A leader with no training in science who insists that his science view is the only valid one, and who publicly denigrates anyone who disagrees with him.
Furthermore, he has failed to produce any evidence that his plan will have any meaningful impact on the climate.
Too bad Richard Feynman isn’t around now. Obama has taken America to new lows.
Obama doesn’t know jack about science, but he knows plenty about who contributes to his campaign.
I would think the setback was to most likely about 632:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
Even Obama can’t be that stupid. He is but a pawn of those who were driven by fear and loathing of the energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early Aug 1945 to:
1. Form the UN on 24 Oct 1945
2. Eliminate national boundaries
3. Eliminate national constitutions
4. Hide the powerful source of energy stored as mass in cores of heavy atoms, planets, stars and galaxies.
Oliver K. Manuel
I really try to remain objective, not let emotions determine action, but the remark about the flat earth society to me personally is on the level of the so called n word. I am very offended.
Also, as a second to Omanuel above, and with a physics background I tend to look at things quantitatively ( first)as well as qualitatively. Either we are using solar energy which has been stored for over a very, very long time or so called green energy which for the most part is from current solar irradiance.
The population of the world has increased from 2 billion in the 1920’s to over 7 billion; much of that because of available food, water, and general societal improvements. Without available energy sources that could not have happened.
The so called green energy sources will eventually fill some needs, but a comprehensive quantitative analysis points to one and only one outcome.
Eventually the main source of energy for all of human endeavors must be nuclear.
I have heard of many other wild ideas, each having some value; and of course we can continually work to become more efficient to reduce energy needs.
Albert E. realized that compared to the nucleus of atoms, the energy stored in bonding atoms together is miniscule. When I hear some non scientists like Al Gore et al,
state that some prepostorus idea is as simple as high school physcis I tend to cringe at how inept he thinks we all must be. However, calculting amounts and efficiencies of energy sources is really as simple as high school physics.
I may have been mistaken, I thought Pres. Obama referred to the likes of us flat earthers!
Listened to Pres. Obama in entirety- yep he did call us flat earth earthers, perhaps in response to the same reference to him.
I believe the picture you really wanted was this one –
http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Santi_di_Tito_-_Niccolo_Machiavellis_portrait_headcrop.jpg
He’s banking on a dumbed-down America. Period. It’s not only that they don’t know the basics of science, but these kids (from about 1965 to the present) don’t know history. And they don’t care. The Fascists and Communists (and now, the feel-good “communitarian statists” in America) have always reverted to environmental fear tactics to achieve their totalitarian goals over kids undereducated in the basics of life and common sense. Nobody’s gonna die, except that Obama’s and Keri Noorgaard’s storm troopers decide to incite a few radical environmentalists to burn your home down (or the forest in your immediate vicinity), or have you incarcerated for retraining. Can you imagine spending a day kayaking with something as [pretty] (sic) as this? Pretty sick, I’d say. Watch the teeth, men. They’re “academics.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/global_warmings_reckless_rhetoric.html
“A leader with no training in science who insists that his science view is the only valid one, and who publicly denigrates anyone who disagrees with him.”
So a leader can’t take us into war if he hasn’t been a general? Or he can’t make financial decisions unless he is an economist or make a trade deal unless he has been a farmer?
I expect a leader to listen to his experts when it comes to making decisions that fall within their field of expertise. When it comes to CO2 emissions and climate change, I expect he consulted with the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific experts. Didn’t you get a call?
You lefties live in a deeply psychotic delusional world.
Steve,
What is deeply psychotic about a leader using his experts for their expertise?
TOO, you’re in severe denial. It’s proof positive that global warming is nothing but a feelgood scame for you people. Obama intruduced a policy that won’t work to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.
His “expert” is John Holdren, his Science Czar. Also psychotic.
We use “Scientific Theory” as a guide in large undertakings, not a “working hypothesis” that has failed miserably for a couple of decades +.
When a small group makes decisions for everyone without following the laws-of-the-land and the majority allows it, this is where we end up.
AGW is lacking in facts, repeatable & measureable qualifying data and resides only in the mind. Climatology models do not include all of the naturally occurring inputs, for the most obvious reason.
I know an infant when I see one!
When you hear the words “carbon pollution” used in the context of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, you know you are hearing from a weapons grade scientific ignoramus. And if the clueless leader can’t assemble a team of experts to write a scientifically coherent speech, then the gaff is doubly damning.
As to your fawning adoration for the National Academies, you might be interested their feet of clay as described by Dr. Richard Lindzen in his essay “Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?”
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
Chewer,
Are you serious? The military tests “working hypothesis” out every day of the year.
“AGW is lacking in facts, repeatable & measureable qualifying data and resides only in the mind.”
Well, every lead national scientific body on Earth has a different opinion than you on that. I expect Obama thought that their opinion had more merit.
Are you saying AGW has reached the pinnacle of human knowledge & understanding, Scientific Theory”???
War (by military & man) is natural and how we save ourselves during it takes imagination, integrity and experimentation.
H20 is what drives our greenhouse condition and C02 is lost in the noise up until 1800PPM and at that point we’re heading back into glaciation, but plant life loves it.
I work with many scientists, most of them physicists and your BS is breathtaking, especially since it is without reason and logic.
What have you been reading?
Chewer,
“Are you saying AGW has reached the pinnacle of human knowledge & understanding, Scientific Theory”???”
How on God’s green Earth did you get that from what I posted?
Since the late 1600’s men have developed methods of scientific veracity to distinguish what is considered normal science observations, measurements and means of attaining data. Today all scientists agree upon scientific theories, regardless of their affiliations, ideals and political identities.
With that said, I know the reason conservative & liberal scientific minds are at polar opposites when it come to AGW!
Do you and the rest of the world know the answer to that oddity?
gator69,
“How fucking stupid are you?”
I am smart enough to know that I shouldn’t try and reason with a psycho any longer.
Chewer,
Please provide one actual verbatim quote I have made and together we can review it for logic and reason.
Well “T.O.O”., what sort of logic and reason is behind constantly revising temperatures to show an upward trend?? Why in the hell would anyone think previous temperature readings from the 1930s would need to be revised down and recent readings revised upward???!!!
Ever look at any old aerial photographs of cities to see how much less asphalt, concrete buildings, houses, etc, there were in the 1930s to collect solar heat?? How about factoring in air conditioning and all the power for TVs, computers, all the additional lighting, etc.??? How about airport runways and jetwash around so many temperature sensors now??? What sort of total fucking moron does it take to not realize temperatures in the 1930s should be revised UPWARD to be comparable to recent temps?????!!!!!
And once you realize that, why in the hell would you believe anything else spouted by someone revising the temperatures that way????!!!!!!!
Sorry T.O.O, I had to chase away two 3-year old bears from the yard before they started chomping on my stuff and dog…
See above!
Chris,
Where did I say that? Anysway, NASA GISS devotes pages explaining the need for adjusting historical temperatures such as a changing environments, times of observations, instrumentation, etc. If you really want to know, I would start there.
Chewer,
WTF? Scientists of today and of all persuasions just happen to agree on everything? Did I read you right?
“…Anysway, NASA GISS devotes pages explaining the need for adjusting historical temperatures…” 😆
What did Bernie Madoff say? Maybe he was innocent too. 😆
Dipshit, anyone with half a brain knows about UHI and how it is driving modern temps higher. And anyone with a brain knows that a scam artist will lie about his motives and methods.
How fucking stupid are you? 😆
“What sort of total fucking moron does it take to not realize temperatures in the 1930s should be revised UPWARD to be comparable to recent temps?????!!!!!”
Could not have put it more poetically myself. 😉
gator69,
See comment above.
Dipshit, read up on UHI, and then a little psychology term called ‘projection’, you fucking retard! 😆
What f….. science, they have left them selfs out and beried whatever credility and integrety they had left, in a bottomless pitt of corruption and flattout lies about almoust everything.
Look at them, beliving in BiggBang and Evolution, morrons all of them, I have already pulverised their morronic “faiths”, and what the porblem is their covardness and thei utter depencanse of goverment founding. You dont gett money if its NOT about clima change or the idiotic AGW.
Whats the f…. danger, when Sahara and the bgg deserts are infact growing, the world is becoming GREENER f…. are you BLIND. Dont you thrust our own judgments on historical trends, I dont belive them, the f….. science, to tell me anything of wurth so I solely make my own “theories” based on a completely different isse, I know this gows beyound Planetrary scale and right now our solarsystem is crashing into a more densly paqcked space and we have NO idea of what conequences that gies us.
The CO2 scare is unbelivable morronic and is based on Nothing but false science and lies/forged science.
The science to day is wurse than the Medival times, at least they are soemwhat exused, on the level of knowledge, but to day, we sould know better, and to Belive in Political constructed consesusses are Faith/Religion and NOT science.
I have been into this since they started this capagne of pure drivel.
And their arguments are the same, the only reason is the corrupted and fals MSM.
So all in all, dont insult our intellegence with political drivel about Clima, they have no clue what so ever.
peace
mikael,
I think it would be hard to crash into space as space is generally defined as having nothing there to crash into. BTW, do you know what a spell checker is?
T.O.O. says:
June 26, 2013 at 8:54 am
Chris,
Where did I say that? Anysway… 😆
Common enough colloquialism — my daughters say that often.
“Common enough colloquialism…”
Yeah, if you are a 6 year old girl!
Houston, we found the problem! 😆
UHI deniers are soooo intellectual. 😉
My prediction is that this unilateral policy declaration by Obama will turn the people against him, his party and this ridiculous global warming movement. They’re about to become the new OWS idiots.
Dear Leader Messiah is the one you racists. He is the one we have been waiting for and will lower those pesky sea levels. The one is an expert on every topic ever.
Odd that Skeeter is not familiar with Lindzen, Christy or Spencer. Strange that he can only hear alarmists, and apparently is unaware that climates have changed naturally in the past. But what do you expect from a moron who thinks our Constitution is a bill of ‘negative rights’.
CO2 constitutes aprox. 1/3 of 1% of the atmosphere. Moving from 250ppm to 350ppm is the equivalent of throwing a small handful of sand on Miami beach and stating one has compromised the beach permanently. Seek out this mathematical certainty. Further, one moderate volcanic eruption produces as much CO2 as man does in 50 years. Also easy to confirm and there are currently many many volcanoes erupting not to mention the many vents and fissures that produce CO2 constantly. Also military attacks and operations produce more CO2 than all other human activities combined. As well the main form of addressing this alleged problem is TAXES. Get the picture. No interest in a multitude of toxic pollution and radiation at all. Just stop breathing out and save the earth. Don’t be so fooled.
CO2 is actually only 1/25 of 1% of the atmosphere.
Canadaveed,
It is quite extraordinary isn’t it? Such a small amount of CO2 has more warming potential than the 2 thousands times more nitrogen and oxygen that is in the air . In fact, CO2 is responsible for about 1/6th of the total greenhouse effect (most of the rest is in water vapor). So I guess you can see why our (mankind’s) increasing this tiny amount by 40% (and rising) could have such a an undesirable warming effect upon our climate.
What a complete crock… Go stand outside buck naked in the sun and get some vitamin D. Your brain is needing some vitamin D badly for better critical thinking…
Lou,
My crock has scientific citations what does your crock have?
No, your crock was cooked in models. Model upon model upon model. Pure GIGO.
When you have a ‘low’ to ‘very low’ understanding of 80% of climate forcings, your climate models are pure fantasy and guesswork, and complete crap.
Can you say ‘confirmation bias’? 😆
Radiative transfer models used by NCAR show that CO2 contributes less than 3% of the greenhouse effect in the tropics.
But thanks for throwing out some nonsensical numbers.
Steve,
These are the figures I have regarding GHG contribution. This link has a very lengthy explanation and plenty of links: http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/climate-feedbacks-part-1/
Water Vapor: 50%
Clouds:25%
CO2: 19%
Other (ozone, methane, etc): 7%
Not so nonsensical, eh? The point that you seem to be deliberately ignoring is that even at your 3% level, CO2 packs a hefty punch and man has put 40% more weight behind it and it is getting more muscular by the day.
Having worked with radiative transfer models professionally, those numbers are ludicrous.
From dippy’s link…
“The most simple climate model features a globally-averaged outlook with a planet in radiative equilibrium (where the sunlight absorbed by a planet must equal the outgoing infrared radiation lost). This is the fundamental boundary condition that all planets must satisfy on long-term timescales, except in the case of gaseous planets where internal heating from gravitational contraction can also be significant. We also allow the troposphere of a planet to convect in order to establish a lapse rate (temperature decrease with altitude) somewhere near an appropriate adiabatic lapse rate (the lapse rate is set by convection in the tropics to stay near a moist adiabat, the controls in the mid-latitudes are a bit more complicated but usually the atmosphere is always somewhere between ~6 and 10 K / km decrease with height).
From here, climate scientists distinguish between radiative forcings and feedbacks, both of which involve various agents that can alter the global-mean radiative budget (and thus temperature) of a planet.”
Yes folks, as I told dippy before, EVERY SINGLE CLAIM IS BASED UPON MODELS. 😆
Run Chicken Little, Run! 😆
Yes Steve,
Perhaps you can explain to all of us where they got it wrong?
How about you show us what they got right, out of 73 failures. 😉
Thanks for the tip Steve,
That NCAR site of yours is great. This particular page was really informative: https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/opinion/9574/five-things-know-about-carbon-dioxide
Here is but a small sample:
“In 1979, a commissioned study called the Charney Report projected that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause global temperature to rise by 1.5–4.5°C. This best-estimate range has changed only slightly in 34 years, even as researchers have learned much more about ocean-atmosphere interactions, regional precipitation trends, and other facets of enhanced greenhouse warming.”
that really is a ridiculous argument…
Latitude,
Show me your evidence to the contrary (mine is above).
You have no idea how you guys look to normal people…
You’re saying a bunch of weathermen and computer geeks can predict the weather…
When their computer games have been 100% wrong about everything…
You don’t even realize when you defend their missing heat…..You’re admiting they were wrong before….yet, you still argue they were right
Latitude,
Please show me where I have made a prediction about the weather.
I see why you believe this stuff now…..
reading impaired
Oh and Canadaveed,,
Regarding volcano CO2, you may want to revise your number down a bit. According to the US Geological Survey (USGS): “Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes.” And that figure includes all the active volcanoes on both land and sea and because we continue to spew more CO2 into the air year after year, that number will have to change soon to 140 or 150 times more.
it’s a 1/2 a degree…….and holding
“…we continue to spew more CO2 into the air year after year…”
So what? As we do, plants grow larger and produce more food, and the warming has stopped. What are you afraid of?
And WTF are you continuing to bleat on about? Obviously you never found any proof man is warming the planet, so STFU. 😆
It is interesting how you and the political science crowd rationalize no planetary warming and leave science out of the AGW mix, since the models do not reflect reality.
Obama will not be able to stop the next glacial advancement and cannot effect the present cyclical climate stage, yet you folks are true believers in the evil CO2.
Don’t you feel some guilt in these liberal scams that kills so many people and deprive them of a good life, all around the world?
Have a heart and allow people to look forward to a bright & fruitful future.
Can you find any problems with this writing?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/25/how-environmental-organizations-are-destroying-the-environment/
I’m one of those flat-Earth skeptics Obummer mentions. This is only since I started paying attention to the data on the arctic ice and sea levels so don’t call me un-informed. The evidence is on my side, and this President is full of it.
CLIMATE CHANGE battle cry drowns out any discussion of facts. There is difference between a search for facts and a search for financial windfalls from the GREEN industries blossoming under government funding. When all the billions are gone, the climate will be what it is before the billions were spent. Just waiting for the inquisitions for anyone questioning brilliant thinkers like Al Gore.
I think it is a brilliant stroke from Obama.
The president bypasses congress and implements “action”. There are three possibilities.
1. Temps drop significantly. He gets credit
2. Temps remain static. He gets credit.
3. Temps increase. He says we aren’t doing enough and implements more restrictions until temps do go down. He gets credit for his foresight.
He isn’t working a science problem. He is playing the odds that he gets political credit.
He will definitely get credit for rising energy costs, lost jobs and power blackouts.
I doubt that climate scientists are going to give up their gravy train by producing honest data.