The incompetent politician Obama came to the Presidential office in a world wide surge of belief that he would change things for the better.
But his performance has resulted in little of substance.To call it s’house is praising it. One can hardly point to a thing that has improved under his captaincy.
Obamacare is the biggest disaster by far, but US national prestige and employment has fallen while corruption has risen.
What to do to rekindle the flame? He wants to have his name in the history books for something other than incompetence and playing golf.
Ah! Of course. Global Warming. Bring out a big paper on it and tell the world once again how he is going to save it.
When he pulled his head out of where the sun doesn’t shine he was told that there is no such thing as ‘global warming’, it is as dead as the dodo. And he can forget Climate Change too and the other substitutes. His team have a new one – Climate Disruption – an expression devoid of meaning. If it was a domino, it would be a double blank. ‘Climate disruption’ peppers this report.
It is hard to laugh through a clenched jaw, but his sudden declaring of an emergency with yards of re-spun irrelevant data, has triggered guffaws from real climate scientists.
In recent years, the rate of sea-level rise has dropped, hurricanes and tornadoes are are getting rarer, polar sea ice is increasing and blizzards, droughts and floods are below past records. In fact, the ice is so thick that the polar bears, the pin-ups of the scam, are having trouble finding areas where they can crash through for a bit of a feed of fish.
Obama’s laughable report is the predictable result when hard-core environmental activists are chosen to write up a climate assessment for the approval and revisions of, the Obama administration.
The lead authors of the report are staffers for activist groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, Planet Forward, Nature Conservancy and the usual suspects. The report is 800 pages long and it would take 8000 pages to rebut the lies, inconsistencies, evasions and spin contained in it. It reads like a press release dreamed up by Christine Milne on bad acid.
Bear with one small example by an Australian, John Ray.
Forgive me while I laugh
It would be absurd for me to try to read the whole 800 pages of Obama’s recent climate “Report” but I thought I should at least dip into it. I went to the section “Recent U.S. Temperature Trends” and clicked the “supporting evidence” gadget.
I found that the evidence was in the form of four workshops. I picked the workshop on heat waves with T.C. Peterson as lead author. The “workshop” was in the form of an academic journal article (“Monitoring and Understanding Changes in Heat Waves, Cold Waves, Floods and Droughts in the United States- State of Knowledge”) published by the American Meteorological Society in June 2013.
So I went to the article, didn’t I? Academic articles have no terrors for me. I have written plenty of them.
The article was a ball of fun.
It started out admitting that the the data was so diverse that it was difficult to draw conclusions from it. So they had the workshop so that participants could discuss the data and come to a consensus. In other words the conclusions were an opinion about the data, not the data itself.
And under the heading HEAT WAVES AND COLD WAVES (Subsection “Observed changes”), the fun really began. We read for instance:
“For heat waves “the highest number of heat waves occurred in the 1930s, with the fewest in the 1960s. The 2001–10 decade was the second highest but well below the 1930s.”
Come again??? That is supposed to prove global warming? I could make a better case for it proving global cooling. You should read the whole thing. It’s a riot (unintentionally). They conclude what they want to conclude and evidence be damned.
I am pleased, however, that the scientists were rather frank. The “Report” as a whole however is a heap of corruption. Its authors did not at all reflect the science in their own report — JR