« Govt Funded Climate Models Continue Abysmal Performance - Still Unable To Predict Global Temperatures | Main | 'C3' Administration Notes - Sunday, Nov. 18 »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a010536b58035970c017d3dc27141970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama Spews Amazing Anti-Science Drivel About Global Warming: The Ignorance (Lies?) Is Stunning:

Comments

Brian H

Obama does and says things to prepare the justification for upcoming actions. Uttering that falsehood, with embedded appeal to authority, is prelude to some form (probably fortifying the EPA subversion of any and every sane energy initiative and any and every necessary application of energy) of political and economic effort to weaken the country.

He has done nothing else in his first term, and now his hands are free (of the need to retain adequate voter support for the next campaign).

Brian H

Edit/comment;
Your syntax contradicts itself. "Cooling at a minus rate of ..." is a double negative. It's goofy. Minus cooling is warming. Changing, or even warming (!) could better be given as "a minus rate" to express your point.

Just trying too hard. "Cooling at a rate of ..." is perfectly clear, and syntactically correct. "A minus rate" is just silly-sounding.

code

Large Govt. requires the govt to trick the people into giving them more and more money to redistribute. If Global Warming and its affects exist and are so bad, why does the president find it easy enough to play 105 golf games in a 4 year period outside?

C3 Editor

Vaughan Pratt:
1. Obviously Vaughan, you are not a frequent reader of 'C3'. Most of our readers know the facts, which include the indisputable: that scientists and climate models are totally incapable of predicting temperatures accurately, no matter what the time period, be it annual, decadal, multi-decadal, etc. (see http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/11/govt-funded-climate-models-continue-abysmal-performance-still-unable-to-predict-global-temperatures.html)

2. No matter how one slices and dices the empirical temperature evidence, the global temperatures are not "increasing faster than was predicted 10 years ago." BTW, that does not mean they won’t in the future. (see http://www.c3headlines.com/modern-temperatures-chartsgraphs.html)

3. Scientists ten years ago predicted that the globe would warm significantly by 2012 - it hasn't. Scientists ten years ago predicted that global temperatures would accelerate - they haven't. Global warming alarmist scientists still predict the same old, same old despite their known past huge failure rate at doing so.

4. For the record, "consensus" science is not objective, nor is it impartial, nor omniscient, nor prescient. "Consensus" AGW science did not predict the global cooling trend over the last ten years. "Consensus" scientists continually state that the globe is warming, counter to the empirical evidence over the last 15+ years. AGW "consensus" scientists are more often wrong than not, and are unable (and unwilling) to admit to being so. Ergo, AGW scientists should not predict, and when they do so, they should not be believed.

5. Specifically, a "consensus" is not science, nor is it instrumental to the scientific methodology. Instead, it is "popularity" science - nothing more than comfort food for intellectually lazy people.

6. Climate models' scenario outputs are not empirical evidence, nor can they be relied on to be accurate prediction tools.

7. Yes, Obama was trained as a lawyer and that is the likely reason he is so comfortable lying when the empirical evidence does not support his position. Never, ever believe a lawyer-politician about anything.

Sooo Vaughn, I am going to allow your three comments to stand. But if you choose to post another comment, you will admit at the top of your third comment that you agree that the global temperature empirical evidence clearly shows that the consensus scientists and their climate models were wrong ten years ago; and that over the last 10 years, the world has experienced a cooling trend, contrary to the consensus scientists' “increasing warming" predictions; and, for Obama to have said otherwise was an unfortunate factual misrepresentation. Only then will you be allowed to obfuscate a fourth time about how the world is really, really dangerously warming – beware though, stick to the known facts, please.

Now, if you choose to comment a fourth time on Obama's misrepresentation without sincerely concurring with the known empirical evidence stated above, I am going to delete your new comment and all your previous comments. Your thoughts, time and effort will be completely wiped from the 'C3' blog regarding this issue.

My blog, my rules, and amazingly, and I can predict with 100% accuracy in the 'C3' realm. Vaughan, think carefully about your next reply, it's your call. (Big Hint: if you are unwilling to concur with the known facts, don't reply, Vaughan. Simple as that.)

Vaughan Pratt

@Robert Barclay: "Try heating the surface of water with a heat gun. Can't be done."

The breeze from a heat gun is very localized and therefore stirs up the surface a lot more than does an ocean breeze, per unit area. It will therefore remove many more calories by evaporating the surface molecules where it's aimed than it can possibly inject from its heat. Heat guns cannot tell us anything about ocean warming.

Vaughan Pratt

C3 Editor, you may have overlooked not just one but three important points here.

1. At a decadal level there is too much fluctuation in temperature to draw any conclusion about future warming on the basis of a single decade. The past 160 years of HADCRUT temperature data make this quite clear: whether an individual decade trends up or down is an essentially random variable. Scientists have made this point a great many times, but many still find it hard to accept and hope that the downward trend of 2002-2012 will continue unabated to 2100. The historical record to date has little to offer by way of support for this hope.

2. Obama said nothing concerning whether the last decade warmed or cooled. He said that science's predicted rate of warming increased over the past decade, which is an entirely different thing. Not only does his statement adequately represent the scientific consensus, but the rate of warming predicted by science has increased by a factor of two during that decade. The amount of warming taking place during that decade is a random quantity having an essentially negligible bearing on that prediction.

3. Obama was trained as a lawyer, not a scientist. Since he is merely repeating the scientists' predictions, if you have a sound refutation of these predictions would it not be more appropriate to blame the scientists than Obama?

I will defer to your judgment as to whether or not my points constitute "idiocy."

robert barclay

It should come as no surprise that the sea temperature is gradually falling because the sun has gone quiet.You cannot heat water from above, you can radiate the ocean, thesun does it every day but no physical heat can pass from the atmosphere into the ocean because of SURFACE TENSION. The ocean's temperature is firmly locked to solar activity and nothing else. Try heating the surface of water with a heat gun. Can't be done. There is no such thing as Anthropogenic Global Warming and there never has been

C3 Editor

GuarionexSandoval:

I've added "per century" to the second sentence of the article for clarification. Thanks.

C3 Editor

Cbrude:

1. I am not a scientist.
2. 'C3 Headlines' is a blog primarily dealing with climate issues mixed in with politics, just like real life.
3. I am not trying to "convert" others, I'm trying to educate with empirical evidence.
4. I don't think Donald Trump uses "What say you?"
5. I don't think Glenn Beck uses "What say you?"
6. I usually don't allow comments on 'C3' because of the time and effort required to monitor and manage.
7. I posed the rhetorical "What say you?" to test whether that type of language would actually generate comments. (Btw, it seems to do just that.)
8. Stop with the gratuitous "right wing shill pushing a corporate agenda" - I'm sure you can raise your argument above the high school level, no?

C3 Editor

This temperature analysis deals with the last 10 years, per Obama's statement of "fact," nothing more. He lied, plain and simple.

Your "proof" is utter nonsense in the context of the 10-year empirical evidence and the actual charts presented.

P.S. If you want to comment here, make sure your comments in the future are coherent and reflect the content of the article. We delete idiocy, usually - but we'll let your comment stand so others can marvel at it.

Vaughan Pratt

What is special about the last ten-year period? The whole 162 years of global land-sea HADCRUT3 consists entirely of cooling periods. Look at 1850-1930, 1930-1978, 1978-1987, 1987-1997, 1997-2001, and 2001-2012. The linear trends at tinyurl.com/sixcool fitted to each of those six contiguous periods are all cooling.

If we suspend logic for a moment we can conclude from this that the planet cooled off between 1850 and now.

This is patently false.

The basis for Obama's statement that "the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago" is that ten years ago it was predicted that global temperature would rise 2 degrees during this century, whereas today it is predicted to rise 4 degrees. If we suspend logic for a moment we can use your analysis of 2002-2012 to contradict Obama.

Why is your reasoning any better than the above "proof" that the planet cooled between 1850 and now?

Cbrude

This went from interesting science to Donald Trump with the questions at the end. As a liberal who is also skeptical of global warming, I can say that injecting politics into this just muddled your message: are you an honest scientist enlightening a misled populace or a right wing shill pushing a corporate agenda? You won't get many converts when you ask the same questions as Glenn Beck.

GuarionexSandoval

I now see the tiny legend in the charts indicating the 0.72C/century rate of change, right on the edge of screen resolution.

Alex

The oceans cannot cool if the atmosphere has not cooled because energy can only flowoutwards towards space and in between the oceans and spce there's the atmosphere and the oceans cannot transfer more energy (cool down) unless the temperature difference is greater. Thermodynamics laws stipulate this. So, if the oecans have cooled down,then the atnmosphere must have cooled down even before the oceans commenced their negative gradient trend. Time to check what the climate sceancetists are doing?

GuarionexSandoval

"In fact, they have been cooling at a minus 0.72°C rate."

Wait a second, neither of those charts shows a decline of 0.72°C over the period indicated. The temps declined about .7 of one tenth of a degree/decade or at about a 0.72°C/century.

Michael Moon

He is a propaganda specialist. The Soviets invented and promoted the "Big Lie Technique," and he has adopted it, perfected it, made it work for him. It is amazing that this cretin was re-elected, and what a mess we have to look forward to as a result! Pray for Mr. Boehner and the Republicans, all we have standing between us and the abyss...

Scott Scarborouogh

Because he can and did get away with it and he knew that he could. There is no one to call him on it in any medium that will be seen by a majority of Americans.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Categories