My Photo

Ordering Information

Tomi on Twitter is @tomiahonen

  • Follow Tomi on Twitter as @tomiahonen
    Follow Tomi's Twitterfloods on all matters mobile, tech and media. Tomi has over 8,000 followers and was rated by Forbes as the most influential writer on mobile related topics

Book Tomi T Ahonen to Speak at Your Event

  • Contact Tomi T Ahonen for Speaking and Consulting Events
    Please write email to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com and indicate "Speaking Event" or "Consulting Work" or "Expert Witness" or whatever type of work you would like to offer. Tomi works regularly on all continents

Tomi on Video including his TED Talk

  • Tomi on Video including his TED Talk
    See Tomi on video from several recent keynote presentations and interviews, including his TED Talk in Hong Kong about Augmented Reality as the 8th Mass Media


Blog powered by Typepad

« Elop Fired From Job at Head of Microsoft Handsets (Old Nokia Lumia Unit) - New Windows & Devices Boss is Terry Myerson | Main | Now Official, Nokia Will Return as Brand to Smartphones from 2016 says CEO »

June 18, 2015



Tomi, you are delusional. Trump will be laughed off the debate stage. No one takes him seriously. Yes, he threatens to make the first debate a joke, but Fox can change the rules if they want. He has a 65% unfavorability rating among Republicans.

Anyway, you do realize that most Catholics in the U.S. are Democrats, don't you? John Kennedy was Catholic, as is John Kerry. Most of the Mexican community is Catholic, and isn't likely to vote GOP, regardless. And the Catholic hierarchy has never been held in high regard, particularly after the abuse scandals. I don't think the pope (who hails from a truly socialist country that has explicitly rejected a market economy) holds much sway over young voters or any major voting bloc in the U.S.

As for denying science, the Democrats do just as good a job as the Republicans. Witness the hysterics over fracking (which has done more to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. than all of the leftist's pipe dreams such as solar and wind farms). Or the idiotic opposition to genetically modified crops, which have dramatically increased yields and reduced starvation worldwide. And it's the Jenny McCarthy Democrats who don't get their kids vaccinated. There is plenty of anti-science idiocy to go around both parties.

Tomi T Ahonen

Haha hi Catriona, you read fast...

First - you said nothing of my first issue. That the Fox rules will bring out the madness and the whole debate season goes into the gutter even before Fox introduces the 10 who get to take the stage. Can I take it you at least agree this is a problem that the GOP did not have in February when I did my big preview.

On Trump. You misunderstood what I mean. We KNOW Trump is a joke. Most Republicans could not imagine voting for him. He has the biggest negatives of ANY candidate of either party EVER. He won't be nominated. All sensible thinking people see right through his bullshit. That is NOT the POINT. The point is, that he hogs the camera and attention. He is a professional TV star who is able to hold his own when David Letterman tries to ridicule him, live on Dave's show. He's that good. Thats Madonna class entertainer. He's deeply polarizing and his TV show does not have high ratings but it doesn't matter, he is INSTANTLY the focus of all who watch. He is the TV star among novices. He's not a politician, he is undisciplined, he makes gaffes faster than Rick Perry counting to three. But he is the only TV star in that field and in a TV debate, he will steal the show. Easily. Its like stealing candy from a baby. It doesn't matter how many contradictions he makes and pundits of the talking classes will ridicule him afterwards, he will score the one-liners and zingers just like Newt Gingrich did at his best, except Trump does this in his sleep. He's practised for this role for two decades. Not to run for president, I mean to dominate TV debates. He is the only pro of that field. That is why he will utterly disrupt that format.

Catholics yes, more Democrats than Republicans I know that. But also that all Christian leaders look to what the Pope says, and this issue is TOTALLY non-controversial to ANYONE other than Republican politicians in the USA (and their oil and energy industry Billionaire sponsors). Catholic scandals haha, good point, but doesn't apply to THIS Pope, he is partly the answer to those issues.

And to denying science. Haha, good one. That DEMs deny some OTHER science, but this is the DECIDING issue for youth - have you talked to any youth Catriona about the planet? Its their cause. And now any religious youth - who could be leaning Republican, hears that the Pope is on 'their' cause on 'their' side. I BETCHA to use Sarah Palin's term, I betcha there will be a lot of converts to Democrats because of this, among youth. We will see in the exit polls haha so lets see and come back to this issue. I am certain of this.

Tomi Ahonen :-)


@Tomi, the SOLUTION to the issue of carbon emissions is anything but non-controversial. This pope, like most socialists, favors heavy handed government coercion, much like how the government operates in Argentina, despite the fact that it has never succeeded. Purely by accident, the U.S. was one of the only countries to meet the Kyoto protocol (which we never signed), because of the fracking revolution, which traded coal for far more clean burning natural gas.

I doubt very seriously that any GOP-leaning youth would be swayed to the Democrats because of the pope. If anything, all he's doing is alienating himself with other Christian leaders in the U.S. You were also certain that the Democrats would retain the Senate in 2014. Don't hide behind your mea culpa. The fact of the matter is that your judgment on political matters is clouded by what you want to happen. You see the world through blue-tinted glasses because the Democrats are closer to your worldview.

The reality is that neither party is particularly good. The Democrats are beholden to the public sector unions and powerful billionaires like Carlos Slim (largest shareholder of the New York Times) and George Soros. For all their rhetoric about civil liberties "progressive" Democrats are some of the fiercest opponents of free speech. From "trigger warnings" to boycotts over commencement speakers, to Jerry Seinfeld's comments about how it's impossible to appear before a college audience because of the political correctness, they are doing their best, and a darn good job of killing off what remains of academic freedom.

Trump is actually a Clinton supporter and donated to the Clintons in the past. You are right that some on the right fear he could be another Ross Perot. However, he is not as effective as you think. The Apprentice has been off the air for years. Sean Hannity gives him a voice on Fox, but his influence there is waning. Trump's protectionist views are closer to that of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. I doubt they will resonate with the audience.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, now that Bernie Sanders is polling decently enough in New Hampshire the Democrats may feel compelled to at least pretend to hold a debate, which puts Hillary in a bad spot. She knows this. She wouldn't be out there on the campaign trail this early if she weren't worried. Money is not an issue for her. She doesn't "need" to be a candidate yet. The fact that she's pandering to the hard left on just about every issue (she decided she was against the trade pact despite having negotiated the original framework as Secretary of State) tells me she really wants to quash any primary threat as quickly as possible, no matter how remote. She knows a long campaign is her worst enemy as she's lost one before.


The other fact that people proclaiming the "permanent" Democratic majority neglect is just how badly damaged the Democrats are at the state levels. They now control the fewest governorships and state legislatures in 8 decades. That's where most future national leaders come from.

For the purpose of argument, say Hillary Clinton's candidacy implodes because of a genuine scandal or a health issue. Who, exactly, do they have left who is electable? Elizabeth Warren? Seriously? Andrew Cuomo? Maybe after they find those escaped murderers. Martin O'Malley? After deep-blue Maryland elected a Republican governor over his hand-picked successor? The biggest structural issue the Democrats have is that even when the public agrees with their positions, they don't really trust the Democrats to run government.

Tomi T Ahonen

(just quickly, gotta run...) yeah. If Hillary has a health episode and her campaign crumbles, there is nobody. Sanders loses to Bush or Walker or Christie or even Huckabee. The rest of their dwarfs don't even register. Yeah, if Hillary stumbles (also a scandal is technically plausible although that won't happen, she's calculated this move before she pushed Bill to run for Governor in Arkansas haha and Hillary wears the pants in that family, she has the spine so there are no skeletons). But yeah her health is the only big 'if' to this coronation. I said so already in October.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Per "wertigon" Ekström

@Catriona: One of the best contributions to the global warming issue would be to invest research money into flatbed reactors for thorium (Yes, it *is* a fission reactor, but it also generates an order of magnitude less waste, only problem - you can't build nukes from the waste). Set the goal that by 2025, a fully operational Thorium reactor will be connected to the grid, with more to come. (ideal would be fusion of course but that's still 50 years off)

Also, invest research money into better batteries, and start ramping up construction of electronic cars and/or hybrids. Invest money to "meat-free monday" campaigns, maybe even give all restaurants a discount (lower VAT perhaps?) in serving vegetarian meals.

That would take care of three of the biggest contributors (cars, coal/oil plants, and meat production) to greenhouse gases, and the costs won't be *that* much bigger. Especially since the reduction in meat consumption would contribute to increasing health among the population => better workers => larger GDP.


"@Tomi, the SOLUTION to the issue of carbon emissions is anything but non-controversial."

But this exposes the lie behind the "Climate Skeptics": Their denials are all lies and insincerity.

They do not admit it is happening because they do not want to talk about a solution at all. The whole point is that their refusal to talk about solving the problem will drive away the young people who know they will be there to clean up the mess after the "skeptics" have enjoyed the spoils.

@Per "wertigon" Ekström
"@Catriona: One of the best contributions to the global warming issue would be to invest research money into flatbed reactors for thorium (Yes, it *is* a fission reactor, but it also generates an order of magnitude less waste, only problem - you can't build nukes from the waste)."

This is not the place to discuss this, but solar energy can solve most of our energy woes. You can find the numbers here:

Crun Kykd

Ekström - yes on thorium reactors. Fixes a mistake we made when we choose uranium.

Catriona - "leftist's pipe dreams such as solar and wind farms"? Renewables accounted for 51% of all new power brought online. CA is 25% clean now on its way to 33%. Solar employs more people than fossil fuel. Fossil are the past, there's newer stuff now.

The stone age didn't end because we ran out of rocks.


@Crun Kyd, renewables are propped up by tax credits that far exceed (in percentage terms) what is available for oil and gas. There is a place for them, but they are nowhere near able to provide enough power based on current technology. And they are not without their own environmental issues. Both are probably at least 2 decades away from true commercial viability. In the meantime, natural gas reduces carbon consumption significantly vs. coal and the infrastructure is already there.


"@Crun Kyd, renewables are propped up by tax credits that far exceed (in percentage terms) what is available for oil and gas."

Fossil fuel subsedies amount to over $500B

We can go solar, it is both technologically possible as economically feasible.

Bit that is completely unrelated to whether or not burning fossil fuels causes climate change.

Per "wertigon" Ekström


Yes, we can get the *energy* to power the entire world in a few locations, no problems. However, you fail to account for two things, namely, power transportation (transporting power over long distances means large energy losses).

The second is that of centralization; as long as we have nation states, I'm really not comfortable with a few nations having control of all the energy. Each nation needs to be able to sustain itself on electricity.

The only country large enough to be able to pull it off, is Russia, but since most of Russia is so far to the north, solar panels aren't as useful as they could be (especially during winter).

Solar is a great secondary energy source to offload the grid, but our primary source needs to be based on something consistent, like hydro-, wave-, tidal-, fusion- or fission power. Of those, the most efficient and closest to reality is Thorium reactors.

But yeah, back to the topic now :)

Wayne Borean

Oh shit. I really wish people would think before they post. I'm going backwards, top to bottom with my comments:

Per Ekstrom,

Russia isn't the only country capable of 'pulling it off'. Canada produces all it's own power, and exports a lot to the USA.

Solar panels are actually more effective in winter. Why? Well, why don't you look up exactly what solar panels are made of.

Solar works fine as a primary source, as long as you have storage capabilities. The same is true of wind (and in certain places, like where I live we have wind 365 days per year).

What you and everyone else is ignoring is COSTS. Assume you want to add 500 Kilowatts to your grid. No problem, just drop in some wind turbines. Small variations are more easily handled by solar/wind/mini-hydro, then they are by fission/fusion/fossil/tidal/wave power.

In fact if you get rid of the subsidies on fission/fossil, wind power is less expensive with our current technology. The technology we will have in ten years will be even better.

Decentralize your grid.


Tell you what. You get rid of the nuclear/fossil credits. Make it an even playing field, and see who will win. There was a recent article about South Africa (which I can't find right now) where the South African government said that Wind and Solar are already less expensive than nuclear/fossil if all subsidies are removed.

Crun Kyd,

Going uranium was not a mistake. It was a deliberate choice so that there would be lots of fissionable material for weapons.

A deliberate choice.


Going Thorium would be stupid. Huge R&D costs, and we are talking plants like Pickering, Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl (final two mentioned because those are the plants outside Canada I can remember, not because of the technical problems they had).

Decentralize. Go heavy on wind. If one part of the grid dies, the other part is still fine (remember the blackout which put most of Eastern Canada and the Eastern USA offline about ten years back - you stop stuff like that by decentralizing).

Yes, wind (and solar) can be improved, however most people don't know how good they already are. They are ready for prime time, and a 40 acre wind farm is cheaper than a 40 acre fission/fossil plant, and the cleanup issues are far smaller.


To understand American politics, you have to understand American religion. American religion is different. Yes, there are Catholics, and Anglicans (Episcopalians), Lutherans, etc. There are also some Calvinist churches which don't appear to have equivalents anywhere other than Africa (missionary work).

It is the Calvinistic world view which makes American politics often seem really weird. Take Todd 'Legitimate Rape' Akin - I strongly suspect that he really believed what he was saying. Many of the Calvinistic groups tend to believe that if someone suffers something bad, that it happened because they were guilty of something, like a woman who is raped was leading the man on. It's her FAULT. Or if it isn't her fault for leading a man on, it is God causing this to happen because she was a SINNER.

You'll see the same sort of response to victims of all sorts of crimes, i.e. when I used to wander around Washington DC after midnight, if I got robbed, it was either my fault, or I was a sinner. There's no doubt I was a sinner from their viewpoint. As to how I was asking for it, your guess is as good as mine.

Calvinism is also heavy on 'Predestination' i.e. everyone who was going to be saved was picked by God before the Earth was created. If you are a member of their church, you are one of the elect. If you aren't, you aren't.

So if you are poor, barely able to support your family, that's because God wants you to be poor. They have a belief that the Bible says that Grace alone saves souls, and that they are interfering with what God wants by giving money to the poor. If your family starves because you are in jail for stealing a loaf of bread, that's God's will.

There's also a really strange world view which comes from Biblical Literalism, which again, seems to be mostly an American specialty, i.e. that Genesis is an exact and literal true story.

So we end up with Kenn Hamm and the Creation Museum, which claims that people and dinosaurs co-existed before the flood. We end up with Rousas John Rushdoony, who came to the conclusion that the true believers are to take over the United States and make it into a Theocracy based on Biblical Law (stoning gays, lesbians, adulterers, etc.)

We have the Duggar family, who didn't teach their children ANYTHING about their bodies, which meant that when one of the kids started molesting the girls, the girls didn't even know how to describe what happened, and Josh himself didn't know how to describe what happened. Because they follow Rushdoony, and Rushdoony said not to teach the kids this sort of stuff, and they wouldn't fall into sins like premarital sex.

We have Rushdoony's disciples, who have come up with more and more restrictive teachings, like women should not have the vote. They don't care who disagrees with them, they fully intend to implement all of this - like in Bob Heinlein's novel 'If This Goes On' (written twenty years before Rushdoony published his first book).

There is also a belief that the words in the bible that says man has dominion over everything to meant that if man wants to pollute, that's fine. There is also a belief that Earth is God's greatest creation, and it is utter hubris to think that man could do anything to change it.

This is why you often see opposition to the EPA. It isn't needed, the Earth is perfect. This is why you see such a strong trend of Climate Change Denialism. Man can't change the climate! To think we can, is a sin before God.

To these people, Catholics are horrible freaks. So are Mormons. And just about everyone else. But...

Things at this point get complicated, because Evangelical and Calvinistic beliefs are getting mixed with Catholic, Episcopalian, Mormon, Lutheran, etc. beliefs. You have a couple of people working together, and they discuss religion in the lunchroom. Ideas pass from one religious group to another, so you end up with Episcopalians who are young Earth Creationists (which is NOT part of Episcopalian doctrine). You have Catholics who believe birth control is OK (no matter what the Pope says). You have Calvinists who believe in good works (despite what Calvin said).

So you end up with Rick Santorum making statements which seem totally opposed to Catholic beliefs. You end up with Michelle Bachman running for office, even most of those who follow the same belief system she follows believe that women shouldn't vote. You end up with Mitt Romney making statements which don't seem to square with Mormon beliefs, since Mormons believe strongly in good works as part of the path to salvation.

All of which makes the Clown Car really crowded. Really crowded.


"power transportation (transporting power over long distances means large energy losses)."

High Voltage Direct Current transmission


The USA and China each have enougg desert to supply their continents with energy. For Europe, the question is how this is different from the current situation?

Per "wertigon" Ekström

@Wayne, @Winter:

The problem with solar power in winter, is that, well, they will only be operational for 8 hours a day or less, and those hours will be when the least energy is being used!

The only country where the Sun always shine is Russia, no other country spans 11 time zones. So Russia is the only sovereign country capable of supporting itself 100% with solar panels. All other countries must get their power someplace else during night hours.

And finally, transporting power over really long distances leads to power losses. You can try it yourself with a 2m cable, a 5V supply and two resistors of equal size. Connect the cable to the 5V supply, and then to the resistors in a series and back to ground, and then measure voltage between the resistors and ground. It should be 2.5V in theory, in practice it will be something like 2.3V or so. This problem only increases the longer the distance.

So we're talking transporting power atleast 3000 km (1 864 miles), the longest distances today are 250 km (155 miles) or so...


HVDC works with losses of 3.5% per 1000km.

And for storragw, search for pumped storrage. Also, elwctrical cars make for great storrage at night.

Also, the seasonality of sunlight is not large in the Sahara etc.

Per "wertigon" Ekström


"HVDC works with losses of 3.5% per 1000km."

So that would make it a loss of 11.5% to the cities farthest off. If not more. Not to mention the cost of building all that power infrastructure, and the fact that HVDC only exists in Europe right now.

"And for storragw, search for pumped storrage. Also, elwctrical cars make for great storrage at night."

Electrical cars will most probably charge at night when everyone is sleeping. Pumped storage also means energy losses.

"Also, the seasonality of sunlight is not large in the Sahara etc."

Yes, and for those places it makes more sense than say, Alaska. But not all countries are located near the equator.

I am sorry, but solar isn't the answer to our energy problems - there are simply too many problems. Maybe we could build giant space elevators with cables providing power down to Earth from a sattelite, that would work. Kinda. But by the time we do that fusion is probably already available, too.


@Per "wertigon" Exström:

"I am sorry, but solar isn't the answer to our energy problems - there are simply too many problems."

Some wise people said that problems are there to be solved. Just hiding your head in the sand and persistently say 'no' is never a good solution.


"So that would make it a loss of 11.5% to the cities farthest off. If not more."

The induatrial revolution took off with 30% transportation losses. 15% losses would not be prohibitive.

"Not to mention the cost of building all that power infrastructure,"

Economic growth requires infrastructure. It is not that plastering the planet with nuclear energy is cheap. Anyhow, electrifying the planet has to be done anyway.

"and the fact that HVDC only exists in Europe right now."

It is not an endemic plant that cannot be grown elsewhere. It might be true that the grid in the US is antiquated. But that can be remedied.

"Yes, and for those places it makes more sense than say, Alaska. But not all countries are located near the equator."

I do not think energy consumption in Alaska will be the real bottleneck. And I understood that New Mexico and Nevada would be entirely suitable for satisfying all the power needs of the USA.

"Electrical cars will most probably charge at night when everyone is sleeping. Pumped storage also means energy losses."

Not when you can get paid to deliver back to the grid. Economic incentives are easy to design. And pumped storage energy losses are manageable. You bow, sunlight is free.

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi everybody

So two discussions. One is which form of energy is best. Another by one comment about role of Religion in the US politics. Nothing about the first big unprecedented change to US elections, this instantly-to-the-gutter race forced by Fox debate rules. Nothing (after Catriona's first comment) about the second point of Trump's incendiary impact. But all the debate related to the Pope's Encyclical (see, even old T-Dawgs learn new words every once in a while, obviously I am not a Catholic, I am a Lutheran protestant).

I would love to hear thoughts also on the first two points if any political junkies feel like hopping in.

On energy. Gosh, lovely discussion and Thorium? Seriously? Ok I am NOT a nuclear scientist or anywhere even remotely near that competence. Gotta reads me up a bit on that Thorium shit. But yeah.. good discussion.

So first, as a good Christian worried about the way humans are wrecking the planet, and stirred by the Pope's call to action (echoing what environmentalists have said for decades and even the United Nations for years) I think this is a good use of this blog and raising some more awareness of this issue, within our small circle here who joined in this discussion. Even if nothing else came from the Pope's Encyclical, then this is already a good little step. We can't solve a problem if we don't admit a problem exists. What is the exact solution, fine, that is the NEXT step but first off, we have to accept there is a problem that severe, it demands a solution.

I do love it that we have a global readership and even this very off-topic blog post about US elections, brings in viewpoints from around the world on what is going on in energy from Russia to South Africa haha..

Now, on the TOPIC of the blog posting, what is changing the US 2016 election cycle, we did get a bit side-tracked on what might be the best energy solution going forward. Thats a very valid debate yes and we are mostly tech geeks, some of our readers have a lot of insights into the TECH side of the energy issue. Now, will this impact the 2016 election cycle in the USA? Traditional oil and coal are seen strongly as a Republican issue (Sarah Palin: Drill Baby Drill gosh that line always made me think thats what she yells out when she is having sex..). And alternate or 'green' energy options seen as a Democratic issue championed by Al Gore. Nuclear sits somewhere in the middle.

So my take on the politics is, that first off, on the nation on the whole, the demographic shift is that saving the planet is the youth issue of their generation. Global issue. Everywhere. So 'Green parties' find youth support and various 'Green' candidates attract youth voters. This sits with the Obama-coalition both for those who were young when first voting for Obama in 2008 but still think Green today in their early adult lives, and the new youth who will vote for the first time next year. Because that part of the population who really cares about the health of the planet is growing simply on age pyramid shifts, this is a strong voting block. They would have been easily activated on this issue even without the Pope, but now the 'cool' Argentinian Pope will have a far bigger effect to generic youth worldwide but even more so in the USA, with this rather non-religious call to action. Even totally agnostic or atheistic youth can embrace this as a fair call by the religious leader - even if they totally reject any religious commands from the Pope or the Catholic religion (divorce, contraception, gays, women priests, abortion etc).

No other religious leader could have had this big an impact to US politics. Not any leader of any of the countless religious groups that Wayne so well wrote about, nor any televangelist, or any global leader of any other religious group like some Imam or Islamic religions or some Rabbi of some Jewish denomination etc. But the Pope is the most influential religious leader on the planet and now he inserted a non-religious but very important topic into the world debate of 2015, global warming. And that means there will be a LOT of discussion about it everywhere, in the news and media, among various religious leaders not just Catholics. And partly because it comes from a popular Pope and partly as the overall noise level is raised, it means many other loosely-related groups with an interest in nature, like the Boy Scouts or hunting groups or farmers or fishermen etc will have MORE debate and discussion about global warming. And most people are reasonably smart, most people will be convinced by overwhelming scientific evidence and the overwhelming scientific evidence IS INDEED that global warming is real, and it is caused at least in part by human behavior. And the USA and China are the biggest causes to this global phenomenon. And the problem is accelerating with its speed ie getting progressively worse.

Then we have the weird climate change impacts, that cause more severe weather whether its tropical storms or droughts or floods and unusual colder and hotter temperaturs. More extreme weather, less comfortable weather. So there will be ever more acceptance that this is real, it has true measurable economic impacts (we need more air conditioning in the summer, more heating in the winter, this is costly) and the disasters have huge costs especially rising ocean levels.

We all know this, we deal with facts. But back to the political system in the USA, I am sure that 90% of Republicans in Washtington personally believe global warming is real and something has to be done. But they are partly tied to the past positions of the party that denied the facts, and partly now beholden to the Koch Brothers and various polluters like the oil industry to uphold the status quo and delay any improvements. So the policicians, in particular in a Republican primary season, will be torn on what they know (most of them know) is the reality and that delusional position of base Republicans about climate change that it doesn't exist or its a hoax. This means they box themselves into corners that are untenable in the general election. Again, made worse by the early Fox debate phenomenon where each candidate has to adopt extreme positions this early and partly ignited by Donald Trump pushing his pet issues and bringing them to the topic-du-jour.

This in turn will lock out a generation of young voters (I would say a large minority, perhaps even a majority of youth voters, for whom saving the planet is a threshold-issue, you either are with the facts or they can't vote for you). This will be a lost generation of young voters who will now align with Democrats because of this ONE issue. They already admired Al Gore and watched his movie when they were years away from being allowed to vote. Now they come in and they will take their revenge against the polluters.

Again, I return to my thesis in the blog. If all on Fox News and radio talk like Rush Limbaugh and all the main pundits and all the main Republican politicians 'towed the line' on climate change one more cycle, this would be a relatively modest issue only up in the main election next year. The Pope changed all that. It will now be a 'hot' issue for months in the primary season. Where Hillary and all her dwarf rivals in their debates can laugh at the Republicans about being climate-deniers, and meanwhile the Republican field is doing the contortionist moves like Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum already were forced to do about what the Pope is saying. And the more we hear 'climate change is real' from Republican leaders, the more the illusion crumbles and the truth is exposed. This was not in the schedule to be part of the 'pain' of the primary season for the GOP. Now it is. Can't hide from it. Who navigates this the smartest will have a long career in the Republican party some will stumble with this very badly (I am looking at Texas gooks like Rick Perry and Ted Cruz).

(Wayne, I'll return to the religious topic next)

Tomi Ahonen :-)


I think the "climate deniers" are like Fox news: They do not tell us what they know to be true, but what the want to be true. That is, it is pure propaganda.

Fox news had no problems demonizing the pope when he called for de-comercializing christmas.

Your main point is on target. The GOP candidates must pander to the tastes of Fox News' audience. And they do not want to be confronted with reality. They rather die than change their convictiins.

But these people do not represent the voters that might vote in a GOP president. So these potential GOP voters will have to go elsewhere to get their whishes addressed. And Hilary will be glad to address their wishes.

Exit GOP presidential dreams.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Available for Consulting and Speakerships

  • Available for Consulting & Speaking
    Tomi Ahonen is a bestselling author whose twelve books on mobile have already been referenced in over 100 books by his peers. Rated the most influential expert in mobile by Forbes in December 2011, Tomi speaks regularly at conferences doing about 20 public speakerships annually. With over 250 public speaking engagements, Tomi been seen by a cumulative audience of over 100,000 people on all six inhabited continents. The former Nokia executive has run a consulting practise on digital convergence, interactive media, engagement marketing, high tech and next generation mobile. Tomi is currently based out of Helsinki but supports Fortune 500 sized companies across the globe. His reference client list includes Axiata, Bank of America, BBC, BNP Paribas, China Mobile, Emap, Ericsson, Google, Hewlett-Packard, HSBC, IBM, Intel, LG, MTS, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Ogilvy, Orange, RIM, Sanomamedia, Telenor, TeliaSonera, Three, Tigo, Vodafone, etc. To see his full bio and his books, visit Tomi Ahonen lectures at Oxford University's short courses on next generation mobile and digital convergence. Follow him on Twitter as @tomiahonen. Tomi also has a Facebook and Linked In page under his own name. He is available for consulting, speaking engagements and as expert witness, please write to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com

Tomi's eBooks on Mobile Pearls

  • Pearls Vol 1: Mobile Advertising
    Tomi's first eBook is 171 pages with 50 case studies of real cases of mobile advertising and marketing in 19 countries on four continents. See this link for the only place where you can order the eBook for download

Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009

  • Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009
    A comprehensive statistical review of the total mobile industry, in 171 pages, has 70 tables and charts, and fits on your smartphone to carry in your pocket every day.

Alan's Third Book: No Straight Lines

Tomi's Fave Twitterati