Jump to content

Obama fails climate science


KirtFalcon

Recommended Posts

Obama fails climate science in his State of the Union address -- Climate Depot's point-by-point rebuttal to the President's global warming claims

'Mr. President, acts of Congress, the UN or the EPA cannot alter storms or weather patterns'

 

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

The President offered up nothing more than the usual incorrect global warming platitudes during his speech. No wonder the speech brought a "smile" to Al Gore's face. The president could not have been more wrong in claiming “extreme weather” was “now more frequent and intense" and he failed to note that global temperatures have not increased in 16 years. President Obama needs to be reminded that acts of Congress, the UN or the EPA cannot alter storms or weather patterns.

 

Climate Depot's Point-by-Point rebuttal:

 

President Obama: 'But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change'

 

Climate Depot Reaction: Our children do not need politicians in Washington posturing and pretending they can control global temperatures and make storms less severe or less frequent. See: Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball: 'Future generations will curse why we allowed a few political bullies to undermine development & progress with the false claim that human CO2 is causing climate change' Future generations 'will wonder how people could write such misinformed, hysterical, commentary.'

MIT's Dr. Lindzen: "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.'

#

President Obama: 'Yes, it's true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15'

 

Climate Depot Response: Obama is ignoring the climate elephant in the room. Global temperatures have essentially been flat lining for 16 years now. The halt in global temperatures has shown up in multiple data sets and peer-reviewed literature.

NASA's James Hansen Officially Admits Global Temperature Standstill Is Real: 'Mean Global Temperature Has Been Flat For The Last Decade'

 

Trying to cite “hottest year” claims as "proof" of man-made global warming is preposterous when you consider that such claims are purely political. -- Even NASA's Hansen admits 'hottest year' claims are 'not particularly important'. German Prof. mocks 'hottest decade' claim as 'a joke' 'Claims based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree'

Top Swedish Climate Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson Says Warming Not Noticeable: 'The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn't have climatologists to measure it we wouldn't have noticed it at all

 

What about Obama's claim of “hottest decade”? See: German Climate Professor Werner Kirstein Slams 'Climate Religion': Refutes claims of 'hottest decade' as 'a joke' -- 'Determining a global avg. is a tricky business and in the end is only a theoretical value'

#

President Obama: 'Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense'

 

Climate Depot Response: Sorry Mr. President, you are not entitled to your own set of facts. See: Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue: 'Are climate scientists bothered that President's speech on 'extreme weather' climate change doesn't jive with the last IPCC SREX report?'

Drought: Study: Drought Trends, Estimates Possibly Overstated Due To Inaccurate Science – Journal Nature study 'suggests that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years'

 

-- 'The major 2012 drought obscures the fact that U.S. has seen a decline in drought over past century'

 

Floods: Prof. Pielke Jr. : 'Are US Floods Increasing? The Answer is Still No' -- 'A new paper out today shows flooding has not increased in U.S. over records of 85 to 127 years'

All Of The World's Deadliest Floods Occurred With CO2 Well Below 350 PPM

 

-- 'We know that hurricanes have declined, tornadoes have declined, floods have declined, and droughts have declined. That is why history has been redefined to start in the 1970s'

 

Heatwaves: EPA Say Heatwaves Much Worse in 1930's: 'Heat waves occurred with high frequency in the 1930s, and these remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record':

'According to USHCN (U.S. Historical Climatology Network) temperature records, the 1930s holds a wide lead for all-time daily record maximums in the U.S. There is zero evidence that 'climate change' has increased the probability of setting temperature records'

40% Of U.S. All-Time Record Maximums Were Set During The 1930s

 

Wildfires: 'Wildfire numbers since 1950 have decreased globally by 15%'

 

-- 'According to the National Academy of Sciences, they will likely continue to decline until around midcentury'

New paper finds wildfires in the western US are at the lowest levels in 3,000 years: 'Finds current fire activity is at the lowest levels of the entire 3,000 year record'

#

President Obama: 'We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it's too late.'

 

Climate Depot Resonse: Superstorm Sandy linked to man-made global warming?! Please Mr. President, read up on science before you embarrass yourself. See: Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: 'Remarkably, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest-ever recorded period with no strikes of a Category 3 or stronger hurricane' “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought',” Pielke Jr. explained..

 

The scientific data does not support claims that Sandy was a “new normal.” See: Hurricane Facts: 'According to NOAA, they have been on decline in US since the beginning of records in 19th century. The worst decade for major (category 3,4,5) hurricanes was 1940s'

 

Scientist Martin Hoerling of NOAA on Sandy: 'As to underlying causes, neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over N. Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change'

No Long-Term Trend in Frequency, Strength of Landfalling Hurricanes -- A new study by Jessica Weinkle (U of Colorado), Ryan Maue (Naval Research Lab), & Roger Pielke, Jr.

 

Prof. Richard Muller: 'Hurricanes are not increasing due to human causes (actually, they have been decreasing over past 250 years).

New Report: 'Extreme Weather Report 2012': 'Latest peer-reviewed studies, data & analyses undermine claims that current weather is 'unprecedented' or a 'new normal'

 

-- Climate Depot's New 35-Page Report: 'Current weather is neither historically unprecedented, nor unusual' -- 'Extreme weather events are ever present, and there is no evidence of systematic increases' -- Presented at UN Climate Conference in Doha, Qatar on Dec. 6, 2012

 

Deaths from 'extreme weather' at their lowest since 1900

The Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather, 1900–2010: 'Aggregate mortality attributed to all extreme weather events globally has declined by more than 90% since the 1920s' -- '...In spite of a four-fold rise in population and much more complete reporting of such events. The aggregate mortality rate declined by 98%'

 

'A study published in 2011 in Geophysical Research Letters on causes of the 2010 Russian heat wave deduced that it 'was due to internal atmospheric dynamical processes' -- Paging Al Gore: Peer-reviewed Study: 'It is unlikely that the warming attributable to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations contributed significantly to the magnitude of the [Russian] heat wave'

Climate Depot's Morano on Fox News Mocking Gore's 'Climate Astrology': 'This is now akin to the predictions of Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar'

 

-- Morano: 'There is no way anyone can falsify the global warming theory now because any weather event that happens 'proves' their case...Man-made global warming has ceased to be a science, it is now the level of your daily horoscope' -- Gore [in 2006 film] did not warn us of extreme blizzards and record cold winters coming'

 

Obama goes full witchcraft by telling voters they 'can do something about' droughts and floods and wildfires -- Climate Depot Responds -- Climate Depot's Morano reminds voters: 'Acts of the UN and the U.S. Congress or EPA, cannot control the weather'

#

President Obama: 'Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it's too late.'

 

Climate Depot Response: 'Act before it's too late' to stop storms?! See: Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: 'An argument that mitigation of ghgs makes sense in terms of decreasing the future costs of extreme events is not a strong one'

 

-- 'Even under the assumptions of IPCC, Stern Review, etc. the future costs of extreme events under the most aggressive scenarios of climate change actually decrease as a proportion of GDP'

 

The 'overwhelming judgment of science?" See: SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

 

 

Related Links:

Obama Proposes Cap-and-Trade: Urges 'Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like one John McCain & Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago'

Report: 'Sens. Boxer and Sanders to introduce climate bill w/carbon tax on Thursday'

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue: 'Are climate scientists bothered that President's speech on 'extreme weather' climate change doesn't jive with the last IPCC SREX report?'

AP debunks Obama on climate claims: THE FACTS: 'Obama failed to get a global warming bill through Congress when both Houses were controlled by Democrats in 2010'

 

-- AP: 'With Republicans in control of the House, the chances of a bill to limit the gases blamed for global warming and to create a market for businesses to trade pollution credits are close to zero...And while there are still other ways to address climate change without Congress, it's questionable regulation alone can achieve the reductions needed to start curbing global warming'

 

Bing Pulse: Obama 'bottomed out' on climate change with Independents and Republicans. Flat line at -100% negative'

Gore 'now smiling' after Obama's SOTU speech: Gore: 'You're right, Michael! Somewhere Al Gore is now smiling'

Three Decades Of SOTU Climate Remarks: Bill Clinton in 2000: 'The greatest environmental challenge of the new century is global warming'

 

-- George W. Bush in 2007: 'These technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change'

 

Scientific American Challenged on Tar Sands and Climate Change by Friends of Science: 'Should the Eco-activists be allowed to shut down the US economy based on faulty science?'

 

-- 'The oil sands and Keystone XL Pipeline offer Americans an estimated 343,000 new U.S. jobs between 2011 and 2015 if Keystone XL proceeds. Something like 2,400 American companies from 49 states already are involved in the development of Canada's oil sands' -- 'It's 'oil' sands not 'tar' to be scientific'

 

Warmists tell Obama 'you have the power to stop climate change' -- 'Sandy Survivors to Obama: Our Power is Out, But You Have the Power to Stop Climate Change'

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue: 'Obama's SOTU climate paragraph has at least 3 straw man arguments mixed together. Speech writer used Google poorly'

Maue: 'Honestly, the climate section is pretty weak, checking off a box. Liberal enviro base will swoon but McCain + Lieberman (retired)?

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue: 'Obama's SOTU climate paragraph has at least 3 straw man arguments mixed together. Speech writer used Google poorly'

Maue: 'Honestly, the climate section is pretty weak, checking off a box. Liberal enviro base will swoon but McCain + Lieberman (retired)?

Text of Obama's 2013 State of the Union Address

'Watch Speaker Boehner roll his eyes at Barack Obama's pledge to address the climate crisis'

Warmist Bill McKibben happy: 'Strongest thing the pres did tonite was talk about the weather, and link it to climate change. A change from the campaign and a good one'

'No mention of coal in Obama's all-of-the-above energy policy tonight'

Warmist Joe Romm excited: 'Climate Hawk Obama': 'If Congress Won't Act Soon To Protect Future Generations, I Will'

AP debunks Obama on gas mileage claim: From the AP: OBAMA: 'We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas' --

 

THE FACTS: 'Not so fast. That's expected to happen in 12 more years' Under a deal the Obama administration reached with automakers in 2011, vehicles will have a corporate average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon'

 

Greenpeace: 'Unless Obama puts brake on Arctic drilling, Keystone XL; exporting coal, it's one step forward, two steps back'

House GOP put Obama on Keystone Clock: 'The Energy & Commerce initiative marks an escalation of GOP efforts to nudge Obama after Nebraska Gov. Dgave the OK to a revised pipeline route'

Obama 'urged to emphasize climate threat' in state of the union

Obama's plan?! The price of Keystone pipeline approval may be a carbon tax: 'Tax could provide cover for approval of oil sands pipeline'

 

-- Obama 'will be alert to the chorus of Hollywood stars, environmental activists, editorial writers and industry leaders who are pushing for him to make the biggest climate-change decision he can possibly make: Impose a carbon tax' -- 'Obama might offer some kind of carbon tax as a carrot to environmentalists and climate activists opposed to Keystone has since emerged as more than plausible'

 

http://climatedepot.com/a/19683/Obama-fails-climate-science-in-his-State-of-the-Union-address--Climate-Depots-pointbypoint-rebuttal-to-the-Presidents-global-warming-claims

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm going to say on the global warming, climate change debate is this:

 

The Earth at 1971 does not look the same in 2011 and probably looks worst now in 2013.

 

 

I would tend to agree with that statement ... but it has nothing to do with "man made global warming". It has everything to do with population growth, development, pollution and lazy people creating unsightly messes and not cleaning them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would tend to agree with that statement ... but it has nothing to do with "man made global warming". It has everything to do with population growth, development, pollution and lazy people creating unsightly messes and not cleaning them up.

 

Development, pollution and lazy people...2 out of 3 of those things are man-made. The third one is inexcusable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"scientists" don't even know if THOSE are the causes....they have only been recording things for about 150 years.....while the climate has been around for millinea....how do they KNOW that this isn't the normal pattern with so little data??? Because they are all arrogant and believe every word that issues forth from their own mouths.....

 

 

...and they ALL conveniently ignore the recorded evidence that warming is occuring throught the Solar System, not just on Earth.....

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

 

So if it's man who is causing the warming here, who is causing it on Mars??? Who is causing it throughout the rest of the solar system???

 

The global warming scare tactics are just another way to keep the sheep in line and keep fleecing them for every penny and every liberty that they enjoy......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is for those who are truly interested in looking at the facts and evidence to decide for themselves what to believe about global warming.

 

First, realize that many (most?) of the naysayers here believe, often for religious reasons, that man-made global warming is a hoax. Notice that I said 'believe'. They have faith in their belief. Then they look for 'evidence' that backs up thier preconceived faith.

 

That is the opposite of good science. One should go wherever the evidence leads, regardless of the destination. So where does the evidence lead? Since none of us here, I venture, work climate science for a living, let's look at what the real experts says. The vast, vast majority (something like 97%) of climatologists agree that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and the cause is largely man-made.

 

When judging whether the information you a reading is reliable. See who is making the claim. Does that person's view represent the concensus? If not, why don't the majority of his/her peers agree? I can no doubt, find an 'expert' who will say the earth is flat, or men didn't land on the moon. I give far more credence to the consensus opinion of the expert body, than to a outlier individual or group (can you say 'Discovery Institute'?).

 

I will not get in to an online debate with deniers. It would be a waste of my time. I guarantee they will never be persuaded by evidence. They already KNOW the answer, and it is not science based.

 

If you want to learn for yourself, a good place to start would be the National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/

 

This is an excellent summary of global warming and climate change myths. http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is for those who are truly interested in looking at the facts and evidence to decide for themselves what to believe about global warming.

 

First, realize that many (most?) of the naysayers here believe, often for religious reasons, that man-made global warming is a hoax. Notice that I said 'believe'. They have faith in their belief. Then they look for 'evidence' that backs up thier preconceived faith.

 

That is the opposite of good science. One should go wherever the evidence leads, regardless of the destination. So where does the evidence lead? Since none of us here, I venture, work climate science for a living, let's look at what the real experts says. The vast, vast majority (something like 97%) of climatologists agree that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and the cause is largely man-made.

 

When judging whether the information you a reading is reliable. See who is making the claim. Does that person's view represent the concensus? If not, why don't the majority of his/her peers agree? I can no doubt, find an 'expert' who will say the earth is flat, or men didn't land on the moon. I give far more credence to the consensus opinion of the expert body, than to a outlier individual or group (can you say 'Discovery Institute'?).

 

I will not get in to an online debate with deniers. It would be a waste of my time. I guarantee they will never be persuaded by evidence. They already KNOW the answer, and it is not science based.

 

If you want to learn for yourself, a good place to start would be the National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/

 

This is an excellent summary of global warming and climate change myths. http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

^^^^sounds like a government stooge..... :P So how do you reconcile your beliefs that man has created global warming to the EVIDENCE that warming is occuring on every planet in our solar system??? Is man causing that, too.....ANSWER: You do like the "vast majority of climatologists" and ignore any evidence that shows your viewpoint may not be correct.....

 

Who cares WHAT 97% of the climatologists agree on....remember, it was THE VAST MAJORITY OF EXPERTS who said man would never fly....it was THE VAST MAJORITY OF EXPERTS who said man would never fly faster than the speed of sound....it was THE VAST MAJORITY OF EXPERTS who said man would never run a mile in less than 4 minutes....seems like those vast majorities of "experts" are usually wrong.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is for those who are truly interested in looking at the facts and evidence to decide for themselves what to believe about global warming.

 

First, realize that many (most?) of the naysayers here believe, often for religious reasons, that man-made global warming is a hoax. Notice that I said 'believe'. They have faith in their belief. Then they look for 'evidence' that backs up thier preconceived faith.

 

That is the opposite of good science. One should go wherever the evidence leads, regardless of the destination. So where does the evidence lead? Since none of us here, I venture, work climate science for a living, let's look at what the real experts says. The vast, vast majority (something like 97%) of climatologists agree that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and the cause is largely man-made.

 

When judging whether the information you a reading is reliable. See who is making the claim. Does that person's view represent the concensus? If not, why don't the majority of his/her peers agree? I can no doubt, find an 'expert' who will say the earth is flat, or men didn't land on the moon. I give far more credence to the consensus opinion of the expert body, than to a outlier individual or group (can you say 'Discovery Institute'?).

 

I will not get in to an online debate with deniers. It would be a waste of my time. I guarantee they will never be persuaded by evidence. They already KNOW the answer, and it is not science based.

 

If you want to learn for yourself, a good place to start would be the National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/

 

This is an excellent summary of global warming and climate change myths. http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

Who discovered global warming? Who convinced the people of global warming? Who benefits from global warming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who discovered global warming? Who convinced the people of global warming? Who benefits from global warming?

 

How can they call what they are doing "science" when they have only been measuring for 150 out of what they believe to be BILLIONS of years??? How could they even call it "science" when they have only been measureing for 150 out of the 10,000 years that have actually passed since Creation??? Either way, it sounds more like pseudoscience than fact to me....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

blah blab global warming blah blah ice age blah blah never happened before blah blah guys earth did this before there were humans check your facts before writing paragraph upon paragraph of nonsense. our home has gone through more changes that you will ever admit. if it's not to be that humans endure and survive the next change, that is not in your control anyway. do your best to leave our blue globe better than you got it and you are successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's check the numbers:

 

From the "scientific" viewpoint, earth is several billion years old....lets go with 5 billion...that means, they are making their statements on global warming based upon observing only 0.00000008% of the existing years....

 

From the Biblical (Correct :) ) viewpoint, earth is about 12,000 years old...that means that they are making their statements on global warming based upon observing only 1.25% of the existing years....

 

When one bases a conjecture upon observations of patterns, it is called INDUCTIVE REASONING, and it is not very reliable......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is for those who are truly interested in looking at the facts and evidence to decide for themselves what to believe about global warming.

 

First, realize that many (most?) of the naysayers here believe, often for religious reasons, that man-made global warming is a hoax. Notice that I said 'believe'. They have faith in their belief. Then they look for 'evidence' that backs up thier preconceived faith.

 

That is the opposite of good science. One should go wherever the evidence leads, regardless of the destination. So where does the evidence lead? Since none of us here, I venture, work climate science for a living, let's look at what the real experts says. The vast, vast majority (something like 97%) of climatologists agree that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and the cause is largely man-made.

 

When judging whether the information you a reading is reliable. See who is making the claim. Does that person's view represent the concensus? If not, why don't the majority of his/her peers agree? I can no doubt, find an 'expert' who will say the earth is flat, or men didn't land on the moon. I give far more credence to the consensus opinion of the expert body, than to a outlier individual or group (can you say 'Discovery Institute'?).

 

I will not get in to an online debate with deniers. It would be a waste of my time. I guarantee they will never be persuaded by evidence. They already KNOW the answer, and it is not science based.

 

If you want to learn for yourself, a good place to start would be the National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/

 

This is an excellent summary of global warming and climate change myths. http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Until the "global warming" crowd can produce evidence that is conclusive, then there will always be naysayers. Climate change is a natural occurrence in the History of the earth, that is a fact. I saw an article the other day that stated the "hole" in the ozone layer has shrunk, but does this "hole" cause any major problems ? On top of that we don't know if it is a natural phenomenon, we do know it's been around since 1984, but there have been signs that it is shrinking.

 

As we all know pollution is detrimental to the health of human beings, even in the 1800's in major cities life expectancy was lower than living in the country side. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/victorian_britain/social_conditions/victorian_urban_planning_01.shtml . I've read recent studies that are trying to date the human contribution to climate change, they've found "carbon foot prints" dating back to Neanderthals and other early humans. They point out that the domestication of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and other livestock contributed to the methane that was released into the environment. These animals would have populated the planet at a higher level, had they not been used as a food source, and their numbers culled. Let's take a look at India's cattle population in the last 38 years, and it has nearly doubled in size. http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=in&commodity=cattle&graph=production . I'm not sure if you know much about India, but there aren't many people that eat steak there.

 

With all of that being said, even if a "Cap and Trade" or any other types of legislation to limit the amount of pollution into the environment is enacted, it wouldn't solve anything. As long as there are human beings on the planet, there is going to be pollution. As to rising temperatures or what not, I haven't seen any changes in the climate in the past 40 years. There will always be erosion, so that's never going to stop or be prevented. If it weren't for erosion we wouldn't have the Grand Canyon or many other gorges, fjords, coves, oxbows, etc. in the landscape of America.

 

Once upon a time in Texas, much of it was covered by the Gulf of Mexico, there have been many fossil discoveries of prehistoric marine animals as far north as the Red River. If the world lasts another 4 million years, and we could come back, we probably wouldn't recognize the earth. It will still be kicking according to Dr. James Lovelock for almost a billion more : http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1996-7/weekly/060297/news/story_7.htm . So, I'm not buying the Global Climate Change Warming schlock. It's a way for some to become wealthier.

 

By the way, I have some Carbon Offsets I can sell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...