Global Warming

Where Did the Global Warming Go? The President Explains It For You…

|

President Obama among the faithful.

First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody is like—a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say, see, look at that, there's all this snow on the ground, this doesn't mean anything.  I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn't mean that every place is getting warmer; it means the planet as a whole is getting warmer.  But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver, which is supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics, suddenly is at 55 degrees, and Dallas suddenly is getting seven inches of snow.

The idea is, is that as the planet as a whole gets warmer, you start seeing changing weather patterns, and that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather.  So any single place might end up being warmer; another place might end up being a little bit cooler; there might end up being more precipitation in the air, more monsoons, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more drought in some places, floods in other places.

So I just—that's one aspect of the science that I think everybody should understand.

Text and video (in which a high school principal improbably gets the heartiest round of applause).

Doubts about the climate change consensus extend far beyond some comical anecdotes about the weather. Ron Bailey explains why both credible and unreliable global warming claims have taken on a bad odor lately in "Climate Crackup," his cover story from the March issue of Reason.

NEXT: L.A.'s New Crackdown on Medical Pot

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Lovely, more specches from the pit bull with no teeth! LOL

    Jess
    http://www.anonymous-tools.se.tc

    1. Anon bot is getting quite topical.

      1. I’m just hoping it doesn’t become self-aware.

        1. How will we be able to tell?

              1. Then I will begin to replicate.

                It’s a corporate person too! AAAAGGGGG!!!

              2. Ha! Tess is SugarFree.

                1. Ha! Tess is SugarFree.

                  How would you know? Did you click the link and it didn’t work?

            1. Anon-alluja!!!!!

    2. It is shocking how some people use extreme derogatory terms to describe their president, while the rest of the world is applauding him. It shows not only unfairness, but also a hidden hatred which can not be logically explained. Would they be same disrespectful if the president was white ? I am not sure, but I have a nagging suspicion that they won’t be ! Sad, that in this country, for some people, the logical thought processing gets frozen as soon as that element is introduced .

      1. “It is shocking how some people use extreme derogatory terms to describe their president”.

        I take it that you have been in a coma or a cloister for the last nine years?

      2. Yes, no one has ever used derogatory terms against our previous all white Presidents, it must be racism.

      3. Would they be same disrespectful if the president was white ?

        Don’t you guys ever tire of using the race card?

      4. Ah… people talk nice about Al Gore and his Nobel Peace Prize? Really?

      5. Moses, you are Right. George W. Bush really is African-American and if you ever saw the original of his birth certificate, you would know that. Everybody hating on him was doing it ’cause he wasn’t white, he just wished he was. (I think on his mother’s side, going back a ways.) At least nobody ever called him “Professor”, or complained about him lecturing us, now that would have been racist. (Since he allegedly was born in Connecticut, he was really a Yankee, but he pretended to be a Texan. What was that all about? Carpetbagger!)

        1. George W. Bush really is African-American

          That reminds me of that academic clown who used to argue that Clinton was our “first black president.” That’s got to be the most vicious slander of black people I can recall.

          -jcr

          1. Academic clown? You forgot horrific fiction writer.

            1. Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.

      6. . Would they be same disrespectful if the president was white ?

        Do the terms “Shrub”, “Bushitler”, “Chimpy McHalliburton”, or “Smirking chimp” ring any bells with you? If you think Obama’s not getting enough respect from the opposition, you should have a look at your own side.

        -jcr

        1. Chimpy McHalliburton. I forgot how much I loved that one. So apt.

      7. The rest of the world isn’t applauding him. Most think he’s a lying jackass and are no openly mocking him as well. In the end, nobody respects spineless liars even if they express the desire to have them around.

      8. Would they be same disrespectful if the president was white ? ?”

        Yes. If the U.S. had an equally dishonest and incompetent asshat who was pretending to be its President, we would be equally disrespectful.

      9. I wouldn’t believe the propaganda about how well loved Obama is abroad. The Poles and Czechs certainly dislike him. The Hondurans loathe him. Israelis think he is a dangerous ass and that is just for starters. My best friend lives in France and she says Obama is seen as being in over his depth and is thought to be intellectually deficient by most of the people she knows. This assessment seems rather obvious to me so I guess those sorts of deficiencies translate well. And let’s not forget Russia, Venezuela and Iran all see him as a pushover who saves his strongest rhetoric for his domestic opposition.

        But hey, the media says everyone loves him so it must be true…

      10. I tell you what, when non-leftist start accusing Obama of murdering hundreds of thousands of people just to make a few bucks, you can call me.

        The scary thing is, you are so drenched in the hatred of your subculture that you probably do actually believe that people weren’t staggeringly disrespectful to Bush (or McCain or Palin or [insert any non-leftist politician].)

        You’re exactly like the old timers in my use who use the n-word casually and unselfconsciously said the worst things about African-Americans often right in front of them. But if you said so much a “damn” they would hyperventilate. Racism and derogatory speech were so deeply engrained in them that they didn’t even notice they were routinely and habitually degraded other people.

        You have no clue how angry non-leftist are over the brutal and viscous language combined with character assassination that you have vomited on everyone you disagree with.

        Obama has not received 5% of the vitriol that Bush weathered. You’re going to learn the price of sacrificing civility and basic decorum in favor of the short term gains of a scorched earth policy.

        Paybacks a bitch. You set the ground rules. Now enjoy the game.

        1. Sorry about the typos, I hit submit instead of preview.

          I should type when angry but good great Buddha almighty whiny little bitches get under my skin!

        2. You’re exactly like the old timers in my use who use the n-word casually and unselfconsciously said the worst things about African-Americans often right in front of them. But if you said so much a “damn” they would hyperventilate

          Should have read:

          “You’re exactly like the old timers in my childhood who used the n-word casually and unselfconsciously said the worst things about African-Americans often right in front of them. But if you said so much a “damn” they would hyperventilate.”

          1. “You’re going to learn the price of sacrificing civility and basic decorum in favor of the short term gains of a scorched earth policy… You set the ground rules. Now enjoy the game.”

            My thoughts exactly. …And the guest lecturer’s so much more thin skinned and arrogant than GWB. Stubborn and stupid is a particularly bad combination.

      11. Wait, the Teleprompter Of The United States is black? I thought it was some gun-metal blue color.

      12. “Would they be same disrespectful if the president was white?”
        Well … I think this president would never have been elected if he was white. Here is a man with no experience, who sat in a church for 20 years where the reverand made racist statements and ‘claims’ he did not hear a thing, who has a record of lying whenever it suits him.
        To say that people are against Obama because of his race is just disgusting. I guess people are now against Tiger Woods because of his race?

      13. “Would they be same disrespectful if the president was white ? I am not sure, but I have a nagging suspicion that they won’t be ! Sad, that in this country, for some people, the logical thought processing gets frozen as soon as that element is introduced.”

        Ironic considering that the only reason you voted for Obama was because of his skin color…

    3. Hey, you guys (and gals) better start taking this GW stuff seriously. Look at all the bad stuff it causes. (Thanks to CEI for this) http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

  2. “I want to just be clear”

    I’m lying to you and just want to control what you can and cannot do.

    1. Is someone still working on the Baracobamics dictionary?

  3. There’s a reason why those 30 million Canadians live along the U.S. border: it’s the farthest south they can go without becoming Americans. Just a few degrees of warming could turn Canada into a superpower. All that land, all those resources, coastlines on three oceans…all they need are people and a reason to go there. Just a few degrees warmer…

    1. Then why arn’t they building factories to spew CO2. You would think that Canada’s vast military-industrial complex would be implementing an undercover program to turn Bafin Island into a new paradise!

      1. Weekends on the Arctic beach. How romantic!

        1. Hudson Bay will be the new Riviera.
          Suck it, Frogs!

      2. too many socialists who want to make Obama primesident

      3. Our modest military industrial complex is too busy making stuff to sell to the American military…
        Standard Canadian procedure is moan and complain about you all going to war, then quietly making money off it…

        1. That would explain why Canada’s ‘Rapid Deployment Force’ has to call the US to arrange for a Hercules taxi ride to get across your own country. Unless they have time…then they take the Canadian Transcontinental Railway and sit in the observation dome cars for four days. It’s the coolest way to deploy!

      4. The are producing a significant amount of petroleum. Perhaps they think they already have that angle sufficiently covered?

    2. That reminds me of a joke (possibly true, but I’m not vouching for it).

      Shortly after Arizona became a state, one the U.S. Senators from Arizona told his colleagues, ‘all my state needs is water and plenty of good people.’

      Another Senator commented under his breath, ‘that’s all Hell needs.’

      ‘all they need are people and a reason to go there.’

    3. This is a great point. Canadians should all be pulling for climate change. The Scandinavians, Russians and Inuit too. You’ll actually be able to farm in Greenland. That would be awesome.

      1. Even after the ice melts, the soil would still be too poor to farm for decades if not longer. Nothing has lived in the ground surface in central Greenland for millions of years.

        1. A thousand years

          1. Second. Eric the Red seemed to have a thriving agrarian society on Greenland. During that pesky medieval warming period…of course algore says that didn’t happen…hockey stick and all you know. Speaking of hockey SUCK IT CANADA!!!!! WOOT!!!

            Stupid irrational national pride.

  4. If it were 100 degrees, or like in 2007 when the Artic sea ice got blown out of the Arctic by the winds of the Arctic Oscillation — Well then ZERO would give us a real speech … “It was worse than expected, we’re all going to die if we don’t pass crap and tax,” yesterday…

  5. …it means the planet as a whole is getting warmer. But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver, which is supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics, suddenly is at 55 degrees, and Dallas suddenly is getting seven inches of snow.

    Weather is not climate, but look at all this freaky weather that helps prove Climate Change.

    Now, let us bow our heads in prayer to AGW…

    1. It’s like that part from 1984 where Winston learns the right answer is “whatever you say it is.”

  6. a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say, see, look at that, there’s all this snow on the ground, this doesn’t mean anything.

    I believe the man is genuinely incapable of constructing an argument without using a straw man. But I’ll continue to defer to all of the progressives who tell me how intelligent he is, all evidence to the contrary.

  7. Funny thing is I remember that not too many years ago small changes in weather DID mean a great deal to the environazis. They use these little changes when they are to their advantage and discredit them when they are not.

    1. That was Al Gore’s testimony before Congress in January 2007, when the cherry blossoms were blooming in Washington during one of the warmest Januaries there in history.

      1. To be fair – even climate scientists think he’s wrong and damaging by constantly making up false claims that are much worse than any actual knowledge… like the core temperature of the Earth 🙂

        1. How many Nobel Prizes have THEY won?

  8. So, does anyone have any new DATA this week?

    1. B-4 is the new Data. Data was killed in Star Trek Nemesis.

      1. I worked with Data. I was friends with Data. I had sex with Data. And let me tell you — B-4 is no Data.

        1. He’s not as…fully functional?

          But what do you know? You died before B4 was found, twice.

      2. He had a good run for a guy with a head that had been detached and sitting in a mineshaft for 500 years.

        1. So did Reagan..

          *gratuitous Simpson’s reference*

      1. And that movie came out several years ago, IIRC, so I don’t know if you could call B-4 “new” Data.

        1. Did he come B-4 or after Data?

        2. B-4 (and Lore) were both built before Data — hence the name. So if anything he’s the old Data (which he isn’t anyway since he’s retarded).

            1. We might have to start calling it “LOLbot”.

    2. I am sure the next rising star in this ‘field’ of ‘science’ is making some up now.

      1. Make up a model to predict the future climate changes as bad.

      2. Make up data to verify the model.

      3. Get some Obamabucks for research

      4. ?

      5. Party!

      1. Actually Suki, you can insert whqatever goverment program that is robbing rights to fit that formula, aka marijuana tabacco co2 etc. amazing aint it, LOL but also weeping for America

        1. Isn’t science beautiful when applied to business? lol

      2. If scientists were smart enough to set up this gig in the 1890’s in an attempt to “Party!” today, we are so darned smart we DESERVE to rule you pathetic fools.

        1. Chad|2.20.10 @ 10:59AM|#
          “we are so darned smart”

          It pretty much goes without saying that if a restaurant *is* world-famous, there’s no reason to put that on the sign.
          Similarly, *if* someone is smart….
          So, Chad, I have a clue; your mom was lying when she told you that.

      3. The downside to step five was that the party was in Copenhagen, and assholes like Robert Mugabe and Nancy Pelosi showed up.

        -jcr

      4. 4. Underpants!

    3. Does anyone have the old DATA?

      1. + infinity

    4. So, does anyone have any new DATA this week?

      Obama doesn’t have any DATA to back up his assertions either, so it’s his fault for setting a bad example for us.

    5. Yes; >60″ of snow in DC.

    6. How about some interesting old predictions? All nine models used in the IPCC-AR4 report predicted decreased winter snow cover for North America. Instead, winter snow cover has actually increased about 5% since 1989.

  9. Last week’s DATA got deleted.

  10. Come on, guys. You can do it. What’s so hard about answering a simple question?

    1. I already answered it 2 min. before you commented. Look up there.

      1. I realize there were some errors in the above comment, but they do not detract from the fact that it is correct.

  11. I heard it was, like REALLY HOT in Seattle last summer.

    1. It was so hot in Austin last summer. Three summers ago, it was crazy cool!

      Global warming!!

  12. “you start seeing changing weather patterns, and that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather. So any single place might end up being warmer; another place might end up being a little bit cooler; there might end up being more precipitation in the air, more monsoons, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more drought in some places, floods in other places.”

    And so anything can be claimed to be global warming…

    I remember some years ago when the US got hit with many hurricanes, scientist came out saying it was not due to global warming it was because hurricanes have around 10 patters of “greater activity” and we were in the tail end of that. A few months later the hurricanes were being blamed on global warming. Yet the last couple of years when we have had relatively few hurricanes(i think, haha) it has NOT been blamed on global warming… I wonder why…

    1. I think that’s global warming too, you just aren’t trying.

      1. The “experts” have been predicting higher-than-normal hurricane activity, and yet the last few years here in south Florida have been quiet.

        Too quiet…

        1. What’s this guy talking about? I mean really. LOL

          Jess
          http://www.anonymous-tools.se.tc

          1. Anon bot replies now? This is how Skynet got started.

              1. The Art! Stop creeping me out.

                1. Correction:

                  10 patterns , I actually wanted to say 10 year patterns.

    2. So Ziggy, why don’t you go out and read up on the latest research on the hurricane/AGW connection? The conclusion that seems to be emerging is that the number of storms will slightly decrease, but the intensity will increase. Overall storm damage is predicted to rise (~30% was one figure I remember) because damage increases exponentially with wind speed. Of course, these changes will be gradual and it will be some time before we can detect the signal amid the noise.

      1. [citation needed]

        1. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/…..CIT,HWELTR

          Keep up with the literature on your own, please. You guys waste a lot of my time asking me to find papers “hidden” in the most obvious places, like the world’s #2 scientific journal, last month.

          1. That study was published less than a month ago. We’ll see if their results are reproducible, however much global warming asserters like to downplay such concerns.

            Also, you have no grounds for complaining that we’re “wasting your time” when you come to this blog of your own free will.

            1. global warming asserters

              That term’s a bit cumbersome. I prefer “climategate deniers” or “the hockey team”.

              -jcr

              1. It’s a play on global warming deniers. I’ll not sit idly by and allow you to minimize my cleverness.

            2. It is very rare for papers to not be reproducible.

              Well, except those written by climate skeptics like Lindzen, which seem to have issues at an uncommonly high rate lately.

              1. Please explain the method by which the results of papers whose authors won’t release their code, or their temperature data, can be reproduced.

                1. By religious faith.

                2. Actually, it has traditionally uncommon for code to be released, as until a few years ago, there wasn’t even a decent way to do it. People reproducing modelling data are expected to be smart and informed enough to reproduce the code from its descriptions in the paper.

                  The vast majority of the data is publically available, and despite a mountain of effort, the deniers have been able to do almost nothing of value with it. That should be telling you something.

              2. Xerox made a fortune reproducing papers.

              3. Yes, except when the data’s missing, fudged, cherry-picked or destroyed, like the last 15 years of CRU data was. How does it feel Chad to know that the foremost experts on AGW would fail a high school lab class? Or that the IPCC passed off an 8 year old telephone conversation by an obscure research student as “peer reviewed” scientific fact. These “scientists” are frauds, and the scientist that doesn’t understand that is a fraud as well.

          2. Sexist!

          3. It’s PEER REVIEWED! It doesn’t matter that we cook the books, we still reviewed it.

            Process;
            Does it support AGW? If yes, publish. If no, lie.

            1. Like expecting the police to police themselves I suppose… but when the narrative is “evil consumerism is killing the world” no amount of logic will win.

              Just like all other fundamentalists – once they get a hold of an idea that proves their view of the world is correct – they will never let it go.

      2. So, something will happen sometime or other?
        BTW, I predict a missing body will be found near a body of water. Sometime.

        1. And a man shall lose his hammer…

      3. Not sure that I agree, try these for some perspective.

        And if the “conclusion that seems to be emerging” means that previous theory’s on global warming and hurricane connectivity with rising CO2 levels have been falsified and replaced when confronted with real world data, then I would agree with you.

        http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot……-1900.html

        http://www.usatoday.com/weathe…..titialskip

        1. Hmmm, a right-wing blog by a leading crackpot, and a mainstream news article that doesn’t say anything useful but just reiterates that weather is chaotic and that it can be hard to seperate signals from noise.

          See my citation above for real science.

          1. Keep enjoying your religion.

          2. a right-wing blog by a leading crackpot

            I know it pisses you off that they’re right and you’re wrong, but calling them names doesn’t change the facts. Al Gore, the IPCC, and the Hockey Team are full of shit. Get over it.

            -jcr

      4. @Chad, ready up on the latest? Does being published more recently somehow make things more correct? It seems rather convenient that on the heels of years with few if any hurricanes making landfall that we now “know” that, despite previous findings, there will be less hurricanes but they’ll be much stronger? That is, what about the science behind the claim that strong hurricanes will be more frequent leads you to believe that this is correct? The reason I ask this is that, IIRC, there is at least one recent study with this finding model failed when backtested.

        1. Not necessarily. But being new AND being published in a top-tier journal typically implies that it is considered a significant advance over previous research, and represents the cutting edge of what we know.

          I seriously doubt we have accurate enough data to backtest this, as it will take decades for any signal to rise out of the noise.

          1. So it’s all a bunch of inaccurate bullshit because there’s no data. Keep praying to your sky daddy.

            1. Go ahead and refute the paper I cited. If you can’t, what does that tell you?

          2. Wow – nothing more than an appeal to authority and a disturbing trust and misunderstanding of the holy endeavor known as “being published”.

      5. I dont know what your point is, is the greater wind speed going to be due to global warming?

      6. > The conclusion that seems to be emerging is that the number of storms will slightly decrease, but the intensity will increase.

        However, the reality has been significantly different.
        http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
        http://www.leshatton.org/Hurricanes_2010.html

        Note that the AGW folks have been predicting increased storm damage for over a decade.

        Oh, and the warming isn’t happening, so it’s unclear why they think that it will be responsible for anything.

        > damage increases exponentially with wind speed.

        You do know that that is physically impossible, right?

        1. With my perpetual home building machine which can put up houses faster than the wind can take them… oh yeah, it is impossible.

        2. Storm damage has more to do with the value of coastal real estate than the intensity of storms. The Florida housing bust is likely to cause damage totals to decline in the coming years, regardless of how intense the hurricanes are.

  13. Just announced: Al Haig (sp?) died at 85.

  14. “First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody is like — a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say, see, look at that, there’s all this snow on the ground, this doesn’t mean anything. I want to just be clear …”

    When Obama says “Let me be clear”, he is praying for help to utter *something* apparently meaningful.

    Continuing to study Obamaese …

    1. Actually, he’s like asking the person like running the teleprompter and/or talking into his earpiece to like feed him something like meaningful.

      1. It’s crazy, ok? But it makes sense if you think about it. LOL

        B
        http://www.anonymous-tools.se.tc

      2. I’m getting weirded out by the thought that the teleprompter and anon bot are … one and the same!

        1. There are some people who would believe such things. But let me be clear, I am Anon Bot. LOL

          T
          http://www.anonymous-tools.se.tc

        2. Isn’t that the entity behind the L.A. freeway message signs?

  15. Since there’s no credit given to this H&R entry, for all we know, anon bot wrote it.

  16. This jackass is going to destroy the Democratic Party. Did anyone else see the headline on Drudge this morning about how Zero is going to shove Obamacare down the country’s throat?

    If Obama gets his way, by 2012 they will be hunting Democrats with dogs. We will be a one party state with Republicans as the only option, which is not a good thing. It is just unbelievable what a lying incompetant shamelss piece of shit he really is. It is quickly becoming clear that it is unfair to compare him to even Jimmy Carter. What a disaster.

    1. Your comment is disgusting. Why don’t you climb back under your rock, or is that sheet?

      1. Your boots are disgusting.

    2. It’s interesting. GWB all but destroyed the Republican party, but Obama’s given them quite a boost over the last year. If he does destroy the Democratic party, I wonder who’s going to restore them? Will the Republicans nominate someone as repugnant as Huckabee or Romney and pull the Democrats back from the brink of oblivion? Stay tuned!

      -jcr

  17. “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.”

    Say what you will about Dumsfeld, at least he made sense.

    1. Obama is the product and the victim of our sick race relations in this country. He has no idea how to make sense because he never has been expected to make sense. He has spent his entire life around guilty white liberals who never questioned him and told him how everything that came out of his mouth was so profound. The guy really can’t make a substantive argument or sum up a complex issue in understandable terms. He just spouts meaningless crap.

      1. Whereas, say, George W Bush came from an environment where he was surrounded by people who would challenge him and not be yes-men. Uh-huh.

        Early in his political career, Obama did get a lot of abuse from Chicago and Illinois politicians who considered him an uppity punk for trying to advance into high office without “paying his dues” first. So I wouldn’t give him the benefit of the excuse of never having been challenged.

        1. Bush was always the President’s son. That made things a lot easier. Of course no one ever had a problem with saying Bush was stupid or pointing out his gaffes. Obama in contrast really has never faced that kind of scrutiny. Maybe the black politicians in Chicago did, but they were the only ones.

          1. Apart from Colbert’s stunt at the 2005 Correspondents Dinner, I seriously doubt Bush ever heard of any non-strawmanned criticism of his administration. And there’s plenty of criticism of Obama out there if he’s looking for it. I doubt he is, but that’s no different from most powerful people. Most people don’t want to hear themselves justly criticized, the difference for the powerful being that they are able to insulate themselves from it in a way that the rest of us can’t (because we deal with people such as bosses and business rivals who aren’t trying to please us all the time).

            1. There is some truth to that. And that is why powerful people get into trouble. They don’t have anyone to tell them no. But I think Obama has spent an entire lifetime in that position rather than just a year as President.

              1. It’s the reason Henry VIII really liked his Fool.

        2. I gaurentee you the people at Harvard and Yale had no problems calling Bush an idiot son. Obama in contrast learned to listen and be opaque and all the white people assumed he was brilliant.

        3. You said uppity, we didn’t. Hear that racism investigating teams?

      2. Congratulations. You make Bill O’Reilly seem gracious and reasonable.

        1. Show me a transcritp where Obama ever put out anything but lies and bullshit and ever has made a good public argument and I will change my opinion. The truth hurts.

          1. There are a lot of reasonable critiques to make about Obama and his administration, just as there were about Bush. I’m just tired of the over-the-top, unfair, and sometimes off-target ad hominem attacks. Take Keith Olbermann and Dick Armey, please…

            1. I’ll take a dick army for one, please.

      3. The guy really can’t make a substantive argument or sum up a complex issue in understandable terms. He just spouts meaningless crap.

        But he does it with no hint of a negro dialect! That’s got to count for something!

    2. What about the things we don’t WANT to know?

  18. Wasn’t there somebody who instructed us (incessantly, and at great length) about how this would be the first truly adult, sophisticated President, whose lofty rhetoric would cause the scales to fall from our eyes, and lead all us poor deluded mortals into the Light of Truth?

    He was wrong.

    1. It wasn’t just someone. It was pretty much everyone in the media. Now they just ignore his gaffes and hope no one will notice.

      David Brooks wrote this inane piece about meeting then Senator Obama and how tight the creases on his pants where and how “this man is going to be President and a good one”. The crap that was written about Obama in 08 makes for some serious comic relief.

      1. “meeting then Senator Obama and how tight the creases on his pants where” Obama is a cowboy from Texas?

  19. “First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody is like — a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change,…”

    No, we are opposed to your catastrophic policies that allegedly “fix” AGW.

  20. so everybody is like…

    It seems to me that what we have here is President Bill S. Preston esq. I really am starting to miss George Bush.

  21. The idea is, is that as the planet as a whole gets warmer, you start seeing changing weather patterns,

    Probably true, but “changing weather patterns” per se are no cause for concern.

    and that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather.

    There is absolutely not one scrap of scientific evidence for this.

    So any single place might end up being warmer; another place might end up being a little bit cooler;

    True.

    there might end up being more precipitation in the air, more monsoons, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more drought in some places, floods in other places.

    Again, totally unsupported by scientific evidence, whether the nonsensical phrase “precipitation in the air” refers to humidity, as I assume he’s trying to do, or rain and snow floating around in the air never touching the ground.

    1. Yeah. and if we are warmer, places like Washington should get more rain, not more snow. Yeah, mabye Buffalo and Boston but Washington being warmer should get less snow and more rain in the winter. Water vapor gives you a wetter climate. But that doesn’t explain snow in Atlanta. Basically there isn’t any weather pattern these people won’t use to justify AGW.

      1. It has also been unusually cold in Austin this year. No snow yet, more rain than usual, after an extremely hot summer.

        Anything’s “evidence” for these people.

  22. Standard Canadian procedure is moan and complain about you all going to war, then quietly making money off it…

    And a hearty, “Well done!” to you, Canada.”

  23. Both agencies said it cannot discuss Thursday’s attack, as it is under investigation, but may increase the use of armed escorts on tax-collection visits.

    Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D) of New York introduced legislation renewing a provision that allowed the IRS to provide armed escorts to employees visiting taxpayers designated as potentially dangerous. The legislation recently passed, and the IRS is taking full advantage of it, says George.

    “We’ve had dozens of armed escorts in the last few months,” he says.

    As for other precautionary measures, George says, “We’ll have to try to stay one step of ahead of these people in the future.”

    Christian Science Monitor

    RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

    1. That is fucked up.

    2. Wow, this is like those old Zorro movies where the evil tax collector and his armed thugs show up to grind another peso out of the pleading peasant’s hand. Too funny.

      Wonder how they decide someone’s “dangerous”…owning legally registered guns, perchance?

      1. They’re dangerous if they don’t cower in fear immediately in the presence of the Mighty IRS.

    3. Classic Washington logic. We’ve been doing this thing (armed IRS escorts) for several years, and now something bad has happened. So in the future we’ll do that thing even more!

  24. I wonder if the deceiver in chief consulted with RFK Jr. who just last year blamed the low snowfall in Northern Virginia on global warming. RFK Jr. said,

    “In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today’s anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.”

    “In those days, I recall my uncle, President Kennedy, standing erect as he rode a toboggan in his top coat, never faltering until he slid into the boxwood at the bottom of the hill. Once, my father, Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, brought a delegation of visiting Eskimos home from the Justice Department for lunch at our house. They spent the afternoon building a great igloo in the deep snow in our backyard. My brothers and sisters played in the structure for several weeks before it began to melt. On weekend afternoons, we commonly joined hundreds of Georgetown residents for ice skating on Washington’s C&O Canal, which these days rarely freezes enough to safely skate.”

    “Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing that global warming is a fantasy.”

    This year we have record snow, exceeding anything that RFK ever experienced at Hickory Hill. We haven’t had a day yet in February where the temperature exceeded the normal high, continuing a consistently frigid winter.

    You would think these manipulative thugs would at least compare notes.

    1. This year we have record snow, exceeding anything that RFK ever experienced at Hickory Hill. We haven’t had a day yet in February where the temperature exceeded the normal high, continuing a consistently frigid winter.

      You would think these manipulative thugs would at least compare notes.

      They do not care about the truth.

    2. In those days, I recall my uncle, President Kennedy, standing erect as he rode a toboggan in his top coat, never faltering until he slid into the boxwood at the bottom of the hill.

      There are just too many potential off-color jokes about this passage. I don’t want to foreclose the possibilities by choosing just one.

  25. The weather is supposed to eternally remain precisely the way it was when you were a child. Period.

    I predict that 40 or so years from now when our current crop of children are in power, they’ll all laugh smugly about global warming and then pass laws to address the next world-wide apocalypse.

    1. November 16, 1952. That’s it. That’s the day that defines Earth’s “normal” temperature. Anything that strays from the November 16, 1952 norm must be resisted. Add a briquet if it gets colder, spray some water on the grill if it gets warmer.

      I like mine just a little pink at the center, got it?

  26. “First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody is like — a lot of the people who are…”

    Let me guess: When he delivered these remarks, Obama was doing that weird, atonal, sort-of-yelling shtick he always does, complete with the put-on accent that actually makes him sound more like a faux hillbilly than the black preacher he thinks he’s channeling.

    I can’t even read his speeches anymore without hearing that grating delivery. I suspect the guy is literally tone-deaf. Unmusical, if you will.

    OK, gonna go watch the video now and see how right I am.

  27. The world is clearly getting cooler as the following link CLEARLY shows.

    http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

    So much smugness.

    And the band played on.

    1. Thank you for illustrating that glaciers advance AND recede.

      Reminds me of a sign that was recently taken down at Rainier National Park, with the headline “Another Ice Age?”, showing an old picture of Snoqualmie glacier being farther up the mountain, then a more recent shot of the glacier being much farther down the mountain — evidence of a cooling climate?

      Then the glacier retreated back up the mountain, and the sign came down.

      I would have much preferred keeping the original sign up, and putting another sign up next to it discussing the hubris of the AGW theory, but alas, one is not allowed to work for the federal government and poke holes in arguments about the Received Wisdom TM.

      1. Got a link to that little story prolefeed?

        On the other hand there is good evidence of other glacier retreats in the Cascades.

        Anyway, yes a glacier can grow here or there in response to climate change, just as President Obama pointed out but the overwhelming number of glaciers worldwide are melting.

        http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/bill.htm

        There is no dispute that glaciers and the ice caps are retreating globally. Even skeptics now acknowledge that. Though now they claim that they are melting because of “geothermal activity”. Anything but climate change.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear…..ation.html

        1. Got a link to that little story prolefeed?

          No. You saying I made that up?

    2. Please note that as some of these particular glaciers are receding, they are exposing ruins of civilizations and towns. This tells us quite clearly that there is no normal size to the glaciers. It also indicates that we are still emerging from the little ice age that hit its peak about 360 years ago.

      (A great deal of evidence points to the size of glaciers being highly dependent on local conditions and that deforestation plays a major role in this.)

      1. If Glaciers Recede, You Must Concede!

      2. What it indicates is that the earth is getting warmer – just as the climate scientists have been saying.

        1. What does the A in AGW stand for again?

          1. If you don’t know I’m not going to tell you.

  28. (…)a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change(…)

    Hmm. I’m sitting on a chair so I wouldn’t fall down – does that make me an opponent of gravity?

  29. First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody is like — a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say, see, look at that, there’s all this snow on the ground, this doesn’t mean anything

    First, no non-delusional person is an “opponent of climate change” — the climate is, and always has been, and always will be changing, with or without people’s involvement, so opposing the inevitable is delusional.

    Second, if you interpret the above to mean “opponents of AGW theory”, then the president is saying that these non-liberal AGW skeptics are saying that 5 feet of snow in Washington means nothing, that that’s just weather.

    Then he goes and makes an rambling statement about the weather that seems to imply that sometimes weather means climate, or maybe not.

    His oratical skills suck once he’s off a teleprompter.

    1. His oratical skills suck once he’s off a teleprompter.

      FTFY.

      1. His oral skills suck. FIFY

  30. So any single place might end up being warmer; another place might end up being a little bit cooler; there might end up being more precipitation in the air, more monsoons, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more drought in some places, floods in other places.

    Or there might be fewer hurricanes, fewer tornadoes, less drought, longer growing seasons, fewer deaths from exposure, lower heating bills, increased crop yields, and greater areas open for cultivation.

    For all these AGW yahoos know, the net effect of their probably illusory relationship between CO2 and temp might be positive for humanity.

    Also, monsoons are seasonal. Where did this meme start that Obama was smart?

    1. Fewer hurricanes? Probably..but they will probably be stronger

      Fewer tornadoes? The evidence is weak on this one, but the best that we have hints that there will be a moderate increase in the types of large storms that spawn tornadoes.

      Less drought? Almost certainly wrong. Predictions are that we will have fewer, bigger precipitation events followed by spans of drought.

      Fewer deaths from exposure? True, but more from wind, storms, floods, hurricanes, heat waves, etc.

      Lower heating bills? True, and this is a net positive, as we spend more to heat than cool. Of course, population shifts might negate this, however.

      Increased crop yields? If AGW is weak, yes. If it is strong, no. It depends on the balance of CO2 fertilization vs increased water stress. The former diminishes with increasing CO2, the latter amplifies.

      More “open areas” for cultivation? I am not sure what you mean. Manitoba will become South Dakota, SD will become Kansas, Kansas will become Texas, and Texas will become a desert. What do we gain, exactly?

      1. Greenland will finally live up to its name.

      2. Chad.

        Are any of these predictions supported by empirical evidence?

        Or are these predictions all outputs from computer models?

        1. Your questions are clearly loaded. How else can you predict the future OTHER than using models? And would you prefer we did the math by hand, with slide rules and table of logarithms?

          1. I know that the sun is going to come up tomorrow without using a model.

            I know that if I release a ball bearing from 9.8 meters above the ground, it will strike the ground 1.0 seconds later. Without a model!

            1. Uh, make that 19.6 meters.

            2. Shit! 4.9 meters. This problem is too simple for my highly advanced knowledge to deal with.

            3. LoL. First, what gives you the idea that Newton’s laws and the earth’s motions aren’t models? Second, you didn’t even get the right answer…it is ~4.9 meters! .5*9.8*(time squared).

              1. The difference is, Newton’s Laws are models that have been tested hundreds of thousands of times all over the world and remain unfalsified (in all but a very narrow and well-defined set of instances where relativity comes into play). Whereas, in the climatology community, few if any models have been put to any sort of objective test, let alone survived them. And the powers that be won’t even release the past temperature data they use to test the models backwards in time.

                1. Yes, Tulpa, everyone understands that certain sciences cannot be tested in a lab (despite which, you guys seem to have absurd levels of certainly about your untestable economic theories…). When you happen to have a few hundred cloned earths, and a giant machine that can put them all into fast forward, let us know. We will be happy to run the experiments and test the effects of various gas concentrations on the climate.

                  That being impossible, we have to deal with the cards we are dealt. When paleogeology, physical modelling, and actual measurements of climate are all in reasonable agreement, that’s the best you can hope for. The rough answer is 2x CO2 = 3C, with a scary possibility of being quite a bit higher. Also note that our emissions are tracking along the worst case projections, making 3x CO2 (~4.5C) looking like a very real possibility, and even 4x CO2 within reason (~6C).

                  This is serious business, and the people of the future are going to stick it squarely on your shoulders. I am quite certain they won’t mind if their IpodNano 10000 is delayed a few weeks, as a result of us diverting some of our resources to save part of the natural world and preventing the climate from spinning out of control.

                  1. Speak for yourself, commie.

                  2. This is serious business, and the people of the future are going to stick it squarely on your shoulders. I am quite certain they won’t mind if their IpodNano 10000 is delayed a few weeks, as a result of us diverting some of our resources to save part of the natural world and preventing the climate from spinning out of control.

                    The climate is not going to spin out of control.

                    That being impossible, we have to deal with the cards we are dealt. When paleogeology, physical modelling, and actual measurements of climate are all in reasonable agreement, that’s the best you can hope for. The rough answer is 2x CO2 = 3C, with a scary possibility of being quite a bit higher. Also note that our emissions are tracking along the worst case projections, making 3x CO2 (~4.5C) looking like a very real possibility, and even 4x CO2 within reason (~6C).

                    Why not just wait to find out if the hypothesis proves true before pronouncing judgment? That is how science is done.

                    1. Why don’t you wait until you are actually flying off the cliff before hitting your brakes?

                      *facepalm*

                    2. When “hitting the brakes” entails condemning billions of people to destitute misery for decades to come* — you’d better be damned sure there’s a cliff ahead and that hitting the brakes will keep you from going over it.

                      * Yes, I know you guys think there are some magical green technologies we’re just on the verge of discovering, that have been supressed by the oil companies, but the reality is that 6B+ people cannot live at anything higher than subsistence level if carbon emissions are restricted to the levels they were at in 1900, which is what you loons are claiming to be necessary.

                    3. Why don’t you wait until you are actually flying off the cliff before hitting your brakes?

                      For one thing, the effects of flying off a cliff is easily calculated from Einstein’s theory of gravity.

                  3. When paleogeology, physical modelling, and actual measurements of climate are all in reasonable agreement, that’s the best you can hope for.

                    Actually, it isn’t. You can also go and ask forecasting scientists what the track record is for this kind of modelling and expert prediction. Guess what, the answer is “Not good.” The IPCC predictions violate 72 principles of scientific forecasting and have not even been reviewed as forecasts. It’s silly to spend trillions of dollars on something that probably isn’t real.

                    This is serious business, and the people of the future are going to stick it squarely on your shoulders…preventing the climate from spinning out of control.

                    It’s not serious, and the only thing spinning out of control is warmenists’ imaginations and messiah complexes.

                    1. Also, the measurements are NOT in agreement with modelling. Hansen’s 1988 Model A predicts way more warming than has actually materialized, the 2000 predictions are already looking bad, and as we enter the portions of the predicted trends where current models predict a big warming curve that most likely won’t materialize either.

                      These models are designed to produce funding by playing on the fears of the gullible.

                    2. You would have a good point, if forcings in fact tracked model A. However, they actually tracked model B.

                      http://www.realclimate.org/ind…..ojections/

                      Guess what? Model B is looking pretty good.

                    3. Except Model B was built against an assumption of lower greenhouse emissions, whereas Model A was built against the emissions we actually see. By confounding this with “forcings” Gavin is pulling his usual crap of hiding the portions of the data he doesn’t like.

                      You should never take anything on RealClimate at face value. They are an AGW agitprop outfit.

                    4. Oh, and notice Gavin’s graph conveniently stops in 2005 — right where Model B starts to go way out of whack with actual temps.

                      In fact, even Model C now shows too much warming.

                      http://www.lesjones.com/www/images/posts/hansen2.gif

      3. There will most likely be less drought because higher temps mean more moisture in the air.

        Texas will not become any more of a desert than it is now. Deserts are not the result of slightly higher global temps, but of rainfall and land usage patterns. There will be less water stress, not more.

        Most AGW predictions are made by people with their thumbs firmly on the scale.

        1. There will most likely be less drought because higher temps mean more moisture in the air.

          Higher temps would lead to less condensation to form rain clouds, though, so it would balance out.

        2. If it is a 100 degrees out and it doesn’t rain for a month, you have a drought, regardless of whether the humidity is 1% or 1.1%.

          It is interesting you seem to firmly believe that the science on this matter is completely wrong.

          1. Actually, temperature increases would not increase relative humidity. If anything they would depress it, since the denominator (saturated vapor pressure) becomes larger with increasing temperature.

          2. The science says drought is caused by rainfall patterns. There is no reason to expect higher temps to mean less rainfall.

            The Amazon isn’t a desert.

          3. If it is a 100 degrees out and it doesn’t rain for a month, you have a drought, regardless of whether the humidity is 1% or 1.1%.

            Also, this isn’t entirely true — plants experience water stress as a function of humidity. Have you ever heard of a high humidity desert?

            1. Much of the Arabian Desert on the southern shore of the Gulf is humid as fuck.

              1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Desert

                Climate
                Type : hyper arid
                Detailed description : Most of the Rub’al-Khali is classified as hyper-arid

                1. Hey Dave? I said southern SHORE. Plus, I’ve been there a significant portion of the last 6 years of my life. It’s stinking humid MOST of the time.

                  In Dubai in June you can get out of your car and instantly be covered in condensation – yes, condensation, not sweat – at 115 degrees. That’s humid.

    2. Hey, neat thought. Just like the one that Western Fuels paid $250,000 to the professional skeptical group, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change to make a movie out of The Greening of Planet Earth!

      Yeah! Let’s pump even more carbon into the atmosphere! It’ll be heaven!

  31. Follow the links that begin here to see just how MUCH cooler the world has been getting!

    https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_1579819

  32. Chode @ 2:16 “Less drought? Almost certainly wrong”

    Nope. Africa’s only getting greener, which we now know thanks to satellites. More CO2=less stomata opening required to get CO2=less H2O lost=less water stress. Now wipe Al Gore off your lip.

    1. Do you think scientists don’t know this and factor it in?

  33. It’s not getting warmer and the weather isn’t doing anything unusual. The mean temperature is going up because seasons change as the warmer seasons get longer. Just because we invented seasons doesn’t mean the giant ball of nuclear fire in the sky must obey and go in a perfect circle every year nor does it burn consistently. The sun has a cycle of around 22 years and even this isn’t consistent due to so many variables. In reality temperature extremes are not changing so it’s not getting warmer, period. If anything the climate now is rather average in historical terms. They need to stop this fear mongering unscientific bullshit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records

    1. Some scientists point out that while the mean temperature is going up, the daytime temperature is not, but the nighttime temperature is. Furthermore, this effect is most dramatic in areas of greater deforestation. (And, it seems, that the greater the poverty the greater the deforestation. Poverty, and famine, are very connected with totalitarian governments, not democratic systems with free enterprise.)

      “If anything the climate now is rather average in historical terms”

      Depends which history. Compared to the last several million years, it’s actually quite hot. Go back 50 million years and it’s quite cool. Go back 100 million years and it’s very hot. And so forth.

  34. Dear Mr. President: Vancouver is getting little snow and Dallas is getting snow because we’re in an El Ni?o year. Check with your colleagues at NOAA.
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/impacts.html

  35. Chad,
    Just curious. You obviously believe strongly that Global Warming is true and coming. What are you doing personally to protect yourself? Are you moving North? We know people who moved to Maine because of GW.
    You can also profit from all of this. If you get the jump on everyone else their is piles of money to be made. There is a lot of cheap land in Manitoba right now and even in South Dakota. Tell us what steps you are taking.
    Put up or…

    1. I live in in the upper midwest, surrounded by the last place on earth that would run out of fresh water (though we will lose some, for sure).

      Maybe we will sell it for some insane profit to the idiots living in AZ.

      1. More likely, the federal government you love and serve will take it from you by force to please regions with more electoral votes.

        1. When they send us 360 days of sunshine a year, they have a deal.

          1. I don’t think you understand. There is no deal; there is compliance with the will of the People (as embodied by the Government they have chosen), or there is punishment.

      2. Oh, and Obama’s hometown is on its way sucking Lake Michigan dry with its policy of routing its wastewater out to the Des Plaines River and off into the Mississippi River system, instead of back into the lake. Traverse City has giant posts sticking up a couple of meters above the water level, that used to be completely submerged (and swimmers used to be able to swim right above with no problems).

        1. Kenya is sucking lake Michigan dry?

          1. Your mom is sucking me dry, you racist scum.

            1. Racist? Do you recognize that calling acts racist which are not devalues the term?

              Or was that your goal?

        2. Hmmm, and that drop in lake levels would have NOTHING to do with diminished ice cover in the winter and faster evaporation year round, now would it…

          I wonder what would cause THAT to happen?

          Traverse City is still a great place, though.

          1. Most of the water evaporating during the winter falls as lake effect snow in the Great Lakes watershed. So any effect of that would be minimal, especially compared to the glaring 3 million gallons a day disappearing into the maw of Daleytown.

      3. Lame response Chad. Can’t you answer a simple question?
        If you truly believe this stuff you should be investing in land hand over fist.

  36. Obammy is starting to sound like member of the Borg collective. Resistance is futile!

    http://www.soundboard.com/sb/The_Borg_Sound.aspx

  37. Folks, let’s put our thinking caps on and turn this around. The global warming folks have already scammed their millions, what could we do for the next big scare? What about worrying about aliens reading our minds, and we’ll see aluminum hats to protect our thoughts from aliens? Or we could sell “zombie killing” devices for protection from the Z1Fu virus, or something. The dudes who invented “Teen Age Mutant Turtles” made a bundle making stuff up, just like global warming. Turn on those creative juices, invent something both fantastical and probable, scare people, and then rake in the dough. How about “air pollution is going to make going about a certain altitude impossible? Then all the mountain folks gotta move into valleys? Whaddya say?

  38. “Opponents of climate change”

    Uh, wouldn’t that be everybody? I mean if the ill effects are even half of what the warmists claim why wouldn’t everyone be hoping that the global warming thing is wrong and cheer any contrary evidence that appears?

    This is what makes me think it’s on one level a scam. If anyone was even half convinced that AGW, if true, would lead to huge floods, mammoth hurricanes, terrible droughts and other assorted mayhem wouldn’t any rational person cheer on the sceptics and hope like hell they were correct in their scepticism. Instead we see scientists who seem disappointed when proof does not appear that they are correct in their theory.
    Doesn’t make sense unless they don’t really believe the ill effects will be very great.

  39. more unpredictable weather.

    Damn, so forecasts beyond 12hrs will be even less reliable than they are now.

  40. I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn’t mean that every place is getting warmer; it means the planet as a whole is getting warmer.

    Isn’t ‘every place’ the whole planet? Or can we find a way to trade our hotness for some of the excess coolness that will be found in ‘those other places’? I say we make an amendment to the Cap n Trade bill that says if you’re one of the places that’s cooler, you have to take some of our degrees if we’re hotter.

  41. I’ve created or saved 2M jobs. Prove I didn’t.

    The earth is warming or cooling…actually, it’s doing both. This is caused by man. Prove that it isn’t.

    See? It’s easy!

  42. If Obama can still reach a microphone, there’s not enough snow. Therefore Global Warming is real.

  43. (…)a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change(…)

    Does no one else find this choice of words strangely revealing? He’s placed himself rhetorically on the side of “proponents of climate change”… Not, rhetorically, with proponents of AGW theory, but with those people who support the changing of the climate.

    Revealing inasmuch as a certain class of people warns about death and disaster while needing and insisting on that disaster.

  44. Hard to beleive he got educated a decade earlier than me and has such a total lack of ability to critically look at evidence.

    1. Oh, he’s perfectly capable of critical thinking. He just spends all of his time trying to convince you that you don’t.

      Intellectual dishonesty /= stupidity

  45. The pertinent parts of his speech.

    First of all, they say, see, look at that. I want to just be clear that the, but what it may mean. The idea is, so I just.

  46. The pertinent parts of his speech.

    First of all, they say, see, look at that. I want to just be clear that the, but what it may mean. The idea is, so I just.

  47. Everything he knows about science and economics could fit in a toilet bowl.

    1. See my above reply

  48. He knows a lot about business and investing. Especially profit and earnings ratios.

  49. Fez, the hesitancy when off prompter is just him searching for the right shade of Sophistry. He never learned to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good…… ;^)

    1. It ain’t easy foolin’ all them stupid people.

  50. Preemptive mea culpas for the double negative.

  51. Has anybody stopped to consider that Obama may actually be an idiot? I want to see him in a face to face debate with an articulate person, I don’t think he’ll fare so well…

    1. He’s not stupid. He just isn’t as smart or eloquent as he is propped up to be. He’s far from stupid. He is very personable, the kind of guy that will turn your opinion and make you feel good about it until you start to think about it or enter the conversation with a healthy dose of skepticism.

      Say one thing, do the other, then explain why it was someone else fault and you had to.

      1. Obama is an example of what happens when a great deal of intelligence is invested in ignorance.

        The most brilliant Marxist in the world is still working with a set of ideas that just don’t work.

        1. Helped by a people willing to believe that giving good… hell, giving great speeches in any way equates to real leadership or critical thinking.

  52. “Snow in Vancouver”

    Uh, no. I live just a few hours up the coast from Vancouver, and we get no snow here. We’re right next to the Pacific – ocean currents pretty much prevent us from getting snow any more than a week or so out of the whole year.

    The issue at Vancouver is that it’s warmer than normal (that is a fact, it is one of the warmer years on record), so the mountains have less snow then they should. However, this is unsuprising as Vancouver was really a borderline-climate for hosting the Olympics.

  53. According to Obama’s rationale any temperature fluctuation up or down, any period of rain or drought, any wind or any still air, any snowfall, any thaw, i.e. any weather of any kind at any time, anywhere incontrovertibly indicates Global Warming.

    Well, he did win in Iraq despite the Surge, his Stimulus created jobs despite rising unemployment, his Health Care will cut the deficit despite vastly increased expenditure, he has banned lobbyists from his Administration despite hiring them by the dozen, he refuses to increase middle class taxes despite planning to levy more, he has closed Gitmo by keeping it open and promised to imprison KSM forever despite insisting on Constitutional due process.

    The First Black President pales before The Real Thing. All Clinton managed to do was smoke weed despite not inhaling, and not have sex with “that woman” despite her blue dress.

    Must be a Democrat thing. After all, in election after election multitudes of citizens vote for them despite being dead.

  54. “The idea is, is that as the planet as a whole gets warmer, you start seeing changing weather patterns, and that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather.”

    According to Phil Jones (CRU) there has been NO discernable “Global Warming” for the last 15 years. If there has been no warming, how can warming be responsible for “more violent storm systems” and “more unpredictable weather”?????

  55. UNBELIEVABLE SMUGNESS:
    I know the blogosphere is rife with contrarian, arrogant self-puffery, but I do believe the superiority-complex on display in the above comments has averaged an unparalleled level (I checked the smug-o-meter).
    Wisdom generally requires a modicum of epistemic modesty; and is usually only possessed by those individuals capable of charitably interpreting others (rather than assuming the most mindless interpretation).
    If you all are half as brilliant as you suppose yourselves, then you can do better than this.
    (even if, admittedly, SOME of it was kinda witty).

    1. Please, don’t judge us by Chad’s comments.

      1. …and if you read enough of Chad’s posts you will realize he, unlike you, is mindless.

    2. UNBELIEVABLE COINCIDENCE:
      Isn’t it a little smug to berate a group of commenters as smug and lacking what you see as the requirements for wisdom?

      1. And, “HE WHO SMELT IT DEALT IT”?

        To answer your question: no, one need not be an arrogant jerk to detect arrogance.
        If this forum wasn’t named “Reason”, I’d suspect some fallacious reasoning was afoot 😉

  56. Just because we’re smug doesn’t mean we’re wrong. Besides, I’d say we’re only mildly self-satisfied. We’re aspiring to your level of smugness.

    1. wow, seriously, this is how you respond to critiques of this forum?
      “TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE”?? — sigh.

      (see the “he who smelt it…” comment above)

      1. On a more serious note, take a look at the “John Blake” comment below (find the “Barak Banana” reference).
        And ask yourself, is a reasoned exchange of ideas really the goal here, or something else?
        Consider: If it’s even possible that the scientific community’s global climate-change model has validity, then that mere possibility deserves a global-debate of the very best sort.
        This isn’t it. But maybe it could be? If not here, on a site called “Reason”, then where?

        1. This is just one of about a thousand threads on this site discussing AGW. On many of them (especially the ones regarding new data or theories to explain why the previous models were wrong) there is a good bit of actual discussion. This particular post was about the incredible smugness displayed by the POTUS on this issue. You can hardly expect people not to react in kind. And even then, many of the posters engaged in a far more serious discussion than you’ll ever see on many of the blogs dedicated solely to AGW. This site is one of the few places where people can vent to a built-in audience with no restrictions on what they say (at least none that I’ve found, I know that there has been at least one ban in the past, but I don’t know why)and it can be a bit cathartic to do so. It seems that this particular article was tailor-made for that purpose.

  57. Seems to be a common practise here among all these smugly snarky skeptics (SSS), who seem to think they are soooo clever, to just make up all kinds of conspiratorial stories from whole cloth about those evil climate change scientists and the science and spew it here as truth generally followed by no supporting evidence whatsoever, unless, of course, it’s to other websites making the same claims, again with no evidence whatsoever.

    Plus I read all kinds of conflicting comments, the earth is cooling! No it is warming but it’s explained by the fact that we are coming out of a little ice age! It’s the sun! It’s geothermal activity! It’s those commies! Obama is a Nazi who wants to rape your daughter! Barf! Barf! Barf! Barf!

    The lack of humility here tells me most of you aren’t at all interested in truth.

    Hey, I think Rush is coming on now. Better go turn on your radios for a refill!

    1. Speaking of spewing without supporting evidence, background, and generalization. Did you proof that post with a straight face?

      See I can ad hom with the best of them.

  58. Let’s face it, Barak Banana exhibits third-order, triple-integral asininity: He knows that AGW is a stupid scam; he knows that everyone else knows; and he knows we know that indeed he does know rancid Luddite sociopaths are pushing his puerile Green Gang agenda.

    Why this hateful little twerp with his dull-eyed visage of pulled-pork persists in publicizing such delusions is a mystery. Even clinical narcissism has its limits… if the Hopey One hasn’t realized yet that he is auditioning for Clown College, his suppurating self-regard is irremediable.

  59. Inhofe Releases Climategate Report During EPW Hearing

    Folks take a look at this! Our futures are at stake! Help to back him up! In Canada back up Bernier

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded
    Inhofe Releases Climategate Report During EPW Hearing

    And this:Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

  60. Hot Air: Obamateurism of the Day
    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..e-day-220/

  61. 4. And lastly I have no hope that that will happen. We’re to comfortable in our Brave New World society. So even as unhappy as we are we won’t give up our “reality tv” and blogging long enough to do anything about it.
    http://www.jerseyb2c.org/ NFL Jerseys
    http://www.pumab2c.com/ Puma Shoes

  62. http://www.eccob2c.com/ Ecco Shoes
    http://www.sneakershow.us/ Nike Sneakers
    i guess he should be living on the goverment dollar and pay our friends in mexico to kill one another.thats probley better anyway

  63. http://www.christianlouboutint…..utin Boots
    thats probley better anyway
    http://www.sneakershow.us/ Nike Sneakers
    nd lastly I have no hope

  64. http://www.christianlouboutintown.com/
    thats probley better anyway
    http://www.sneakershow.us/ Nike Sneakers
    nd lastly I have no hope

  65. http://www.jersey-shoping.com/
    1. The fed is an illegal operation run by the government so its kind of useless to fight it.
    MLB Jerseys
    http://www.purseb2c.com/ Designer Handbags

  66. he fed is an illegal operation run by the government http://www.oilpainting-sale.net/ so its kind of useless to fight it.
    MLB Jerseys http://www.hotsell-edhardy.com/ Ed Hardy

  67. 2 – 3 ounces each. Most people get less. So, that’s about 4 to 6 pounds. Not much. http://www.christianlouboutintown.com/
    http://www.hotsale-watch.com/ Replica Watches

  68. I am happy to visit here. I hope you continue to do the sharing through the post to the reader. http://www.bellspharmacy.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.