being sued by 38 of the players who were on the lacrosse team. (These do not include the three guys who were falsely indicted) That's a good assignment for Gorelick, considering her other accomplishments. You can see the full text of the complaint in the lawsuit at http://www.dukelawsuit.com/ .

Even More Questions About Hillary's Role in Northern Ireland

Shawn Pogatchnik at Town Hall has written about the PIAPS' activities in Ulster

Hillary Rodham Clinton cites her role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland as one of the top foreign policy credentials of her presidential bid.
Her critics point to an empty, wind-swept Belfast park _ which Clinton a decade ago proclaimed would become Northern Ireland's first Catholic-Protestant playground _ as evidence that her contribution as peacemaker was more symbolic than substantive.
"She was in charge of christening this wee corner (of the park) as some kind of peace playground. It never made any sense then, and there's nothing there today," said Brian Feeney, a Belfast political analyst, author and teacher. "Everything she did was for the optics."
Critics say the playground-that-never-was illustrates the wider lack of accomplishment from Clinton's half-dozen visits to Northern Ireland _ that they emphasized speechmaking, chiefly to women's groups, leaving no lasting mark.
Clinton twice addressed audiences of schoolchildren at Belfast's Musgrave Park, in September 1998 and May 1999. She declared that Protestant and Catholic youths must learn to play together but needed a safe place to do it _ and helped plant a tree on the spot where a special cross-community playground would be created. Belfast did have other parks.
Nearly a decade later, Musgrave Park remains as it was: a well-groomed, rather lonely place sandwiched between a hospital and a highway, where adults jog and walk their dogs amid birdsong and spring flowers. The Belfast group touting the "Play for Peace Fund" silently shelved the idea within months although Clinton often referred to the project as an inspiration to a divided world.

I guess Her Thighness was too busy dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia to get this playground going.

In a December 2007 interview with ABC News, Clinton said: "In just the last few weeks, the new leaders of the Northern Ireland government, Dr. Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness, made a special effort to see me. Why? Because I helped in that process, not just standing by and witnessing, but actually getting my hands into it, creating opportunities for people on both sides of the sectarian divide to come together."

No Hillary. Both Paisley and the IRA terrorist McGuinness are well aware that you had nothing to do with the peace process. They came to see you because they knew there was some possiblity that you might become president of the USA and they wanted to get some favors from you.

In Northern Ireland, the endorsements from Hume, Sinn Fein and Ahern are broadly recognized as reflecting Irish Catholics' desire for maximum international sympathy, specifically from the U.S. The retired Hume, in particular, boosted his clout by carefully cultivating friendships with U.S. politicians, chiefly Democrats.
For them, a President Hillary Clinton offers the best chance of a return to the pro-Irish policies of her husband, who broke with decades of State Department deference to Britain, an approach resumed under George W. Bush.

There was nothing pro-Irish about Clinton's policies. Clinton supported Sinn Fein/IRA, a marxist terrorist group that has slaughtered thousands of innocent people in Northern Ireland. They are no friends of the USA, but they are willing to use us to suit their purposes.

And furthermore, Clinton has antagonized Irish protestants by lying about her role and by getting cozy with terrorists like Adams and McGuinness. Her egotistical approach to foreign policy has aggravated problems in Ulster. After going through decades of bloodshed, that's the last thing they need.

Clinton Campaign Aide Insults Northern Ireland Leader

Jamie Rubin, who is a aide to Clinton's campaign and a former assistant secretary of state under Bill Clinton's administration, does not appear to have any diplomatic skills at all:

Extraordinary tirade today from Jamie Rubin, State Department assistant secretary in Bill Clinton’s administration and now a Hillary Clinton advisor, who branded Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, formerly David Trimble, as a “crankpot” (presumably a cross between a crank and a crackpot) - and anti-woman to boot - for daring to call into question the former First Lady’s Northern Ireland role.

Rubin also came dangerously close to suggesting that it is only Irish Catholics who matter, saying he was “pretty much the only one” questioning Hillary’s Irish credentials. “He’s a Protestant, they traditionally go with the Conservatives.” Well, it’s not true that Trimble (now a Conservative member of the House of Lords) is the only one scratching his head about Hillary’s self-proclaimed Irish peace credentials. There have been many others, Protestant and Catholic. And I’m not sure that trashing a Nobel Prize winner or brushing aside what Protestants, the majority in Northern Ireland, think is really the way to go for the Clinton campaign on this issue.

You can watch the video here. The relevant part starts about 5 minutes and 30 seconds in. Andrea Mitchell is asking him why Hillary Clinton appears to be exaggerating her role, which the former First Lady recently described as “instrumental”. He pulls out a piece of paper and reads a quotation from the late Mo Mowlam, former Northern Ireland Secretary, about Hillary helping to bring about an economic boom.
Mitchell: “As you know, there are others, like David Trimble, who disagree.”
Rubin: “I’ve met David Trimble. And he’s pretty much the only one. He’s a Protestant, they traditionally go with the Conservatives. I think we have a John Hume, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, who said…”
Mitchell: “It was David Trimble who shared in that prize, Jamie.”
Rubin: “Right, and I know these people. I’ve been living over there. David Trimble is a crankpot and what he said about her was demeaning. He said, ‘Oh well, maybe she accompanied her husband on a couple of trips’. As a woman, Andrea, I would think you would recognise when somebody is trying to demean the activities of a woman. She was an important First Lady in foreign policy. I know. I was in that administration and we understood she was not serving tea and cookies, she played a significant role.”

We are always hearing the Oinkubus claim that she is going to have to repair US relations with our allies that Bush supposedly fouled up by invading Iraq. That is not true because most of the leaders of the European countries endorsed Bush's decision to topple Saddam Hussein, as Danish Prime Minister Fogh Rasmussen reiterated recently.

It is one thing for a president or one of his or her aides to insult the likes of Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe. But the UK is a democracy and one of our closest allies. Is this what our allies will expect to hear if one of their leaders disagrees with something that Hillary says? Will they be insulted like this and make disparaging comments about their religion?

It is clear that Hillary had no influence on the peace process in Northern Ireland and her anti-Protestant stance has only served to aggravate the problems there.

Al Gore's Message to Climate Change Skeptics

Former Vice-President and nearly President Al Gore, inventor of the internet and messiah of global warming, has a message to all of us climate change skeptics:

(CBS) Self-avowed "P.R. agent for the planet" Al Gore says those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man - among them, Vice President Dick Cheney - are acting like the fringe groups who think the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the world is flat. The former vice president and former presidential candidate talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl in an interview to be broadcast this Sunday, March 30, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. Confronted by Stahl with the fact some prominent people, including the nation’s vice president, are not convinced that global warming is manmade, Gore responds: "You're talking about Dick Cheney. I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat,” says Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," he tells Stahl.

But Al, we know now for sure that the Apollo moon landings were fake. I read about it on Your internet. I'm sure you wouldn't allow someone to post anything on Your Internet, if it wasn't true.

A Race-Baiting Leftist Hits a New Low

As I have quoted an anonymous poster on Lucianne.com, the left "want racism, need racism, therefore they create racism". Paul Waldman, in response to criticism of Obama's long-term relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, has published a masterpiece of race-baiting that will be difficult to top. Some quotes:

...these kinds of attacks have their greatest power when they tap into pre-existing archetypes voters already carry with them, and the deeper they reside in our lizard brains the better. So they will make sure white Americans know that Obama is not Tiger Woods. He's not the unthreatening black man, he's the scary black man. He's Al Sharpton, he's Malcom X, he's Huey Newton. He'll throw grievance in your face, make you feel guilty, and who knows, maybe kill you and rape your wife.

The Republicans are certainly setting down their marker: they intend, as they have so many times before, to wage a campaign appealing to the ugliest prejudices, the most craven fears, the most vile hatreds. It's not that people should vote against Obama just because he's black, they're saying, but you know, he's that kind of black.

Hmmmm...... where do I begin? If Reverend Wright claims that whites invented the HIV virus "as a means of genocide against people of color" then I am supposed to agree with him? Yeah sure Paul, I invented HIV in the shack behind my house here in Oklahoma. The only one who is "appealing to the ugliest prejudices" and "vile hatreds" is Reverend Wright.

Now don't misunderstand me, Paul. I am someone who believes in complete freedom of thought and expression. If Reverend Wright wants to believe that whites invented AIDS, he is free to do so. If Senator Obama wants to attend his church for 20 years and listen to this bunch of crap, and donate thousands of dollars, he has the right to do so.

But if I refuse to vote for someone who is running for president and supports this kind of nonsense, that makes me a racist?

Some more gems:

The voters Obama needs, it is now sometimes said, are the "Reagan Democrats," those blue-collar whites who rejected their traditional ties to the Democratic party to support Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. But one of the things that has been forgotten about the Reagan Democrats is that the phenomenon was built almost entirely on racial resentment. The question now is, will those voters be receptive to a black candidate? At their birth nearly a quarter century ago, the answer most certainly would have been no.

It's almost three decades later, and American opinions on race have become far more progressive in the interim. But Greenberg's point about how "progressive symbols and themes have been redefined in racial and pejorative terms" points to an effort at which Reagan excelled but Republicans continued after he was gone.

The 1980 and 1984 elections were the first two presidential elections I voted in. I was never a Democrat, but to claim that those Democrats who voted for Reagan were motivated by racial prejudice is both unfair and absurd. Both Democrats and Republicans voted for Reagan over Carter and Mondale because the previous administration's domestic and foreign policies were a disaster. Inflation and unemployment were sky-high. The islamofascists in Iran were holding our diplomats hostage and Carter was foolishly trying to negotiate with the terrorists. The brutal, totalitarian Soviet regime was expanding in Afghanistan, Jamaica, Grenada, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. That was why Reagan defeated Carter and Mondale in consecutive landslides. Race had nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, Reagan was a very kind and gracious man. He did not have a racist bone in his body. For Waldman to claim that Reagan won by redefining "progressive symbols and themes" in racial and perjorative terms is stupid and asinine.

The Democrats have not won a majority of the popular vote in a presidential election since 1976. Paul, do you really want to know why your party consistently loses? It is because voters are tired of listening to ridiculous nonsense like what you have written in your article.

The Hillary Project

Found a very useful site.

McCain Gets a Boost from Thugo Chavez

Sometimes your enemies play right into your hands. McCain owes a big thank you to the mad Venezuelan

March 25 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said John McCain is showing a more confrontational stance with Venezuela than the current U.S. administration, and relations may worsen should McCain win this year's presidential election.
Chavez said Republican candidate McCain has criticized U.S. President George W. Bush for being too ``soft'' on Venezuela's government.
``McCain seems like a man of war,'' Chavez told reporters today in Caracas. ``People say it's impossible to get worse than Bush, but we can't be sure.''

I'm not sold on McCain, but my one vote doesn't carry much weight. The Republicans were very vulnerable to losing the white house this year, but if Hillary and Barack continue their demolition derby, then McCain will have a cakewalk to the inauguration in January.

Lamestream Media Discover that Hillary is a Liar

Her Thighness has been known for years as someone who will disregard the truth if it fits her purposes. But the biased leftwing "journalists" who work for ABCCBSNBCCNN etc have seldom reported on her falsehoods because she was advancing their agenda.

Thus when it was learned that Hillary made $100,000 on cattle futures trading from a $1,000 investment while her husband was Governor of Arkansas, Her Ugliness claimed that she made her own trades. She later admitted that James Blair, attorney for Tyson Chicken, actually called in her trades. But the mainstream media had little to say about that. The only places you could learn these facts were alternative sources such as the Wall Street Journal's editorial page and the internet, which was then in its infancy.

Likewise when Hillary's billing records from the Rose law firm were subpoenaed by a Senate committee, they could not be found, but suddenly appeared in the white housed two years later. Very little was said about that.

But now all of a sudden, the media have discovered that she is a liar. From Dan Kennedy at the Guardian, a very leftwing rag in the UK:

The last few weeks have been kind to Hillary Clinton - but that's starting to change. Clinton has been caught telling a lie so flagrant, so self-serving and so unnecessary that it takes your breath away. The media are on to her, and they're beginning to unload.

From Ron Fournier at the AP:

WASHINGTON - Why wasn't the truth good enough for Hillary Rodham Clinton?

That's a question worth considering as the former first lady tries to contain damage to her credibility after getting caught exaggerating the danger of her 1996 trip to Bosnia. Two others: Is there a pattern of embellishment?

Why wasn't the truth good enough? Elementary, my dear lefties. The truth was never necessary for Hillary or her bozo husband. During the eight years they entertained us in the white house, they found that they could tell the most outrageous lies possible and the media would ignore it! Bill could say that the Republicans were cutting Medicare spending when they were actually increasing it. Hillary could say that she had no role in the firing of the white house travel office staff, even though she actually ordered it. They felt secure in their lies because the media are staffed by political activists whose agenda was the same as the Clintons'.

But now, many in the media prefer Barack to Hillary. And Hillary is discovering to her horror that the media are no longer giving her a free pass on her falsehoods.

USA Gets Low Ranking For "Stability and Prosperity"

Jane’s Country Risk has compiled a ranking of countries by its assessment of each country's stability and prosperity.

A one-year investigation and analysis of 235 countries and dependent territories has put the UK joint seventh in the premier league of nations. The top ten comprise also the Vatican, Sweden, Luxembourg, Monaco, Gibraltar, San Marino, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands and the Irish Republic.
The US lies 22nd and Switzerland, normally associated with wealth and untouchable stability, is rated 17th, losing points in the assessment of its social achievements.

So why is the USA ranked so low?

Mr Le Mière said that the US had fallen down the scale, although it still scored an average of 93 out of 100, partly because of the proliferation of small arms owned by Americans and the threat to the population posed by the flow of drugs from across the Mexican border.

I won't argue about the issue of drugs, but we can see from the comment about "small arms owned by Americans" that Mr. Le Miere has a political axe to grind. The right of law-abiding Americans to own weapons has enhanced our stability, not harmed it.

The same Constitution that guaranteed our right to bear arms has been in effect in the USA for over 220 years now. The second amendment has been an essential and critical element of the stability and continuity of our democracy.

Many Arabs fear McCain would continue Bush policy

An interesting article from Reuters

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Arabs keen to see the end of George W. Bush's presidency fear that a win for likely Republican candidate John McCain will bring little change to U.S. policies they blame for destabilizing the Middle East.

Perhaps my memory is failing me. Was the middle east truly stable before Bush took office in 2001?

But Bush's many critics in the Arab world worry that McCain will continue current U.S. policies, which they fault for unleashing chaos in Iraq and providing unflinching support for Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians.

On September 11, 2001 the Israelis were flying their flags at half-staff. The Palestinians were dancing in the streets. After having been shown so clearly who our friends are and who our enemies are, is it so surprising that we would support our friends rather than our enemies?

More Inconvenient Climate Facts

Something I hadn't heard about before is NASA's Aqua satellite. From an interview of Jennifer Marohasy:

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."
Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"
Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."
Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

Then we get a very appropriate quote from Ian MacEwan:

Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts.

True, except the "well-meaning" part. I can see how someone who supported communism up to 1917 may have been well-meaning. Anyone who supported it for any length of time after that point was either very non-well-meaning, or very stupid.