Does the ‘leader’ of the free world really know so little about climate?

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Mr. Obama’s remarks at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy’s Commencement May 20 demonstrate the extent to which his advisors are keeping him divorced from the facts.

President Barack Obama delivers the commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn., May 20, 2015. During his comments, Obama discussed the impact of climate change on national security. DoD screen shot

President Barack Obama delivers the commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn., May 20, 2015. During his comments, Obama discussed the impact of climate change on national security.
DoD screen shot

The bulk of his speech was devoted to what is now becoming more and more obviously a non-problem: “the challenge … that, perhaps more than any other, will shape your entire careers – and that’s the urgent need to combat and adapt to climate change.”


Some facts. In the 11 years 2004-2014, the rate of global warming taken as the mean of the three terrestrial datasets was one-twentieth of a degree. The ARGO ocean dataset shows warming of one-fortieth of a degree. The mean of the two satellite datasets shows no warming at all. Subject to formidable uncertainties, the ARGO database gives perhaps the best guide to the underlying warming rate. None of these real-world measurements is the stuff of what Mr Obama called “a peril that can affect generations”.


Next: “Climate change is real”. Well, yes. So is the M31 galaxy.


The question is whether it’s a threat. On the evidence to date, the answer is No for global warming, and Yes for M31, which already occupies ~ 3 degrees of arc in the sky, making it bigger than the moon (but it won’t hit us for 4 billion years or so – much like manmade global warming at the present rate). [UPDATE: recent findings show the ‘halo’ of the galaxy to be even larger]

The Andromeda galaxy M31 is larger than the moon, but isn't noticeable due to its low brightness. Composite photo by Tom Buckley-Houston; background taken by Stephen Rahn on June 10, 2013.

The Andromeda galaxy M31 is larger than the moon, but isn’t noticeable due to its low brightness. Composite photo by Tom Buckley-Houston; background taken by Stephen Rahn on June 10, 2013.

Next: “Our analysts in the intelligence community know climate change is happening.  Our military leaders — generals and admirals, active duty and retired — know it’s happening.  Our homeland security professionals know it’s happening.  And our Coast Guard knows it’s happening.” Me too! Me too! The question is how fast it’s happening (not very), and how much it is to do with us (not much) and whether it will get worse (no) and whether it will be cheaper to act today than to act tomorrow (a unanimous No from almost every economist who has written a peer-reviewed paper on the subject, and even from the IPCC).

Next: “The planet is getting warmer: 14 of the 15 hottest years on record have been in the past 15 years.” No. 14 of the 15 hottest years since 1850 have been in the past 15 years. So what? The “n out of n+1 years were the hottest evaaah” is how babies do statistical trends. Yes, the planet is getting warmer, but at a glacial and unthreatening rate. The medieval (1400 AD), Roman (300 BC), Minoan (1400 BC), Old Kingdom (2250 BC) and Holocene (4000-8000 BC) warm periods were all warmer than today. Yet here we all are.

Next: “Our scientists at NASA just reported that some of the sea ice around Antarctica is breaking up even faster than expected. Not exactly surprising, given that at present it has reached the greatest extent for the time of year observed in the 35-year satellite era. Why did Mr Obama not mention that (or any) fact, by way of balance?


Next: “The world’s glaciers are melting, pouring new water into the ocean.  Over the past century, the world sea level rose by about eight inches.  That was in the last century; by the end of this century, it’s projected to rise another one to four feet.” Actually, most of the world’s glaciers are in Greenland and Antarctica. There are 160,000 of them. Most of them have never been visited, measured, or monitored by Man. And the rate of sea level rise according to tide gauges shows little acceleration compared with the past 150 years. The laser-altimetry satellites, the only ones that purport to show accelerating sea-level rise, have inter-calibration errors that exceed the sea-level rise they purport to measure. The GRACE satellites showed sea level falling from 2003-2008 and only showed an increase when an entirely artificial “glacial isostatic adjustment” was added to make the results conform. The Envisat satellite, during its eight years in operation from 2004-2012, showed sea level rising at a rate equivalent to just 1.3 inches per century. And why would we expect more, given the fact that the sea is barely warming?

Mr Obama talked of climate change as “the most severe threat” that “will impact every country on the planet … a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act – and we need to act now.” No, we don’t. The evidence just isn’t there.

Then we get the “D” word: “Denying it, or refusing to deal with it, endangers our national security.  It undermines the readiness of our forces.” No, it doesn’t. The mean rate of warming on the terrestrial datasets since 1979 is 0.14 degrees. On the satellite datasets, 0.11 degrees. In the oceans, we don’t know: the measurement method that immediately preceded the ARGO network, the XBT network, showed ocean cooling and had to be adjusted to make it fit the story-line. Same with the ARGO network, which originally showed cooling and had to be adjusted. Even then, it only shows warming at a rate equivalent to a quarter of a degree per century.


These adjustments to the sea temperature records, like just about every other adjustment ever made to the terrestrial or ocean networks, have always been in an ever-upward direction. The probability that so many measurements on so many different systems over so long as a century (for the terrestrial records) and a third of that (for the satellite records) and a third of that (for the ARGO record) would all have erroneously understated global warming is as near nil as makes no difference.

Next: “Confronting climate change is now a key pillar of American global leadership.  When I meet with leaders around the world, it’s often at the top of our agenda – a core element of our diplomacy.” So much more congenial than dealing with real problems, like the murder of Christians in Muslim war zones, the trafficking of children by the million to compensate for the distorting effects of the one-child policy in China, the subsidies by Russia to anti-fracking groups in Europe to keep the gas price artificially high, the stupefying expansion of the U.S. national debt under Mr Obama, the failure of the U.S. Coastguard and border farce to control her own borders, the abandonment of millions of poor people to substandard health care thanks to “Obamacare”, the exaggerations about the supposed “threat” of climate change …

Next: “The effects of climate change are so clearly upon us.  It will shape how every one of our services plan, operate, train, equip, and protect their infrastructure, their capabilities, today and for the long term.” No, it won’t: not once one foreign-born occupant of the White House is replaced by another less scientifically illiterate.

Next: “Rising seas are already swallowing low-lying lands, from Bangladesh to Pacific islands, forcing people from their homes.  Caribbean islands and Central American coasts are vulnerable, as well.” No, on all counts. In Bangladesh a site survey by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner showed that the only loss of sea shore was caused by erosion after the natives grubbed up mangrove trees to make way for shrimp farms. Sea level was actually falling there. Surveys of Pacific islands show no sea-level rise for long periods – in the Maldives, none for 1500 years. Corals, after all, grow to match sea-level rise.


Next: “Globally, we could see a rise in climate change refugees.” In 2005 the U.N. said there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010. When there weren’t, a Professor Christina Tirado said in 2011 it would happen by 2020. It won’t. Betcha.


Next: “More intense droughts will exacerbate shortages of water and food, increase competition for resources, and create the potential for mass migrations and new tensions.  All of which is why the Pentagon calls climate change a threat multiplier.” Hao et al. (2014), publishing the most comprehensive survey of global land area under drought, found that there had been little change over the past 30 years, and the change had been in the direction of less land suffering drought.

Next: “Severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram.” But the IPCC, in its special report of 2012 on extreme weather, and in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, says one cannot yet ascribe such individual events to global warming. And that is particularly true given that the area of the globe under drought is in decline.

Next: “It’s now believed that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East.” Same applies. There’s no evidence that particular droughts are attributable to climate change, particularly when the incidence and prevalence of drought are both somewhat declining worldwide. And the doubling of world food prices in recent years was chiefly attributable to taking millions of acres out of growing food for people who need it and using them to grow biofuels for clunkers that don’t.

Next: “Around the world, climate change will mean more extreme storms.” No, it won’t. Extreme storms are caused not by “more energy in the system because of climate change”, but by temperature differentials between adjacent regions of the climate system. Those temperature differentials will decline if and when global warming resumes, certainly reducing extra-tropical storminess and arguably reducing it in the tropics too. No surprise then, that the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index has shown the combined frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes and other tropical cyclones to have been at or near the lowest level in the satellite era over the past five years; there have now been seven or eight years without a major hurricane making landfall in the U.S., the longest hurricane deficit in more than a century; and even the IPCC admits that there has been no particular increase either in tropical or in extra-tropical storminess to date.


Next: “No single weather event can be blamed solely on climate change.  But [blaming a single event on climate change] Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines gave us a possible glimpse of things to come – one of the worst cyclones ever recorded.” The weather, like the cricket, will keep setting new records regardless of whether the world is getting gently warmer, gently cooler or not changing at all. Besides, we know that Haiyan and other recent extreme-weather events, such as Sandy, were not caused by “global warming”, for the good and sufficient reason that for more than 18 years there has been little (terrestrial datasets), a smidgen (ocean datasets) or none at all (satellite datasets). That which has hardly happened is far less likely to have caused Haiyan or Sandy than the natural and mathematically-chaotic variability of the climate.

Next: “Climate change means Arctic sea ice is vanishing faster than ever.  By the middle of this century, Arctic summers could be essentially ice free.” Not that again. Al Gore said in Bali in 2007 that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013. Nope. The accident-prone Vicky Pope (what is it with Popes and climate change?) of the accident-prone Wet Office said in 2009 that all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2014. Double Nope. So now it will all be gone by 2050. Any advance on 2050, anyone?

Next: “Climate change, and especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people.  Already, today, in Miami and Charleston, streets now flood at high tide.  Along our coasts, thousands of miles of highways and roads, railways, energy facilities are all vulnerable.  It’s estimated that a further increase in sea level of just one foot by the end of this century could cost our nation $200 billion.” But that’s not much more than the previous century’s established, pre-global-warming rate of sea-level rise. And has no one told Mr Obama of the tectonic subsidence of the South-East coast of the United States?

Next: “In New York Harbor, the sea level is already a foot higher than a century ago – which was one of the reasons Superstorm Sandy put so much of lower Manhattan underwater.” Now, given that sea level rose 8 inches globally in the last century, following a long-established rate of rise, there were bound to be some places, depending on local tectonic displacements, among many other factors, that would see a little more sea-level rise than others. So what? Sandy was not caused by climate change in any event: it was an unusual confluence of three storms from different directions in exactly the wrong place. And Sandy would have done just as much damage had sea level been a foot lower.

Next: “Around Norfolk, high tides and storms increasingly flood parts of our Navy base and an airbase.” Regional subsidence again. On only one measure – the poorly inter-calibrated laser-altimetry satellite series – has there been any “acceleration” in the rate of sea-level rise, and even that modest “acceleration”, suspiciously, occurred precisely in the very year when the satellite altimetry record commenced, suggesting that it was not a real change but an artefact of the altered method of measurement. As noted earlier, the GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites only show rapid sea-level rise after the addition of a monstrous and unreal “glacial isostatic adjustment”, which was introduced at the very moment when even the official sea-level record was about to dip below 3 mm a year.


Next: “In Alaska, thawing permafrost is damaging military facilities.” And is reopening to agriculture lands not cultivated since the Middle Ages. What’s bad about that?  Besides, there was more thawing in the 1920s and 1930s than today. Was that caused by manmade global warming? No.

Next: “Out West, deeper droughts and longer wildfires could threaten training areas our troops depend on.” And that, like so much of Mr Obama’s speech, is a manifestly inappropriate argument from the particular to the general – the fallacy of converse accident, or argumentum a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, as the medieval schoolmen called it – that Aristotle excoriated as one of the commonest among the untutored and sophistical 2350 years ago. Globally, the land area under drought has been declining gently throughout the satellite era. In that context, blaming a regional drought on global warming is unsound.

Next: “Helping American communities prepare to deal with the impacts of climate change: we have to help our bases and ports, as well. Not just with stronger seawalls and natural barriers, but with smarter, more resilient infrastructure – because when the seas rise and storms come, we all have to be ready.” According to Professor Mörner, who has written more papers about sea-level than anyone alive, during a career spanning half a century, sea level will rise this century by 5 ±15 cm – that’s 2 ±6 inches. Not much wall-building needed, then.

Next: “It can be just as important, if not more important, to prevent threats before they can cause catastrophic harm.  And [the] only way – the only way – the world is going to prevent the worst effects of climate change is to slow down the warming of the planet.” Which begs the question: What is the ideal global mean surface temperature? Is it the temperature of the Little Ice Age (a couple of degrees below today, when people died of famine because the summers were too cold)? Or is it the temperature of the beginning of the 20th century? Or today’s temperature? Or several degrees warmer than today? Without even addressing that question, there is simply no scientific basis for taking any action on global warming. Another question: Is it cheaper to mitigate today than to adapt the day after tomorrow? The IPCC concedes that adaptation is cheaper than mitigation. So why mitigate, even if the supposed problem is as big as the IPCC profits by having us believe? Mitigation is not the rational economic choice: therefore, the cost of that incorrect choice will fall, as the cost of all such inappropriate economic choices inevitably falls, disproportionately on the poorest.


Next: “Some warming is now inevitable.” And that is just about the only statement about climate change in the entire speech that is more likely than not to be objectively true. But Mr Obama spoils the moment by adding: “But there comes a point when the worst effects will be irreversible.  And time is running out.” Well, no, it isn’t running out. Our position is no worse than it was 18 years 5 months ago, because there has been no global warming for that long. The rational economic choice, given CO2 concentration rising to levels unprecedented in 810,000 years, and yet to the nearest tenth of one per cent there is no CO2 in the air at all and far less warming than predicted is occurring, is to wait and see. Indeed, since it ought to be obvious that a few degrees of cooling would be far more destructive to life on Earth than a few degrees of warming, it would make more sense to prepare for the former, which might otherwise cause real harm, than to prepare for the latter, which is now unlikely to happen and would not cause either widespread or sudden harm if it did.

Next: “The world has to finally start reducing its carbon emissions – now. And that’s why I’ve committed the United States to leading the world on this challenge.” There’s no need for any such action. CO2 – not that Mr Obama would ever mention this fact – is plant food. More of it would increase the net primary productivity of all trees and plants, which has grown by 2% per decade in recent decades, thanks to our sins of emission. Yet, even with all the extra CO2 in the air, global temperature is hardly changing. That is why the IPCC has all but halved its medium-term global warming predictions. Rationally, it should have all but halved the long-term predictions too: but that would make it clear to all that there is no manmade climate problem. We are a bit-part player.


Next: “We’re using more clean energy than ever before – more solar, more wind.  It’s all helped us reduce our carbon emissions more than any other advanced nation. And today, we can be proud that our carbon pollution is near its lowest levels in almost two decades.  But we’ve got to do more.” Wrong on every count. Solar energy fries birds and bats by the million. Wind energy swats them out of the sky. That’s not clean: it’s cruel, and the so-called “environmental” movement looks the other way and cheers as it banks its checks and the birds fall dying at its feet. The cost of so-called “renewables” is an order of magnitude greater than real power, and in most conditions “renewables” cause more CO2 emission than if one generated the power with fossil fuels. Also, real power works all year round. Solar power has been proven not to work at all well at night. Wind power doesn’t work when the wind is blowing too little or too much, which is three-quarters of the time. The poor are the sufferers, for electric power and gasoline are poll taxes. Rich corporations and landowners are the gainers. Strange that the “Democrats” are the ruthless capitalists now, and have no time or care for the poor. And CO2 is not “carbon pollution”. It’s a naturally-occurring trace gas essential to all life on Earth, and trees and plants would be up to 40% more productive, and more drought-resistant, if we could double its concentration. Let us hear no more of “carbon pollution”. Besides, it’s “carbon dioxide”, not “carbon”.

Next: “We have to move ahead with standards to cut the amount of carbon pollution in our power plants.” That childish Al Gore neologism, “carbon pollution”, again. This is not presidential language: it’s baby talk. And no, we don’t “have to move ahead” with any such “standards”. The correct policy would be to abolish the EPA. It is too powerful, too self-serving, too costly, too ambitious for more power, too totalitarian, too anti-scientific, and too partisan.

Next: “Working with other nations, we have to achieve a strong global agreement this year to start reducing the total global emission – because every nation must do its part. Every nation.” This is a reference to the establishment of an unelected, global “governing body” (a.k.a. government) and its associated bureaucracies, including an “international climate court”, at Paris this December. But Mr Obama, at a meeting in Peking in December 2014, unilaterally exempted China from “doing its part”. China decided in its 2000 five-year plan that it would build one or two new coal-fired power stations a [week] from then till at least 2030. By 2003 the first stations came on stream and China’s emissions began rising fast. By 2007 China overtook the U.S. as the world’s largest emitter. Now, just a decade later, China emits twice as much as the U.S., and accounts for half of all coal combusted globally. In another few years, China will emit 40% of the world’s CO2: she is already at 30%.


Next: “The Air Force F-22 broke the sound barrier using biofuels.  And the Navy runs an entire carrier strike group – the Green Fleet – with biofuels.” Just one problem with that. As the U.N.’s right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Jean Ziegler, said a few years back, “The diversion of food to biofuels is a crime against humanity.” Why? Because millions of acres that once grew food are now growing inefficient biofuels. The consequence is a net addition to global CO2 emissions, vitiating the original purpose of biofuels. But the still worse consequence is the resultant doubling of world food prices. Yet again, it is the poor who have been hardest hit. Who knows how many millions have died of starvation because – in Haiti, for instance, – even the price of the mud pies made with real mud on which the very poorest subsisted has doubled?

Next: “Our Marines have deployed to Afghanistan with portable solar panels, lightening their load and reducing dangerous resupply missions.  So fighting climate change and using energy wisely also makes our forces more nimble and more ready.” The use of portable solar panels by the military has nothing whatever to do with climate change and makes no detectable contribution to reducing it. Besides, the CO2 emissions in the manufacture and installation of solar panels exceed the saving during their short lifespans – typically just five years in the military, and 10-15 years in civilian use.

What is breathtaking about this serially inaccurate and prejudiced speech is that practically every factoid uttered by Mr Obama was either flat out untrue or in need of the heaviest qualification. That the supposed “leader” of the free world should have allowed himself to be so ill informed, and to breach the iron convention that the supreme commander of the United States’ Armed Forces does not, repeat not, preach partisan politics to them, is a measure of how far he has fallen below the necessary minimum standard of political conduct and scientific knowledge and honesty of exposition expected of the occupier of his office. If this speech was the very best that the narrow faction promoting the extremist line on global warming could muster for their mouthpiece, then the skeptics have won the scientific, the economic, the rational, and the moral arguments – and have won them hands down.

356 thoughts on “Does the ‘leader’ of the free world really know so little about climate?

  1. Barak Obama is not doing this because he believes in CAGW, he does it to appease the many Democrat doners!

    Such is the state of politics on both sides of the Atlantic.

    • I don’t mean to give any offense CP, but I think you’re being just a tad bit cynical with your last. I, for one, think it’s a great idea to involve our brave, courageous troops in the fight against CO2 as a real test of their mettle. Consider the hellish battlespace, our guys and gals at the “tip of the spear” will occupy, for example, when the U. S. Armed Forces deploy in force at COP-21:

      –Hundreds of thousands of G. I.’s and Jarheads, alighting from plush private jets, at Orly, “ready for action”.

      –Fleets of bullet-proof, stretch limos, there to chauffeur their “grunt”-butts around the “City of Lights”, complete with complimentary, “scary-dude” security-details to keep the frog riff-raff from pestering our nation’s best.

      –All the super-chef best of France’s celebrated foie-gras and freedom-fries you can stuff into your military-issue pie-hole.

      –Billeting in some swanky, famous-name, five-star hotel, oozing old-world charm.

      –And the endless distraction of NGO hot-babes showing up at all hours, at one’s hotel-room door, wanting to show a bleary-eyed, warrior “Yank”, who’s just tryin’ to get a good night’s sleep, a good time.

      I mean, like, if our service members in uniform can survive a COP-21 deployment, like that, they’ll have proved they can survive anything! Look!–the fight against demon-carbon is a nasty business, but someone has to do it. And I think the U. S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines (and the Coast Guard, too) are just the ones–uniquely the ones!–to handle that thankless task. Yeah buddy!–they can handle it, all right: Lafayette, we are here! LET’SROCK’NROLL!!!GETSOME!!!OOOOOH-RAH!!!!

      • You beat me to it, Mike. If climate change is such a challenge, especially to [y]our military, it would be best that they never be deployed outside the CONUS. I mean, think of the climate change involved in fighting in the Middle East!

      • It would be almost humorous… However, the US isn’t too far away from a climate alarmist dictatorship. It won’t be too funny when the Army, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard begin deployment on US soil, in our towns, cities, and villages in order to arrest and detain climate combatants in their duty under the POTUS and Commander in Chief.

        Increasingly, it seems the role of Commander in Chief should be stripped from the role of POTUS… too much power in one office…

      • if Climate Change is the biggest challenge the Coast Guard faces, there is no need for boats. All they need do is put padlocks on all the fuel pumps. Driving around in boats only makes the problem worse, unless they are planning to go back to sails.

      • You’re missing the point, he is using one tool(climate fear) to whet another tool(the military that he has removed a great number of ethical leaders from). When one uses a tool effectively one has to know the downside of using that tool. I think that he knows more than he lets on about climate fear. Whether he knows the military as well as he needs is another question.

      • ‘Now we have a “Green Fleet”!?!!’

        Well then, our Trident fleet must be green too, since it runs on non-fossil fuels. Not to mention that the weapons, if deployed, would do their bit in fighting climate change in the form of a nuclear winter lasting several years.

        Though, to completely green they should refill the missiles with biorocket fuel.

      • Boat displacement causes the seas to rise. We must remove all boats before it’s too late. Send money.


    • The US president should insist that the relevant agencies fully analyse their data and present not only the ‘AGW affirmative’ , but also the ‘negative aspects’ that are silently omitted. The data is there, I use it all the time, and I often get hits on my website from the same agencies (NASA, NOAA, USGS and others) so they can not claim it is not in there.
      Most of data I look at, points to near future cooling rather than further warming.
      For number of centuries as data shows, the Earth’s natural tendency to cool has been countered by the more active sun, and weakening of the Earth’s defensive shield.
      More active sun includes the effects of the magnetic elements such as CMEs, solar wind pressure etc on the Earth’s magnetosphere.
      During even numbered solar cycles the Earth’s magnetic shield offers very little resistance (even NASA says so – see link), while during odd numbered cycles a ‘threshold’ of resistance is active, its level depending on the strength of both the Earth’s and the incoming solar magnetic fields.
      The Earth’s magnetic shield has lost about 12% of its strength since the depth’s of Maunder minimum (for the last 140 years including current strength – see link below), allowing the solar magnetic impacts to be more effective in triggering and sustaining the Earth’s warming mechanism. This
      shows the inverse correlation of R2 = 0.72 of the global CRUTEM4 to the strength of the Earth’s magnetic shield (data from NOAA).
      The NASA and NOAA experts may not understand why, but there is no reason to hide the correlation’s existence!

      • “They” would be fired if they even suggested a need to look at the real data for the negative aspects of CAGW.
        But they cannot fire VA employees who withheld medical service to sick Veterans and cooked the books.

      • Vuckevic wrote: “The US president should insist that the relevant agencies fully analyse their data…”

        Although I’m sure you know this, it bears repeating over and over and over – this issue now has NOTHING to do with “Data” and NOTHING to do with “Science”. The agencies know that they’re faking it, this administration knows that they’re faking it, Obama knew that he was faking it when he made that speech – and his invocation of “national security” was the key that put that out in the open.

        Why do I say that? Because just look at any news channel – the 2 greatest national security stories today are A) the ongoing collapse of Iraq, and the ever growing control of ISIS, now in control of half of Syria and soon, all of Anbar province, and B) those pesky constitutionalists who keep insisting that the US Constitution requires a warrant before you wiretap phones, and the Fed Govm’ts insistence that they can tap anyones phone, anytime, anywhere, for no reason at all other than they want to, and constitution, shmonstitution.

        So what is Obama’s response to these questions? “Hey, Look over There! The weather sure is looking bad, and it’s all the fault of those other guys! That’s what I’m worried about!!!”

        It’s all misdirection, and is a dog whistle to all the hard core ideologues in his party (who make up about 90% of the democrat party today) so that they will start baying at the moon and shrieking “climate change! climate change! climate change!” It’s all an attempt to drown out the real issues of the day, at which they are failing so badly.

        Banana republic dictators use this tactic all the time – just look at any public pronouncement by Maduro in Venezuela over the last couple of years. It’s a crying shame, and a sad comment on what has happened to politics in the US, that we now have Banana Republic politics being openly embraced by the POTUS.

      • It’s not just misdirection, it’s now his latest excuse. After 5 1/2 years in office he can no longer get away with “Bush did it” or “It’s Bushes fault” so the new villain has to be climate change. He reminds me of a 3 year old. It’s never his fault, always someone else.

    • duplicity: He’s distracting, while just signed this appeal for international cooperation (pt. 6), to repel the ULTIMATE space Damocles sword, that may be done only with the (Boeing patented) Laser Plasma Shields* to escape electro-volcanic winters and deadly space super-storms: National Space Weather Strategy Released for Public Comment | NOAA / NWS Space Weather 2015:

    • “Barak Obama is not doing this because he believes in CAGW, he does it to appease the many Democrat doners!”

      I”d say the main reason is even more cynical that that. He’s got so many real world problems that he has neither the capacity, or the wisdom, or the courage to fix. Many to most of these problems have worsened under his watch. So what can he do?

      Well, he takes a pretend problem with a pretend solution, then blames those with a far superior understanding of the facts for failing to implement. It’s a classic shiny object strategy. Sadly, it’s quite effective

      aneipris (aka pokerguy)

    • Quite the case, politics seem to overwhelm even common sense. Now we see the global warming crowd using insults, coming up with the term “deniers” like those of us who CAN think for ourselves are a “political” enemy.
      In fact, I suppose we are from the laft’s point of view.

    • If this numbskull POTUS had any brains he would question just why so many “scientists” are busy traveling the world trying to continually prove that C02 is causing global warming when they constantly claim that “the science is settled.” If the “science” is indeed settled and the numerous hysterical forecasts are as dire as they predict – surely as POTUS he should be calling for ways to scrub CO2 from power station emissions, aircraft, cars etc. Even a lepton brain like Obama should surely see that putting all these “scientists” to work on scrubbing C02 from emissions is a far better investment than having them running around at 5 star conferences yelling “the ski is falling.”
      Instead he and all the alarmist scientists are like a bunch of fire fighters standing around watching a forest fire and doing nothing to put it out – but telling each other that ” matches cause fires.” There are billions spent on “climate research” but very little on scrubbing C02 emissions.

    • I believe Obama does believe in CAGW, CP.

      Ernst Moniz, his Secretary DoE, who’s a very smart nuclear physicist, spoke at SLAC. I was there. He believes in CAGW.

      I think Obama believes his science advisers, the NAS, the APS, and all the rest of the benighted institutional groups. They all push the CAGW line. I think they all believe it.

      If anything, the wide-spread belief reveals how many scientists don’t understand science itself. It seems at least half. They may be expert practitioners, perhaps analytically brilliant, but the globally critical view has escaped them. Because they haven’t understood the reality, they’ve been snookered by the image, decorated as it is with math. Mesmerized by a shimmering mirage.

      The whole thing is a lesson in sincere incompetence. But that doesn’t include Obama. He hasn’t any training. He’s been misled, though his progressive politics has greased the way.

      • So why do they all believe it? They are intelligent people (yes they are despite contrary indications) why do they ALL follow the meme? It is the one and only thing that I cannot grasp, I can see the errors, the fudged data, the false conclusions etc etc but I am not a trained scientist so my opinion is not worth that of a PHD or a professor, why do they all support the meme? If we could answer that one we would solve the whole problem, I know it could just be confirmation bias, need for grant money, self preservation of career, fear of bullying and fear of loss of power or influence or a mix of all of the above. But why hasnt someone somewhere come out and blown the whistle, where is the Snowdon of climate change, when will there be a leak to wikileaks?

      • Climategate was good first step. I don’t believe we have heard all there is to hear on that subject.

    • Obama is clearly driven by ideology and its political Agendas. He is no longer serving his Nation and its people. In fact it seems like his nation and its people is the problem?

    • Sure but by shear repetition the lib-tard voter base and related “greenies” are encouraged that someone cares. I just think it was the very best example of any speech (topic and lies) being given the most inappropriate (captive) audience imaginable.

      Whether he knows it or not, those Coasties are probably still laughing as his fresh signature dries on their military commission documents.

  2. Interesting read. Senator James Inhofe(R-Okla), the Chairman of the Senate Services Committee and an outspoken skeptic of the President’s stance on Global Warming stated the following yesterday: ” The failure of the President to understand the real threat to our national security and inability to develop a coherent national security strategy, has put this nation at an unknown level of risk with consequences that will span over decades”.

    • Inhofe has that one right, but don’t spend a lot of time researching his entire collection of quotes, as most of them are far more disappointing than encouraging about his personal, religious, and traditional conservative beliefs…

  3. The British are coming, The British are coming.
    Well done Christopher for a comprehensive and thorough debunking.
    One further point to add is POTUS and his constant use of “97% of scientists agree….” which he absolutely knows is false.
    Whilst we know lying is not totally unknown in politics, Obama really does take it to a new level.
    Perhaps those rumours about his birth certificate were not so silly after all.

    • Obama is a narcissist and a habitual liar. The only time he tells the truth is when he claims he didn’t know something happened until he read it in the paper. The only real question about him is whether he is Sunni or Shiite.

    • I think he believes the 97%, and on all the rest of the stuff, he is clueless, simply clueless. He buys all this “climate change” malarkey. I don’t believe he thinks he is lying, he actually believes this stuff – that’s the problem. (along with at least 47% of the US populace).

      • I have some very intelligent friends with PhDs who believe this stuff “hook, line and sinker”.

        Which proves that most anyone can go to a hardware store and purchase a “box full of tools” … and then tout their expertise by simply displaying the Sales Receipt for said purchase.

      • I work at a national laboratory that employs some of these AGW types. I have been told by several PhD types that they don’t have time to investigate this stuff, but they are friends with Dr. X, who works in the field and Dr. X assures them that the world will end if we don’t do something. And that’s good enough for them.

    • Well, after questionable birth-place and religious upbringing, he WAS a pot-smoking gay adolescent who learned to despise our American way of life and system of gov’t so much that he successfully changed himself, changed Chicago, changed Illinois, and has fundamentally changed America. Though most of us agree these local, national, and international changes were completely negative, he did exactly what he told us he would do…

  4. I do take offense to the title of this article.
    Obama is the leader of the US of America, last time I looked.
    Sadly, despite what the citizens of the US of America may think, they are not free. Perhaps thinking so but not free in the West European sense. Are the West Euro’s free, well that is a question of perception also but certainly more so in thought and expression then our American cousins.
    Obama is however the current leader of what is generally called “the biggest democracy”. (Disregarding India at the moment.)
    To Europeans the US choice is right or even more to the right.
    Sad really, in my opinion.
    A properly functioning democracy needs people from all, or most, directions in parliament, senate, lower house, whatever.
    Will you ever get anything done? Let’s not go there.

    • @outtheback. America/U.S.A. is a Republican form of government and not a democracy. As to the Free World comment, that was used during the cold war, and has fallen way out of use except, as in this case, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, who being born in 1952 would have been used to using that phrase. BTW, he is British you know!

    • Yes we (and you) will.
      Just write to your M. P. / Senator.
      (Please see my recent “comment” showing how easy it is). Thank you.

      • Well, Warren, one of my Senators is Bernie Sanders – so no help there.
        About the only funny thing Obama has said recently (to my mind anyway) is:
        “Some Democrats want a pot smoking socialist in the White House. An Obama third term”!

    • While America is getting less and less free, speech is still freer here than in Western Europe. And climate alarmism is less wide spread.

      There is a chance that the next US president may actually be a climate skeptic, as a majority in Congress already are. Even one of the least skeptical Republican candidates, Bush, has to make noises critical of the consensus in order to attract primary voters:

    • Western Europe is freer than the US? HAHAHAHA. How’s the hate speech imprisonment going over there? Don’t you dare speak your mind.

      Nothing is more stifling than your precious socialism.

      • icouldntunderstandit

        So I guess you think they are more accurate for sea level rise and less accurate for temperature? How exactly does the ocean warm and rise from atmospheric AGW anyway when the atmosphere it self isn’t warming?

      • icouldntunderstandit

        You have 3 out of 5 not 4, and the 3 you have are heavily adjusted and only see a relatively small area compared to the 2 “outliers”. The Data for the 2 “outliers” is also in the public domain, where the 3 “consensus” ones are not.
        You stick with your “consensus/group thought” and be a good lemming, critical thinking is difficult and I wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself.

      • icantunderstandanything,

        Satellite data is the most accurate global temperature data. But as you probably don’t understand, accuracy to a tenth or a hundredth of a degree is not the issue. At all.

        The central, and only important measurement is the global temperature trend.

        Does the trend show the endlessly predicted ‘accelerating’ global warming? (endlessly predicted, until it became clear that global warming has stopped.) Does it even show any global warming? No.

        Despite all the arm-waving, running around in circles and clucking, and the totally false wild-eyed pronouncements claiming that global warming hasn’t really stopped at all, and that it’s accelerating out of control (yes, some people still believe that; half the population has below average intelligence), even former IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri admits global warming has stopped.

        Satellite data and land data all show that global warming stopped almost twenty years ago. Despite the endless factoids cherry-picked to support alarmist confirmation bias, the global temperature trend shows that global warming has stopped. That is reality.

        Honest folks admit it when the facts prove them wrong. The rest argue about what Planet Earth is doing, because they cannot accept reality. With your ‘outlier’ comment it’s pretty clear which camp you are in.

      • Different satellites, different sensors.
        Smart people can understand that a tool that is best for one purpose, isn’t always the best people for another.

      • Sea level and ice surveillance satellites are very different, so comparing them is, well, idiotic.

        Sea level satellites are fatally flawed. Temperature satellites are indeed superior in every way to the cooked book “surface” “records”.

      • “we all live in the lower troposphere”

        It is amazing that this trope has proved so compelling to the alarmists. Recall, that the idea that has got them so wound up in the first place are models that show that increased warming should occur with increased CO2 levels. And where do those models predict the warming will be concentrated? In the troposphere!

        So, we ought to be alarmed by predicted heating in the troposphere (even though we don’t live there), but should ignore the satellite measurements of the troposphere that show no warming (because we don’t live there). Got it.

  5. The chief doomagogue has no shame. He has and will say anything with a straight face. Wonderful article and summary, which I’ve bookmarked for future reference.

  6. U.S. Presidents lie or distort the facts all the time. Each of them has his own pet project based on the distribution of finely sliced baloney. Clinton lied about Kosovo genocide, Bush lied about Iraq WMD, Obama lies about the weather and other issues I’d rather not get into.

    • @ fernandoleanme
      Your comment about “Bush lied” makes you part of the biggest lie perpetuated by the far left. That leftist meme has been repeated ad nauseum, but still contains not a grain of truth. Intelligence, not just from the United States, indicated the existence of a program of WMD in Iraq. Bush made many mistakes, including being naive enough to follow the advice of Donald Rumsfeld, but he was, and is, an honorable man with the good of the country at heart. Calling him a liar is offensive. It makes YOU the liar. Likewise, it is likely that Clinton and Obama, like most presidents, rely on the information provided by those who surround them and are, in essence, isolated from reality. Calling them liars, particularly when based upon partisan distortions, is despicable.

      • I will add, so that everyone knows, the blaming of George Bush for all that was bad was not to disparage George but to disparage the Bush name because Democrats knew that Jeb Bush would eventually run for President and that he would be hard to beat. As we can now see, that strategy has turned out to be pretty successful so far.

      • Bush’s defenders are even more pathetic than the CAGW zealots. Bush didn’t lie? What a joke!

        Here I quote Paul Waldman from his article in The Week:

        George W. Bush didn’t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

        I want to focus on the part about the lies. I’ve found over the years that conservatives who supported the war get particularly angry at the assertion that Bush lied us into war. No, they’ll insist, it wasn’t his fault: There was mistaken intelligence, he took that intelligence in good faith, and presented what he believed to be true at the time. It’s the George Costanza defense: It’s not a lie if you believe it.
        What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

        That’s not to say there aren’t plenty of weeds. In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity completed a project in which they went over the public statements by eight top Bush administration officials on the topic of Iraq, and found that no fewer than 935 were false, including 260 statements by President Bush himself.

        The Week

      • Steve P, you really think that pathetic article proves that Bush lied?
        One fascist repeating a lie to another fascist, does not make the lie true.

      • MarkW

        I know Bush lied. It’s a matter of public record.

        And I suppose you failed to read, or understand, the closing paragraph I posted from The Week, which cites the work of 2014 Pulitzer Prize winning The Center for Public Integrity, which found that President George W. Bush lied 260 times about Iraq:

        The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) is an American nonprofit investigative journalism organization whose stated mission is “to reveal abuses of power, corruption and dereliction of duty by powerful public and private institutions in order to cause them to operate with honesty, integrity, accountability and to put the public interest first.”With over 50 staff members, CPI is one of the largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative centers in America.It won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting.

        This also gives me the chance to mention again the long-delayed Chilcot Report. which was set up to investigate the dodgy dossier, among other issues & events leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

        Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government, also known as the September Dossier, was a document published by the British government on 24 September 2002 on the same day of a recall of Parliament to discuss the contents of the document. The paper was part of an ongoing investigation by the government into weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, which ultimately led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It contained a number of allegations according to which Iraq also possessed WMD, including chemical weapons and biological weapons. The dossier even alleged that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons programme. Without exception, all of the allegations included within the September Dossier have been since proven to be false, as shown by the Iraq Survey Group.

        As for your fascists – you don’t know what the word means. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

      • Democrats in Congress voted to support Bush. Were they really so stupid they didn’t check or they believed the lie? You can not blame Bush alone—Congress went along with and funded the war (77-23 in the Democrat lead Congress). At least be accurate with your accusations.

      • Reality check May 21, 2015 at 8:07 am

        Democrats in Congress voted to support Bush. Were they really so stupid they didn’t check or they believed the lie?

        In a word, yes, although I would frame your question this way: stupid or corrupt.

        No question about it, Bush had a lot of support in Congress, but the buck starts and stops at the top, and so did much of the BS.

        Note too that the CPI article claimed “…public statements by eight top Bush administration officials on the topic of Iraq, and found that no fewer than 935 were false…”, so we know Bush had a lot of help, especially from Her Majesty’s Government across the pond in the form of the dodgy dossier, which I’ve mentioned elsewhere.

      • Don Perry
        The usual situation in business of any kind is that the ‘top man’ takes the fall for all f@ck ups under his watch. He got bad advice? It was his responsibility to get better advice. Bottom line.

      • Reg Nelson May 21, 2015 at 8:13 am

        Did you even read the link you posted?

        A US state department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki
        …the material dates back to the 1980s and was stored after being dismantled by UN inspectors in the 1990s.


        After the end of the first Gulf war, UN weapons inspectors worked there to get rid of chemicals that could be used in weapons, destroy production plants and equipment, and eliminate chemical warfare agents. The UN inspectors left just before the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and never returned. The US-led Iraq survey group then took over the search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and found none.

        But since you’ve brought up ISIS, I’ll take the opportunity to note my amazement that a bunch of guys in pick-up trucks with heavy machine guns reportedly have been able to sweep across a large swath of the Middle East like the Golden Horde in a Turkey Trot. If we followed the money and weapons and communications channels leading to ISIS, I wonder where they would lead?

      • Steve P commented: “… my amazement that a bunch of guys in pick-up trucks with heavy machine guns reportedly have been able to sweep across a large swath of the Middle East…”

        Meanwhile the defenders abandon their posts and run. It’s not so much that ISIS are good fighters as the defending armies are either cowards or welcoming the invaders….or both.

      • SteveP, just because you are desperate to believe something, doesn’t make it true.
        BTW, the CPI is far left in their politics and slants everything to support the candidates they support.

      • Steve P asserts:

        “I know Bush lied.”

        No, you don’t. You’re just head-nodding along with the liberal media that constantly peddles that narrative. You would be better off not making your personal opinions like that public, because for a lot of us that puts you into the mouth-breathers’ camp: you can’t, or won’t, think for yourself.

        I am constantly amazed at the effectivness of the Alinsky tactic of demonizing an individual. The instant Romney become a candidate, this Administration started the exact same narrative: ‘Romney is a liar!’ I still remember the Drudge picture the day he was nominated, showing Romney with a long Pinnocchio nose.

        What was the reality? No one could find any verifiable lies. Romney was everything we are expected to admire: he adopted numerous children from all racial backgrounds, he gave heavily to charity his whole life, he saved many thousands of jobs, etc. But the mouth-breathers ignored everything except the narrative: ‘Romney lies!’ They accepted that the same way you stated, based on your magazine articles, “I know Bush lied.”

        I can just guess at your reaction if I posted the dozens of instances where many politicians on your side of the fence were proven to have delibeartely lied. They are also on record as being 100% with GW Bush in promoting the Iraq war. They had the same intelligence briefings.

        But you don’t want to hear that. “Bush lied” has colonized your mind, and the facts don’t matter.

      • Steve P:

        You exhibit symptoms of D-K disease. Read below:

        “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
        –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

        “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
        –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

        “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
        –Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

        “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
        –Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

        “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
        Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
        — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

        “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
        -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

        “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
        — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

        “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
        Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
        — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

        “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
        — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

        “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
        — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

        “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
        — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

        “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
        — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

        “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
        — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

        “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
        — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

        “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
        — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

        “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
        — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

        “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
        — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

        “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
        — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

        “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
        — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

      • dbstealey May 21, 2015 at 11:25 am

        blah, blah, blah. Hardly convincing, DB.

        …politicians on your side of the fence were proven to have delibeartely lied. They are also on record as being 100% with GW Bush in promoting the Iraq war. They had the same intelligence briefings.

        LOL! “My side of the fence.” (internet curiosity: this marks sp’s first use of LOL)

        I’m no longer fenced in by any mistaken political affiliations, although it is true that I was at one time, just as I was under the spell of the mass media, and Hollywood, once upon a time.

        But you know how that goes: Live and learn, as they say.

        Anyway, DB, I note that your meandering screed is long on assertion, and plays fast and loose with the facts. There was no unanimous support for the invasion of Iraq; neither from the American people, nor from Congress:

        In the House, 6 Republicans joined 126 Democrats in opposing the authorization of the use of force in Iraq, while in the Senate, a solitary Rep. Senator joined 21 Democratic colleagues in voting Nay

        Opinion in the U.S. Congress leading up to the Iraq War generally favored a diplomatic solution, while supporting military intervention should diplomacy fail. The October 11, 2002 resolution that authorized President Bush to use force in Iraq passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House by 296 to Leading opponents of the resolution included Senators Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy.

        You close with this assertion:

        …the facts don’t matter.

        Your words, and your approach on this issue.

      • Tom in Florida May 21, 2015 at 11:59 am

        Nice work, Tom, but you’re barking up the wrong tree. I’ve already explained to dbstaley that I have no political affiliations or allegiances, yet many of you continually try to frame this issue within the dichotomy of the two-party system, or the left-right paradigm.

        Everything is evaluated on its own merits, and nothing else.

      • Steve @ 10:40,

        Is there no tired old lie that you are not beneath trotting out?

        There is no doubt that Iraq, not Iran, gassed the Kurds. To cite your favorite source:

        On March 1, 2010, the Iraqi High Criminal Court recognized the Halabja massacre as an act of genocide by Saddam’s regime. It was just one genocidal act against Kurdish civilians and other northern minorities in the Al-Anfal campaign.

    • There was a story recently, (I’m sorry I don’t know where I read it), that said US intelligence has for years been tracking wmd out of Iraq and going to Afghanistan with the help of the Iranians, and that forces were being used to intercept various shipments. Maybe someone else can help out with that story?

      • According to Steve, some no name reporter in a magazine that nobody has ever heard of, made the claim that Bush was a liar, and that proves it.

      • seeing as there ARE records of usa supplying many many bioweapons bugs TO Iraq for many years prior..any claims of wmd in one sense are correct.
        the degree and ability for them to be used however..were bullshit
        WHO supplied the material should be widely known, and usa and brits and france etc ALL take a rap for it.

      • Always wondered why if there were no WMD’s why inspectors were refused access. Understand they did a lot of exporting before the invasion.


    • There was no lie regarding Iraq WMDs.
      1) Every intelligence agency on the planet thought Iraq had WMDs, heck Saddams generals thought he had WMDs.
      2) A mistake is not a lie
      3) WMDs and WMD programs have been found, just not in the amounts expected.

      • If there was a lie regarding WMDs in Iraq, it was started by the Clintons in 1998 while George was still governor and was in no position to start such a lie:

        “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.” –Bill Clinton, 1998

        I could show other quotes from Clinton administration officials claiming that Saddam had, or was restarting, his WMD programs. But, for some reason, the left wants to rewrite history to make it all Bush’s idea. The thing I fault Bush on is using the wrong reason for going into Iraq. We had a treaty with Iraq that Saddam signed after the Gulf War. He was violating that treaty and refused to comply. That was reason enough to force his compliance; otherwise, treaties mean nothing, including the Korean War truce that has kept the peace between North and South Korea. But how much longer will that peace last now that Democrats and Paulians have made it clear that peace agreements with the United States mean nothing and will not be enforced?

      • Iraq had USED WMD via gassing Kurds. The only lie is saying there were no WMD (or more subtly via trying to imply the definition only extends to nukes).

        But nothing seems to stop the more looney side of Left from perpeptual lies for effect, facts need not apply…

      • Mike McMillan May 21, 2015 at 9:34 am

        “Wikipedia and Saloon,com for sources. Wow. I guess the debate is over.”

        It is if you can’t bring anything more to the table than an attack on source, rather than substance.

      • US and Coalition forces in Iraq only found 7,000 or so individual WMDs.
        It wasn’t like they found 10,000, which would be a lot.

      • E.M.Smith May 21, 2015 at 10:04 am

        “Iraq had USED WMD via gassing Kurds”

        Like almost all of the justifications for the invasion of Iraq, the Saddam gassed the Kurds! story does not stand up well to close scrutiny.

        But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

        I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war[…]

        This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq’s main target.

        And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

        (my bold)

      • MarkW May 21, 2015 at 11:15 am

        MarkW, by this point, nobody knows what you’re talking about because you make stand-alone assertions without any reference, or link, to the specific point you’re trying to make.

        No wonder you are so easily confused, when you can’t even keep your own thoughts straight, nor present a coherent argument.

      • Steve P says:

        Bush knew Saddam had no WMD

        You should be extremely wealthy, seeing as how you ”know” things that, to others, are just personal opinions. Las Vegas has pickup poker games. Since you ‘know’ what’s in someone’s mind…

        As far as the nonsense claiming that Iraq had no WMD’s, you can still find pics of Kurdish bodies piled up after being gassed, including very young children. But of course, some folks will believe Salon, even when there is photographic evidence from different sources that directly contradicts his “Salon Exclusive”.

      • No one ever mentions that is that it was Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. There was a full on no fly zone in effect and almost every security agency involved in Iraq said that WMD were there and ready to go.

      • dbstealey May 21, 2015 at 12:11 pm

        Actually, dbstaley, that was the title of the Salon article I quoted.

        THURSDAY, SEP 6, 2007 04:16 AM PDT
        Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

        I’ve posted this link before. Apparently you didn’t even bother with it, else you would have recognized its title.

        At any rate, attacking the source is a fallacious argument commonly employed by those without facts on their side. The article quotes three former CIA officials with inside knowledge of how the intelligence was twisted to justify the invasion.

        On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

        (my bold)

        I’ve already addressed the Saddam gassed the Kurds!-story here:

      • Steve P May 21, 2015 at 10:05 am
        Mike McMillan May 21, 2015 at 9:34 am
        “Wikipedia and Saloon,com for sources. Wow. I guess the debate is over.”
        It is if you can’t bring anything more to the table than an attack on source, rather than substance.

        I edit over at Wikipedia, Steve, but were I to correct that page, I don’t think it would last any longer than an edit I would put on a global warming page.

        We found 550 tonnes of uranium yellowcake from Saddam’s nuke program, but they kept that hidden.

        They also found loaded chemical shells, but their excuse for keeping that quiet was that the local terrorist types would start looking for more if they knew some shells existed. Old stuff leftover from the Iran war.

        Bush could have shut down the WMD charges if he’d announced he was shipping the shells and yellowcake to Maryland for disposal. The libs would have to protest something they said didn’t exist. ;-)

      • Steve P,

        You completely disregarded every other comment that deconstructed what you got from a magazine and the NY Times. They posted links, too, and those links were more credible than your pop culture magazine.

        You’re all by yourself here, arguing for something that is clearly politics, and thus spin. Further, you make absolute assertions about things you certainly do not know for a fact. Rather, it is just something you want to believe. You say you have no political allegiances, but that is contradicted by your assertions, and by the fact that you attack one person while giving others a pass for doing the same things, and worse.

        As I said before, the “Bush lied” narrative has colonized your mind. The fact that there are plenty of verifiable, documented lies by people like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton (“I never had sex with that woman….”), and many others has been completely ignored by you.

        You are desperate to promote the “Bush lied” narrative. That naturally causes others to suspect that you don’t care about lying politicians. You just have a grudge, and your comments make it seem like they’re written by a crank.

        Bush is long gone. Will you spend the rest of your life trying to blame him for everything that you consider bad? Even Obama seems to know the “Bush lied” meme has run out of gas.

        I personally think GW Bush was mightily flawed as a President. He made some huge blunders. But from everything I’ve seen, he is not a deliberate liar like the current one. And given the same two schmucks he ran against, I would have to vote for him despite his flaws. Because Kerry and Gore would have been worse. Much worse, IMHO. Just look at them now.

        You wouldn’t come across as such a hater if you could see that everyone is a combination of good and bad qualities. But when you try to paint him as completely evil (or completely stupid), you become a parody of the Bush haters.

  7. This should be on the front page of every newspaper. The purpose of the speech was to propagate unnecessary burden.

  8. A quite extraordinary speech by your President. Amazes even a wry old sceptic like me. (As usual, Lord Monckton shows enormous grasp and great energy in setting out step-by-step the counter. I do wish he wouldn’t slide in so many gratuitous asides, though, which does devalue it a little for me, much as I understand the temptation!)

    Obama is a smart guy, and I’m not easily believing that he really has bought into all the things that he says, and it may be that the real reason for overblowing the climate alarm stuff, is, as Lord M. suggests, to draw fire away from the astounding failure of his vacuous and derelict defence policies in the mideast and also now in eastern Europe. Putting ‘leader’ of the free world in inverted commas would seem to fully justified.

    Where, o where, are the men of real calibre now?

    • They are here, amongst this WUWT website. One of them wrote the “blog” you just commented on and many of the others shall meet on the 10th. June (see – The Heartland Institute).

      You COULD write to your M.P. or Senator: that would show calibre.
      Thank you.

      Dear ________________ (M.P. / Senator)

      A get-out clause is a freedom clause.

      “At any time after three years from the date on which this Protocol has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary”.
      Kyoto Protocol, article 27.
      (The above paragraph must be included in the Paris Treaty 2015).

      • Yes, there are some great folk attending this site.
        But the people most suitable to do the job no longer offer themselves for public office: neither in US or UK. Little wonder, when integrity and wisdom seem to be so little regarded. We’re doing what we can here in UK through the political party UKIP – 4 million votes and only one parliamentary seat out of 650- so it’s a hard haul.

        US hasn’t signed Kyoto so I wouldn’t be happy to have them sign anything in Paris, and there’s zero chance of any op-out or any sunset clause to be accepted, or even discussed. However I’ll be letting my MP (a decent guy, but a defender of the party line) know what I think in very clear terms.

        Christopher Monckton is a terrific fellow for whom I have the greatest admiration, but he has a tendency to go just that little bit ‘over the top’ which is a great excuse for the establishment, and the serious media, not to treat him seriously. Churchill, or FDR, or Reagan, (or Thatcher, with a couple of exceptions) would have known when NOT to say something, however tempting it might be. I don’t see anyone of this stature around today, and I don’t think any of the GOP contenders for 2016 shape up, either.

      • the good news is there is a 0% chance that the US will ratify anything that comes out of Paris.

    • Mr Latham is right: there must be a secession clause in the Paris treaty. Otherwise, we’ll have a worldwide EU, unelected Kommissars running the show, massive corruption, economic stagnation, monetary collapse, fiscal bankruptcy and rampant totalitarianism. There has to be a get-out clause so that when everyone comes to realize the facts in the head posting their nation can escape without penalty.

    • Sorry to “mothcatcher” about the occasional excursus in my writing, but, as the Roman poet Horace put it, Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci, He who sugars the pill brings home the bacon.

      • Lord Monckton – another brilliant article. While you are posting Latin, I think there is an interesting Latin phrase that answers your question about Barack Obama –
        _stultus idem fatua loquitur_.

      • And:

        Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

        This Prez has been caught in lots of lies.

        If he lies about one thing, he’ll lie about anything.

      • He said he would, “fundamentally change the United States” and that is exactly what he is doing. His actions, and lack thereof, have been very successful at decreasing the influence of the US in the world, expanded the welfare state, and further concentrated power in Washington. You, like I, may disagree with the direction he has taken the US, but, if success is any indication of intelligence, then he is no dummy.

    • Obama is not a “smart guy.” He may be the stupidest, and least informed, of any President in history. He speaks only the words that others put into his mouth. Has he ever written anything? In this case, it’s probably John Holdren, the failed prophet and outright kook, who wrote that litany of outright lies and fancies.

      “Climate change is real” is the Holy Writ which the Climate-Nazi Cultists must recite at least five times a day, while facing the Arctic. “Carbon pollution” is the demon that must be exorcised, by taxing the hoi-poloi and building great monuments to the Gods of Renewables, while the High Priests of the Climatists (all hail the Goracle!) look down approvingly.

      Obama is a Puppet President who has been enlisted to do the bidding of the Cult with the promise of Great Glories to come, when the Carbon-Emitting capitalists and their evil Climate Deni*rs shall fall beneath the wind-scythes of Renewables, and the Faithful of the Environment shall rule the grateful Earth.

      How else can we explain the sheer folly of a US President standing before the graduates of a military academy and proclaiming a war against an utter fantasy?

      /Mr Lynn

      • Obama is not stupid. He is a guy with no experience, no accomplishments, and average intelligence. He came to America from Indonesia, and has no background in the American culture. He has benefited from affirmative action his entire life, and cannot conceive that he didn’t earn any of his plaudits.

        He would not have qualified to enter any of the military academies, and the cadets he addressed were aware of that. That address was an insult to the entire U.S. military, not his first, and unfortunately it won’t be his last.

      • Mike McMillan: I suspect most of our previous presidents would have been qualified to enter the military academies. That puts Obambi at the bottom of the heap, I reckon. /Mr L

      • >“Climate change is real” is the Holy Writ which the Climate-Nazi Cultists must recite at least five times a day, while facing the Arctic. “Carbon pollution” is the demon that must be exorcised, by taxing the hoi-poloi and building great monuments to the Gods of Renewables, while the High Priests of the Climatists (all hail the Goracle!) look down approvingly.<

        Well, this text is quite an amusing satire, but the term "Climate-Nazi Cultist" is likewise a sort of hate speech as the infamous abuse-term "denier" from the alarmist side. We skeptics should not copy the bad manners of the CAGW zealots. Thus, calling them "Climate-Cargo-Cultists" instead, would describe them even better without abandoning the etiquette of civilized people.

      • Gentle Tramp: Point taken about rough language, but when the President of the United States proclaims that I am a threat to “national security” because I think his “climate change” nonsense is a load of crap, we have gone way past the “cargo cult” stage to the prospect of the police powers of the State hanging over me and others who think as I do. Are we being accused of sedition? Of treason? This is reminiscent of nothing less than Naziism; it deserves the name, and it must be stopped.

        /Mr Lynn

    • Papiertigre,
      So, clever clogs: how long would it take you to do write what he has just written ?

      • Writing out a fisk comparable to Christopher Monckton. It’s on my “to do” list, right after learning to play the bagpipes, and paint landscapes like Monet.

      • If you’re paying me I can trim it down to eight.

        How much lead time did Monckton of B have? One or two days maybe?

    • Probably because he is a busy man. He would be the one I would give work to in my office, because I know it would be done. A busy man is an efficient man.

  9. Mr. Obama is “ramping it up” for the bed-wetters convention in Paris, so ALL READERS PLEASE WRITE to your elected representative (M. P. or Senator) in the following manner. (Just copy and paste. It’s really easy to do).

    (Please do this now, before you reach for the whiskey bottle. Thank you).

    Dear ________________ (M.P. / Senator)

    A get-out clause is a freedom clause.

    “At any time after three years from the date on which this Protocol has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary”.
    Kyoto Protocol, article 27.

    (The above paragraph must be included in the Paris Treaty 2015).

    • “Next it’s Hillary” – and do you think that she would say exactly the same thing – and believe it? We need to know.

  10. Oh Bummer knows a LOT more about climate change than he does about domestic and foreign policies.
    He knows sweet FA about climate change.

  11. How much energy does President Obama blow through every time he leaves the energy sucking White House to make these silly speeches?
    “Denying it [man caused climate change] or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security,” Obama also said. “It undermines the readiness of our forces.” Obama

    So, what is our Orwellian mission, are we all now the enemy of leftardism and illogical arguments?
    Should we just program our military drones to destroy carbon based life forms?

  12. Dark skies are gathering in the horizon. No it is not Russia under Putin, nor is it IS or casino gambling traders at the big bank on Wall Street who needs money to pay for their addictions.
    It is Climate Change!
    Likewise in the 1930ties it was not Hitler nor Stalin or Mussolini, nor was it the depression.
    It was the Dust Bowl

    Different times, but some things stay the same.

  13. Nice summary of actual trends and actual numbers related to global warming. Especially the historical context. In my personal discussions with friends and co-workers who have been sold the global warming alarm, putting our current state of affairs into historical/geological context has been the most effective means of opening their eyes.

    Most people’s personal reality seems to be limited to what they can personally remember of events in their lives, placed in a slightly broader context of common knowledge about what’s been going on in the rest of the world recently, as in the last 50 or 100 years. Many have never thought past those boundaries, so for them what’s going on now is the way things have always been and will continue to be.

    Everyone has heard of “the ice age” but the science illiteracy of modern U.S. education leaves them clueless that we are in a ~10,000+ year long warm phase between ~100,000 year long glacial periods, and that we’re living on a planet that has been cooling since it was born and thus the ice ages will eventually become the norm. That graphic showing warming as it would look on a thermometer is effective, as are the graphics showing the other Holocene warming periods. “We are here” when you can see we’re in a somewhat average place temperature-wise compared to other natural warming spells can completely take the wind out of someone’s alarm.

    Also the theory is that mankind’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in catastrophic warming, not climate change, not climate disruption, not global “weirding” or whatever else. The correct term is “Global Warming” and it would be nice if we stuck to the proper term and rather than adopt any of the other slogans that have popped up since people noticed that it hasn’t stopped snowing yet.

    Anyway, nice article.

  14. 1) The Islamic State is a threat to the Peace of the World (and the USA).
    2) The Islamic State arose from the chaos of the Syrian Civil War .
    3) The Syrian Civil War arose from the Arab Spring.
    4) The Arab Spring arose form economic discontent and a rise on food prices.
    5) The rose in food prices arose from the switching of agriculture from food to Biofuels.
    6) The switching of agriculture from food to Biofuels arose from fear of Climate Change.

    Thus we see:
    7) Fear of Climate Change is the greatest threat to the USA.

    • And about 60 Australians who went to join IS and fight in the recent couple of years now want out of it. Funny, I guess they came to the conclusion that war and war zones are not nice places to be.

    • “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”: FDR’s First Inaugural Address

      Clearly the Fear of Climate Change is having much more effect than actual climate change.

    • MC, if you actually research the rising food prices, (Egypt especially) a large share of the rise was greatly enhanced by commodity traders looking for deals as stock markets crashed around the globe. Food was available, although less from Egypt’s long term Russian farms.

      • “A large share of the rise was greatly enhanced…”
        Could you make a statement with even more weasel content?

  15. The President is intellectually vacant. He just reads what’s on the teleprompter.

    POTUS is not the most powerful person in the U.S. It is TPOTUS, the TelePrompter of the United States, the person who runs the teleprompter. Identity unknown.

  16. Another good article Christopher. I find it horrifying that the leader of the Western world has been taken in by the biggest con-trick perpetrated upon mankind. Your observation, what is the “normal” and what is the “desirable” temperature is a good one. My understanding of what is normal is, is whether or not we are in an ice age where the temperature would be a disaster for mankind or where we are now which which clearly isn’t. What is normal for one person is not normal for another. Maybe a world-wide referendum with a 97% consensus may be the answer here? (sarc)

    I think your idea that we should “wait and see” is a good one, since we have already established that there is no “tipping point” where CO2 is released from the oceans and carbonate based rocks which produces CGW, because the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been 20x higher in the past (with no runaway global warming because CO2 levels produce logarithmic effects on temperatures not linear). As you say there has been no warming for 18 years and 5 months, if this continues, why do anything? We cannot afford to take measures that would impoverish more people, because if we do, the likes of ISIL and Boku Haram and other extremist groups will gain more and more support. That to me, is the real problem; not a trace gas that has risen by 0.008% in concentration in the atmosphere, most of which is natural anyway.

  17. Well it has warmed since 1850, the end of the LIA but this would be expected. It will get colder start to get colder soon because climates cycle like your ice cover graph above but over much longer periods.

  18. And time is running out

    Yes. The blight on the US presidency, aka the Obamanation will be over in 611 days. Not a lot of time left on the clock for our Liar-In-Chief to set his “legacy” in place.

  19. BO and company may be hoping for the pause/hiatus to continue a couple of more years. At that time they will finally acknowledge the pause/hiatus by proclaiming the battle against CAGW has been won due to the strategy of hope and change (hype and chance?), and BO will have secured his legacy. We will be declared saved until the next contrived crisis.

  20. BO and company may be hoping for the pause/hiatus to continue a couple of more years. At that time they will finally acknowledge the pause/hiatus by proclaiming the battle against CAGW has been won due to the strategy of hope and change (hype and chance?), and BO will have secured his legacy. We will be declared saved until the next contrived crisis.

    • I second that, David. There aren’t too many individuals with the depth of knowledge and analytical capability in both the sciences and the humanities. A terrific essay. Gives me great confidence to know we have thinkers and writers of his caliber fighting the good fight.

  21. Lord Monckton, did I miss you stating that World Wide Sea Ice has been breaking records for the last couple of years?

      • I meant in this particular post, I noticed it in your previous post and that is why I asked the question.

  22. In the time of Waterloo, the troops used to call a bad leader a silk shirt stuffed full of dung.
    Obama appears to be imitating that, except he is a teleprompter vacuum.

  23. China decided in its 2000 five-year plan that it would build one or two new coal-fired power stations a year from then till at least 2030. By 2003 the first stations came on stream and China’s emissions began rising fast. By 2007 China overtook the U.S. as the world’s largest emitter.

    Is not the rate that China builds coal-powered plants much greater?

    Should this be edited to “one per week” ?

  24. Next: “Our scientists at NASA just reported that some of the sea ice around Antarctica is breaking up even faster than expected. Not exactly surprising, given that at present it has reached the greatest extent for the time of year observed in the 35-year satellite era. Why did Mr Obama not mention that (or any) fact, by way of balance?

    1. What’s been “breaking up even faster than expected” is “ice shelves,” that are still anchored to glaciers, not free-floating “sea ice.” This distinction is well known among the climate-literate–it’s surprising that none of Obama’s advisors caught it. (But maybe Holdren isn’t that well-informed on climatology.)

    2. There should be a closing quotation mark after the first sentence.

    • Holdren is an idiot, he’s one of those academics who had a provocative idea early in his career, and has been riding the bus ever since. Other than that he has difficulty with arithmetic.

  25. . . . one foreign-born occupant of the White House . . . .

    Although the birth certificate has been tampered with, the guy at American Thinker who wrote the most about the topic, and who had a command of the topic, came to the conclusion that it wasn’t done to conceal foreign birth, but the original’s ambiguity about fatherhood.

    • Wherever he was born, for over a decade his publicist claimed he was foreign born, which makes Obama the first birther.

    • I’m certainly no Obama fan, But any naturally born American, 35 years or older, can be president. “Naturally born” doesn’t just mean born in the USA. It also extends to anyone born to ex patriot American citizens. I myself was born in Spain to a US sailor and his British wife. I was born “Naturally American” and I could be president.

  26. Comments here reveal fear, bigotry and lack of awareness of real events around the globe. Can anyone explain or actually express an interest in their motivations for this swill of reactionary nonsense.

  27. It also shows how little Obummer knows about duty in the armed services, (I don’t use the term “military” as I reserve it for the combat branches that fall under the command of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). Dereliction of Duty is a codified offense under United States Code Title 10,892. Article 92 and applies to all branches of the US Armed Services. It is defined as one who has willfully refused to perform his, (their), duties. Implied in Obama’s text is the notion that a member of the Coast Guard who denies global warming is “willfully” disobedient, as can be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a Court of Jurisdiction. That’s treading into some pretty bizarre legal territory. Maybe we should require that the Commander in Chief “shall have served, faithfully,” in one of the armed services.

  28. Obama :“Confronting climate change is now a key pillar of American global leadership. When I meet with leaders around the world, it’s often at the top of our agenda – a core element of our diplomacy.”

    Moncton: ‘So much more congenial than dealing with real problems, like the murder of Christians in Muslim war zones……….. ‘

    Lord Moncton puts his finger on the real reason why politicians on both sides of the pond strut their stuff on ‘fighting Climate Change’. They create a bogeyman that they can be seen to be taking action on, because politicians need to be seen to be taking action.

    Stuff the humanitarian crises that are are occurring daily around the world – they are to difficult to tackle and the politicians may end up with egg on the faces, or worse, blood on their hands. The beauty of the Catastrophic Climate Change bogeyman is that they aren’t going to get egg on their faces during their terms of office. It’s a foolproof political strategy.

  29. Sorry Lord Monckton for misspelling your name, I Pad key board is a little small for old fingers.

  30. Neither the President nor his Secretary of State know anything of science in general and climate in particular. Obama majored in Political “Science” at Columbia then he studied at the Harvard Law School. Kerry majored in Political “Science” at Yale, where he is said to have been a mediocre student, never having scored an “A.” They are both scientifically illiterate dolts, dishing out their AGW cult for purely political and pecuniary reasons. They shame our nation.

  31. What a damn disgrace. The Commander In Chief gives a commencement address, to a branch of the military no less, and he talks about the weather? While terrorists are now attacking us in America, while inner cities are in major decline, while he and his injustice department have succeeded in making race a major issue dividing the country, he has the nerve to talk ad nauseum about climate. I’m surprised they didn’t all fall asleep. Regardless of where you stand on AGW, think about this for a second—proud parents were in the audience recording our President speaking to the children and he talks so long about the climate the run out of battery or recording space. Just simply unbelievable. Why is this not being mocked by any and every rational person in the country?

  32. Your comments on the M31 Galaxy are based entirely on measurements! I can assure you computer modelling shows that the inhabitants of the M31 will swarm upon the Earth within 2 centuries. Adjusting the parameters of the models shows that 14 separate models agree with each other to the figure of 99.9998% so any plausible [ie congruent with the models] interpretation is that we are doomed unless we fund more modelling to lead us out of this crisis!

  33. “…foreign-born occupant of the White House….”

    Lew will have a field day with this, I’m sure. It certainly doesn’t help.

      • I’m glad you don’t have a fixed position on the matter. To avoid giving your enemies a talking point, it would be prudent to refer only to his “blemished birth certificate,” or something like that, avoiding birthplace implications. (Incidentally, it’s only 10% or 20% that’s been tampered with, so it’s imprudent to refer to the entire BC as fake. The base document is legit.)

      • True Roger, but do not forget Obama is the original birther, as for over a decade he claimed to be foreign born.

      • There is no legit HI BC. Even Baraq Hussein bin Obama al Indonesii’s buddy, my acquaintance Neil Abercrombie, the recently ex-governor of HI couldn’t find a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for BHO in state records. Neil knew Barry’s mom and dad, who pronounced his name “Bear-ick”.

  34. “Pseudoscience and socialism,
    Obama and his tricks;
    Combining fear and ignorance,
    It’s such a potent mix.
    A big enough lie told often enough,
    How many are being deceived?
    And his incredulous rants on climate,
    By how many are being believed?…..

    …..Temperature rises are not rises at all,
    A fact Obama has to keep hidden;
    It does not support his climate agenda,
    So raw data is being overridden.
    Obama, he’s on a mission,
    And the facts won’t stand in his way;
    And if it means debasing science,
    That’s the price we’ll have to pay…..”

    (From “Obama and Ignorance – An Infectious Disease”)
    Read more:

  35. I saw a video the other day showing how a snake head – even hours after it’s cut off from the body – can still attack and even kill.

    That’s where we are with this global warming scare. Its demise is inevitable, but we can’t lift our guard because it could still bite back.

    I can’t see any new president being this daft – the writing’s been on the wall for ages and stuck in the führer’s bunker Obama is undoubtedly detached from the real world where people know its not warming. But no new incumbent could possibly be that naive.

  36. To answer, or perhaps address, the title of the post…
    The person you are referring to could care less about the truths behind his speech. He knows/understands that everything he said was said to achieve a specific purpose, to further a specific agenda. “Truth” has little/nothing to do with being successful in that regard.
    It’s frustrating to still see so many posts of the “Does he really not understand?…I can’t believe his advisers have told him this!…Someone show him this data!”
    Rest assured, he knows exactly what he is doing.
    And, what makes it even easier for him is the fact that if the honorable Lord were given a 1hr television show in prime time, the majority of people watching would change channels within the first 10 minutes, so successful has their campaign of mis/dis-information been.

  37. In concordance with the brilliantly conceived and executed Affordable Heath Care Act…”If you want your Global Warming Meme you can Keep the Global Warming Meme”. The President has elevated and glorified bovine scatology to a level that debases his Office and the strictures of logic.

  38. A good and accurate article – thank you Sir.

    I have studied this matter since 1985 and have no issues with your essay.


    To date, every major dire prediction by the IPCC and the global warming alarmists has failed to materialize.

    I suggest that we, and a few others like us, have been essentially correct in our predictions to date.

    I suggest that the individual’s predictive track record is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s competence.

    In 2002 I was asked by my Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (“APEGA”) to debate in writing the issue of catastrophic humanmade global warming and the proposed Kyoto Protocol.
    [PEGG debate, reprinted at their request by several professional journals, the Globe and Mail and la Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae]
    [formerly at]

    We knew with confidence based on the evidence that global warming alarmism was technically false, extremist and wasteful.

    We clearly stated in our 2002 debate:

    On global warming:

    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

    On green energy:

    “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

    On real pollution:

    “Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.”

    On squandering resources:

    “Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.”

    I suggest that our four above statements are now demonstrably correct, within a high degree of confidence.

    Regards, Allan

  39. ” Next: “The Air Force F-22 broke the sound barrier using biofuels. And the Navy runs an entire carrier strike group – the Green Fleet – with biofuels.” ” — Actually, a few decades ago we had a true Green Naval unit — Taskforce 1 [E=MC2] the Nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, escorted by the Nuclear powered guided missile cruiser USS Long Beach and the nuclear powered guided missile destroyer USS Bainbridge. These three could go around the world without needing to be refuelled. — in July 1963 they did — Operation “Sea Orbit”, was a two-month unrefueled cruise around the world.

    As an aside to the esteemed scientist/engineer/economist commander in chief — while marine diesel fuel or Jet Fuel can power a traditional Arleigh Burke class destroyer or a Ticonderoga class cruiser and is available worldwide — we have to transport the Green Biofuel in conventionally powered tankers to the point of use

    • My concern is that any use of exotic or biofuel can degrade performance, mobility, and reliability. We all know that a tanker is the slowest and most vulnerable boat in any Strike Group, if you can live without one so much the better. And at m1 an F-22 is just getting warmed up, got a look at one that the Air Force had for a warm-up show for the Blue Angels, everyone in the crowd agreed that the F-22 was much more impressive than the Navy F18’s

      • F-22 has impressive specs, but it is very expensive to operate, and a major league hanger queen with serious corrosion issues.

    • Good point. Reliance on Biofuels will become “dangerous resupply missions”.

      “Our Marines have deployed to Afghanistan with portable solar panels, lightening their load and reducing dangerous resupply missions” should be investigated as well.


      “GREENS will reduce the logistics burden for providing power to remote locations. It will provide AC and DC power needs to charge typical communication, targeting and computing devices. GREENS will reduce the fuel use otherwise needed for typical generators, and will lessen the need for fuel resupply, reducing the associated threats to vehicle convoys in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

      Reducing fuel is not eliminating fuel. Generators will still be carried, as well as vehicles to transport the technology. Fuel resupply is still necessary. I don’t see where this “lightens their load”. As to whether this
      technology mix lessens risk altogether remains to be seen as it hasn’t been field tested long enough.

  40. Lord Monckton, The quoted sentence(s) after the word ‘next’ should be bolded to stand out from what follows it. It would also help to have it on a line, all by itself.
    Excellent rebuttals, filled with the facts he doesn’t know and never will know.

  41. I have posted this before . The Military tried ten years ago to scare the American public by claiming climate change as a threat to national security . They failed miserably then . No doubt the people will see through this misinformation as well.

    pentagon-climate-scenario/ June 2014: Washington Times: Rowan Scarborough: Pentagon wrestles with bogus climate warnings as funds shifted to green agenda

    “Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios.
    Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.

    None of that has happened…

    The report also became gospel to climate change doomsayers, who predicted pervasive and more intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts…Doug Randall, who co-authored the Pentagon report, said, “Even I’m surprised at how often it’s referred to…
    Asked about his scenarios for the 2003-2010 period, Mr. Randall said in an interview: “The report was really looking at worst-case. And when you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent.”…”

    This Pentagon climate report speaks to the heart of false climate science alarmism that is rampant to day .These alarmist climate science reports are meant to exaggerate and scare people. They do not highlight that these are worst case projections in the opening paragraph. These qualifications never make the headlines or press releases .The rational world does not plan for the future based on worst case scenarios. We might as well all quit living if this was the case . No nation can afford to spend money to mitigate worst case scenarios, nor should they. The problem is that some politicians take these worst case situations and make public policies and actions as if they were true. They then fabricate entirely new falsehoods like carbon dioxide is a pollutant on top of these worst case scenarios and you now have a firm government action thrust on the general public that is all pure fabrication of a worst case scenario that will never come about. Yet it comes from the highest administrative offices in the land

  42. “Does the ‘leader’ of the free world really know so little about climate?”

    Was that a trick question?

  43. What would we hear if O’Barmy would ever talk about what HE actually knows, regardless of the propped-up drivel from his ghostwriters, about climate and science?
    We’d hear nothing but white noise and then booming silence.

    • He’d talk about basketball, and he really doesn’t know too much about that either

  44. Hat tip to you for the photo of Andromeda! I’ve been wishing I had such a representation of it in our sky for years!

  45. There in fact many refugees coming to the USA. Every fall, thousand upon thousands of Canadians escape the winter heat in Canada…./sarc….

  46. Finally!

    “International Study Reveals Cold Weather Kills 20 Times More People Than Hot Weather”
    (Source: The GWPF)

    I have been writing this fact for years, and Dr. Benny Peiser has spoken on “Heat vs Eat”.

    The statistics on Excess Winter Mortality in Europe are remarkable and alarming.
    Excess winter mortality in Europe: a cross country analysis identifying key risk factors

    I wrote the following in 2009:


    The money spent on Kyoto in a single year is sufficient to bring clean water and sanitation to every person on earth and operate these systems forever; these two factors alone would massively extend the lives of those in the third world and considerably reduce deaths, particularly infant deaths.

    To put this issue into perspective, in the decades that we have been obsessed with the false crisis of Global Warming, as many as 50 million children below the age of five have died worldwide from contaminated water – equal to ALL the people who died in the Second World War.

    Catastrophic Humanmade Global Warming is the BIG LIE of our time, and speaking the truth on this issue is an ethical and professional obligation.

    I think we know enough from the satellite and surface data to state that Earth’s climate is insensitive to recent increases in atmospheric CO2.

    We do not even know for certain that humanmade emissions are the cause of increased atmospheric CO2. We do know that at time scales ranging from years to hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 trends LAG, do NOT lead, temperature.

    We also know that the only significant measured impact of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations is increased plant growth and drought resistance.


    These are my honest opinions, based on several decades of study.

    Regards to all, Allan

    Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather
    Date: May 20, 2015
    Source: The Lancet

    Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.

      • Thank you Andres.

        The number of deaths as evidenced by excess winter mortality stats is daunting – see my 2014 post below.

        This is what happens when ignorant politicians fool with energy policy.

        Regards, Allan

        Following are my posts from 2013 and 2014:

        Winter Mortality is greater than Summer Mortality across Europe (and elsewhere).

        This reality is reflected in positive numbers for Relative Excess Winter Mortality (“Winter Mortality” also described as Coefficient of Seasonal Variation in Mortality or CSVM), which measures the increased incidence (in the Northern Hemisphere) of mortality from December to March inclusive versus the rest of the year.

        Winter Mortality in Sweden is about +0.10 or ~10%, similar to Norway, Finland, Germany, Netherlands etc., and these are comparatively low numbers.

        Much higher Winter Mortality occurs in the UK, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. This may seem to be counter-intuitive because these countries are warmer.

        However, I suggest that countries that adapt well to winter have lower Winter Mortality Rates that countries that do not.

        I further suggest that as the climate cools, which I think will in the near future, we can expect to see increased suffering and death in Europe and elsewhere, in part because many countries have severely damaged their energy systems due to the foolish adoption of wind and solar power schemes that are both costly and ineffective.

        This bleak probability reflects, in my opinion, an egregious error in government climate and energy policy that will cost many lives.

        The environmental movement, which has promoted this “green energy” debacle, should be held primarily responsible for this unfolding tragedy.

        Hope I am wrong.

        Regards, Allan


        Background Information:

        Winter Mortality (December to March inclusive) is greater than Summer Mortality across Europe (and elsewhere).

        See Figure 3 of the following paper. Relative Excess Winter Mortality in Sweden is about 0.10 or ~10%.
        Winter Excess Mortality: A Comparison between Norway and England plus Wales
        See Figure 3 – Relative Excess Winter Mortality in Sweden is about 0.10 or ~10%.
        “Bivariate analyses showed that the excess winter mortality (December-March) in England and Wales was nearly twice as high in old as in middle-aged people, and also markedly higher than in Norway, while the association between excess winter deaths and influenza was of a similar magnitude.”

        Some of this reality is related to the following observation:
        “Using data from 20 Western European countries, a highly significant positive correlation (R = 0.71, p < 0.001) was found between total mortality rates for the elderly (65 years and over) and relative excess winter mortality.”

        Excess winter mortality in Europe: a cross country analysis identifying key risk factors
        This study does not include Sweden.

        Table 1 – Coefficient of seasonal variation in mortality (CSVM) in EU-14 (mean, 1988–97)
        CSVM 95% CI
        Austria 0.14 (0.12 to 0.16)
        Belgium 0.13 (0.09 to 0.17)
        Denmark 0.12 (0.10 to 0.14)
        Finland 0.10 (0.07 to 0.13)
        France 0.13 (0.11 to 0.15)
        Germany 0.11 (0.09 to 0.13)
        Greece 0.18 (0.15 to 0.21)
        Ireland 0.21 (0.18 to 0.24)
        Italy 0.16 (0.14 to 0.18)
        Luxembourg 0.12 (0.08 to 0.16)
        Netherlands 0.11 (0.09 to 0.13)
        Portugal 0.28 (0.25 to 0.31)
        Spain 0.21 (0.19 to 0.23)
        UK 0.18 (0.16 to 0.20)
        Mean 0.16 (0.14 to 0.18)



        A few comments on Alternative Energy, Natural Gas Prices, and Excess Winter Mortality:

        Grid-connected wind power and solar power are uneconomic nonsense at this time. Intermittency is the biggest problem. This may change if a "super-battery" is ever developed, but this seems unlikely.

        Corn ethanol is uneconomic at this time – as are most other biofuels, with the exception of waste product and novel feedstocks such as tallow, wood chips, straw, algae, etc. that may be economic now or in the future.

        Cheap abundant energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When uninformed politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer.

        My main concern at this time is with Excess Winter Mortality across the Northern Hemisphere – our problem in North America is that both Environment Canada and the USA National Weather Service have predicted a warmish winter, and it is going to be very cold in the central and eastern two-thirds of Canada and the USA – much like last year – so people may be unprepared. In Europe and across Russia it will be even colder compared to seasonal norms, but at least they have a realistic cold weather forecast so are forewarned.

        The great advantage of North America is cheap energy – even though natural gas prices have risen sharply in the past two weeks, wholesale natgas is still just over $4/GJ on NYMEX. In Europe, natural gas prices are 2-3 times higher, thanks in large part to greens who oppose fracking of gassy shale formations.

        In Northern climes, many more people die in Winter than in Summer.
        For Europe and all of Russia:
        Assume a very low Excess Winter Mortality Rate of 10% (it varies from about 10% to 30% in Europe);
        About 1% of the population dies per year in Europe and Russia, or about 8 million deaths out of about 800 million people;
        The Excess Winter Mortality of this population is (4 months/8 months) * 10% * 8 million = at least 400,000 Excess Winter Deaths per year.
        This is an average number of Excess Winter Deaths across Europe and Russia – it varies depending upon flu severity, cold etc.
        Many people in Europe, especially older people on pensions, cannot afford to adequately heat their homes so are especially susceptible to illness and death in winter.

        The population of North America subject to cold weather is less than half the above.

        I hope I’ve slipped a decimal or two – these numbers seem daunting.

        In any case, please bundle up and stay warm this winter.

        Regards to all, Allan

  47. Then we get the “D” word: “Denying it, or refusing to deal with it, endangers our national security.

    Ah, OK, so what Mr. Obama is saying is that I, as a citizen of this United States, am a threat to national security. That might not end well, if taken to its logical conclusion.

    Perhaps I should read up a little history and see what happens when governments categorize large chunks of their population as threats. Hmmm, lets see, oh, that isn’t good.

    [Blockquotes are the correct html command, but in wordpress, you cannot use square brackets. Use the angled html brackets instea. .mod]

    • Many authors from the Climate Fearosphere have already mused about what should be done with you and your fellow climate refuseniks.
      You are to be identified, judged/diagnosed, imprisoned/concentrated, re-educated and/or eliminated. There are far too many recorded instances of such hateful musings and published speech, that even the sharpest troll- tool will not be able to cut away the evidence, though they might try.

      Aren’t you glad to see POTUS adapt the rhetoric of tyranny?

  48. As a Brit, I am amazed! No European could get away with this kind of rhetoric from your Leader. But you are all missing the point – and dangerously so. There is a another galactic threat and it has been with us for some time. It is like a predator clamped onto the neck of our own galactic heart – astronomers call it dwarf and spheroidal and it is hardly visible to us from our own star because it came in on the other side of our galactic centre. You all think – I guess, that you are creatures of the Earth – as taught by the same societal club who dreamed up the scary climate story. But that is only our evolutionary earth-based bodies. The mind comes from elsewhere – or at least, its soulful elements. Those who hold to peace and love, harmony, simplicity, sensuality and beauty, cooperation and community, freedom of expression and, yes, scientific truths as well – they are inspired by our own loving galactic heart (or incarnated, as Issac Newton would have put it). But there are others – the slavers, essentially, who do not belong here. They come from the spheroidal dwarf interloper gnawing at our Milky throat. They don’t believe in love above control, nor beauty above order and privilege. They don’t honour the divine feminine qualities in their women, let alone themselves. They are not sensual. They calculate and predate. They like to be at the top of the Pyramid of numbers – from whence they can keep an eye on things. They colonise minds. They are dangerously genocidal – especially when indigenous people get in the way of their plans. And of course, there has been a long battle against these not-quite humans for some time now. We fought long and hard against them in Europe. Then a bunch of them escaped and colonised your beloved Americas – wreaking havoc – killing, enslaving, mining, cutting down the beauty, making loads of money and plotting to rule the world in the name of…..freedom! They did the same here to the Cathars in the name of Salvation, and at the Battle of White Mountain, when Love finally lost the field at the Heart of Europe.They offer a deal – what we called over here, a Faustian bargain – material security in exchange for allegiance to the Order. That’s what happened to Obama. He started out well meaning, with perhaps little idea just who calls the shots in the White Man’s House. Same for G.W.! He was well-meaning too. Republican or Democrat – up against the same dark matter.

    When you get the Nature of this animal, you understand why the Scary Story has such a hold. Nobody is really scared of the climate – especially not the US Military! They are scared to say anything out-of-line. This fear grips the whole science establishment. Until 2001, at least, the Vice Chair of the IPCC, a man from the Russian Academy of Sciences, thought global warming over-hyped and put down most of it to natural cycles – he is on record with the Press saying that. Likewise the Chinese Academy of Sciences – with units leading the study of natural cycles. Then Putin was persuaded of the benefits of the Carbon Demon – as a currency, with credits. He signed Kyoto and received billions of dollars. The Vice Chair moved on – some of that money went to his Institute for Global Ecology or some such named, and they flew loads of missions spraying Barium Sulphate to cool the planet! He even published the results openly in the Russian Journal of Meteorology and Hydrology. Don’t know much about China – but its scientists still publish in Lord Monckton’s beloved Chinese Science Bulletin (of the Academy) – on how they expect cooling by mid-Century using wave-analysis of the past cycles (we are, of course, at an expected natural peak – unfortunately, it could be a double peak over the next decade!). But check out the Chinese recipients of the IMF’s Global Environment Fund – when I last looked, they got about 50% of it – which might just explain why they toe-the-line verbally, but carry on building coal-fired power plants like there was no scary tomorrow!

    I am not sure if I believe anymore in the redeeming powers. Seems things are going the other way. But then, you all might revisit the NASA website and check out the EMP of 23rd July 2012….it missed us by 9 days of solar rotation. If it had been Earth-side of the Sun, we wouldn’t be blogging. The FEMA camps would be full to the brim – if there were that many to survive the famine. Check out the NAS 2008 report and discussions in Congress in anticipation of this ‘Carrington’ event – on just how many would survive. End of civilisation as we know it. We are not prepared. Not resilient. They are! They got a biofuel-powered carrier-fleet! And a nuclear-back-up boiler.

    I hate to be a separatist, ‘us’ and ‘them’ – but then, like I said, I am losing the faith. And By The Way, how many nuclear stations do you guys in the USA have that would not survive a Carrington event? You are right to belittle the warmist meme, but sadly, there are blindspots in the sceptic camp!

    • Damn!
      I liked the beginning of your story but it ended up deteriorating. Although I must admit I enjoyed your first two paragraphs. I think you have the makings of a great scifi tale. Put the story up on obooko. I love to download free scifi. As to your last two paragraphs? Not frightened by it at all. I love an adventure. There would have be one redeeming feature if that had happened. We wouldn’t have heard Obama’s speech.

    • I was thinking more like Commander Queeg of the Caine (Bogart). The strawberries! That’s when I knew I had them! I could prove it with geometric logic!

      • I was thinking ‘Caine Mutiny’ as well. I decided on Mr. Roberts.
        I think Obama could play both roles as well

  49. War on Climate

    I wonder if that’s whats coming next since the President has declared the urgent need to combat climate change. I really cannot think why everything requires a war (war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror, etc) except that the USA really likes war as a concept.

    There is good news in that the president also mentioned adapting to climate. Such a brilliant idea, never before since the dawn of mankind has anyone thought of the radical idea of adapting to climate. In this visionary vein, the White House has announced it will soon be coming out with an official endorsement of using fire to serve humanities needs.

  50. “Our scientists at NASA just reported that some of the sea ice around Antarctica is breaking up even faster than expected.

    Missing end-quote. I’ll donate one… “

  51. One fact he could learn is that there is only one global warming gas of any significance and its been remarkably constant over time, water vapor.

  52. “The world’s glaciers are melting, pouring new water into the ocean.”

    Can Barack Obama explain to me what the difference is between new water and old water?

      • Sorry Max but I don’t get it. Are you having some sort of go at me? It really went over my head if you did. Maybe it’s because I am old and feeble and in my dotage. I would , frankly, like to have an explanation of how my comment connects to the clip. If I get it I might be amused.
        Perhaps you are older than I am and are throwing in random clips because you are suffering from dementia

      • Old people don’t smell. They also can’t see, or hear very well. Don’t ask me how I know this.

      • Alex,

        No, I’m not having a go at you at all!

        In the skit the British develop the world’s funniest joke — so funny that it kills people.

        Hitler develops a counter-joke:

        My dog has no nose.
        How does it smell?

        My apologies for the confusion.


  53. Let’s think about something for just one moment. Would anybody anywhere go to a doctor who hates the human body? Sure, the human body has lots of flaws (for instance, its inability to tolerate large amounts of alcohol), but would anybody really go to a doctor who hated it? Seriously?

    Now, let’s think about a Constitutional law professor. Almost, without exception, every single Constitutional law professor over the last 100 years (since Woodrow Wilson) absolutely positively hates the Constitution. And, so what did a stupid majority of us Americans do? We hired a Constitutional law professor* six and a half years ago to put his hand on the Bible** and swear to uphold that same Constitution.

    *I know ‘professor’ is a little bit of a glorification for what that guy did at U of C before he became POTUS.
    **The Constitution actually provides for an oath, or in place of an oath an ‘affirmation’, of office. Over the years we’ve forgotten the affirmation part.

    • A little esoteric for most of us yokels. As an Australian citizen, I guess I should become more involved in US politics, after all, Obama, idiot that he is, is leader of the most powerful nation on Earth. What he says effects us all. I will apply my right as a citizen of Australia to disparage politicians.
      Here it comes
      F@ck you Obama and all who sail with you.

  54. There is no warming climate change problem to address. The CO2 mechanism saturates and the planet resists temperature changes by an increase or decrease in cloud cover in tropics, based on observations (there has been almost no warming of the tropics in last 30 years). That is the physical reason why there has been no warming for more than 18 years. It is a fact that commercial greenhouse inject CO2 to increase yield and reduce growing time. The CO2 increase in the atmosphere is by far a net good thing not a bad thing.

    The green scams are a colossal waste of money. They will never significantly reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Nuclear power is the only option to reduce CO2 emissions below 30%.

    The cult of CAGW has created a problem that does not exist and are trying to force an absurdly expensive solution that does not work for the non problem.

    The President of the most powerful country on the earth and his political party does not understand what is or is not a problem and has no ability to prioritize or address problems.

    The US military has an annual think tank conference/discussion which is attended (by invitation) by the brightest military leaders, economists, scientists, and so on for presentations and discussions of all of the threats to the US.

    Consistently that group has found that the number one threat to the future of the US is the health of the US economy. The US is losing the economic war with China and Asia. The US does not have sufficient funds to meet future commitments for defense, health care, infrastructure, social security, poverty reduction programs, education, and so on. There will be forced, no choice massive cuts to US entitlements. The future cuts will be hard choices as the cuts will significantly reduce or eliminate some entitlements.

    That is a fact. There is an absolute limit to how far the ‘can’ can be kicked down the road. Japan has reached that point with an accumulated debt that is 270% of GDP.

    The first step to addressing a problem is acknowledging it exists. To understand its implications.

    The most basic economic concept is completely ignored by the ‘liberals’. It is a fact, an unchangeable law of economics, that there is a fixed amount of money to spend on everything. A country must either increase their country’s GDP to have more money to spend or they must find ways to spend the available money more efficiently. Those are the choices.

    The number one US expenditure is health care. The following is a summary to illustrate the magnitude of the ‘fiscal crisis’ problem and the type of choices.

    The US has the most expensive health care system in the world. Currently 18% of the largest GDP in the world. The US diet is one of most unhealthy in the world. Diet changes can reduce US health care costs by 30% to 50%. The other solution is letting sick old people die and terminally sick people near the end of the lives, die rather than prolonging life (savings of 20% to stop treatment in the last 3 to 6 months of life).

    US total health care costs (privately funded and government funded) will grow from 18% of GDP to 40% of GDP by 2050, if something is not done to address the problem.

    US government funded Medicare and Medicaid costs project are projected to rise from current 4.6% of GDP to 20% of the GDP which is more that all current government programs including defense by 2050.

    Under this scenario, Medicare and Medicaid would rise from 4.6% of the economy today to 20% of the economy by 2050. To appreciate the scale of this increase, all of the activities of the federal government today make up 20% of the economy.

    Near-term changes to the consumer and provider sides of health care financing are essential to prevent the nation from being overwhelmed by rapidly rising health care expenditures.
    Popular discussions of the long-term fiscal challenges confronting the United States usually misdiagnose the problem. They typically focus on the government expenses related to the aging of the baby boomers, with lower fertility rates and longer life expectancy causing most of the long-term budget problem. In fact, most of the long-term problem will be driven by excess health care cost growth; that is, the rate at which health care costs grow compared to income per capita.

    The CBO has recently released a long-term health outlook that presents a more sophisticated approach to projecting Medicare and Medicaid costs under current law, but this simple extrapolation is adequate to illustrate the key point.) Under this scenario, Medicare and Medicaid would rise from 4.6% of the economy today to 20% of the economy by 2050. To appreciate the scale of this increase, all of the activities of the federal government today make up 20% of the economy.
    When the Money Runs Out: The End of Western Affluence

    … economist Stephen D. King warns, and the current stagnation of Western economies threatens to reach crisis proportions in the not-so-distant future. Praised for the “dose of realism” he provided in his book Losing Control, King follows up in this volume with a plain-spoken assessment of where the West stands today. It’s not just the end of an age of affluence, he shows. We have made promises to ourselves that are only achievable through ongoing economic expansion. The future benefits we expect – pensions, healthcare and social security, for example – may be larger than tomorrow’s resources. And if we reach that point, which promises will be broken and who will lose out? The lessons of history offer compelling evidence that political and social upheaval are often born of economic stagnation.

  55. There are times when I really miss my old telepathic powers.

    Would have been fascinating to scan the thoughts of the assembled graduating class while they listened to the speech. :)

  56. Has Obama got a plan of action for reducing CO2 after all of his actions and appointments to the NRC and their actions cause more than half of the existing Nuclear power plants, which produce ZERO CO2, to shut down? This will negate all of his renewable energy actions ten times over.

  57. The title to this posting is interesting, considering the only things Obama has shown competence in is lying, radicalization and hatred of America. It seems pretty obvious he is clueless on virtually everything else, almost self-evident.

    • MaxP – Agreed. Best part of this whole ramble. I had to check the real stats to make sure it wasn’t a fake out photo. I’ve gazed on it many times in awe a never appreciated its magnitude. (or lack of)

  58. There’s no error or judgement or ‘advice’ issues, here. Obama and his liberal activist pals are up to their necks in duplicity and lies, nothing less.
    Meanwhile, the disconnect between our ruling liberal elite’s wild claims and actual climate observations is now so wide it has become acutely embarrassing, with the entire rotten, cheating charade now a complete joke.

  59. Cognitive Dissonance. If your fantasies do not match reality you become fearful. This leads to irrational and destructive acts.

    • I don’t have Cognitive Dissonance, I guess. When my fantasies don’t match reality I just get disappointed.

  60. Christopher Monckton,

    One tiny suggestion to help readability: perhaps in a format like this you can bold the quoted statements. This will help the to 1) draw the eye to each section, 2) separate ‘call and response’, 3) reduce the sense of an imposing monolith of text.

    And once again, your graphics are absolutely superb! Salesmanship is the difference between rape and rapture.

  61. Contrary to others opinions I think that neither he nor his are stupid. In these situations it is a choice between stupidity and lying. They know the reality is totally different than the lies they are speaking. So why would they do that? They have an agenda that needs it is the most accurate view IMHO.

    • Well, if his agenda is a world ruled by ISIS, he’s doing a great job! I think he sees the mid-east as the proper sphere-of-influence of Iran, and once this happens Iran will become a benign entity.

  62. Boko Haram was unleashed by Obama’s toppling of the al Qaeda suppressing Ghadaffi in Libya. For Obama to attribute the rise of Boko Haram to non-existent global warming is like Susan Rice blaming the 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi on a supposed spontaneous protest against an obscure You Tube video when she and Obama and Hillary Clinton had all just received definitive intel that the attack had been planned by al Qaeda at least 10 days earlier in revenge for the Obama-drone killing of a local al Qaeda leader and to commemorate 9/11. Both are shameless lies to the American people and the world about the most important matters of national interest and national security.

    “Don’t blame me. Blame uh…. that guy over there! (who just coincidentally happens to be someone I hate anyway).” This is actually the pre-planned strategy of the Alinsky-communist “community organizing” that Obama was trained to do: make as big a mess as possible and use that mess (in Rahm Emmanuel “never let a crisis go to waste” fashion) to blame the opposition and extort more “gains” for the Alinsky-communist agenda (meaning to make yet more mess). Obama used the Benghazi attack as an excuse to purchase a very expensive advertising campaign in Pakistan attacking American free speech rights. Now he uses the rise of Boko Haram that his policies initiated to attack global warming “deniers.” Free form destruction and attack, based entirely on disinformation and misdirection, as Obama was literally trained to do.

  63. The US Navy will assault the next cat 3+ hurricane headed for the US mainland with heavy artillery, bunker busters, lasers, tasers – everything in their arsenal (except of course nuclear – after all, they are not stupid).

    • Mike Maguire,

      That is a fascinating report. A sample:

      …the cheapest price the Navy has paid for any biofuel to date is $1,080.66 per barrel ($25.73 per gallon). Since 2007, the military has spent $67.8 million on 1.35 million gallons of biofuel, averaging more than $50 a gallon or $2,100 a barrel, and costing the taxpayers $60 million more than if conventional fuel had been purchased (Table 1).

      What a waste of taxpayer money. And Obama brags about his “Green Fleet”.

      Some folks are getting very rich off the biofuels scam.

  64. Thanks Christopher. The characteristics of Obama’s inner circle are known. But he appoints these folks. So it is his responsibility. We might assume that Coast Guard graduates have studied weather, climate, and oceans. They know, or should know, the President has taken a wrong path.
    I’ll add this:

    Out West, deeper droughts and longer wildfires could threaten training areas our troops depend on.”

    Where I live, I can hear the sounds when our troops use the Yakima Training Center. At night I can see flashes. Average precipitation on this land is about 7 inches [178 mm] (+/-) per year. The environment is called –

    sagebrush steppe

    Put the above in an images search box to see pictures of what this sort of landscape looks like. One of the regular occupants of these areas is the sage grouse. The army is more concerned with this than with CO2. See:

  65. What’s this about millions being abandoned to substandard healthcare by Obamacare? I don’t know a single person whose healthcare declined due to Obamacare, and I know a few who were enabled by Obamacare to get health insurance.

    • Donald, you can count me for one. We lost our medical insurance of many years and could not pay for ACA (no subsides for me, wife is too old and not a USA citizen).

    • You can add me to the list.
      My premiums and deductibles had been going up for about 30% per year ever since ACA law had came to pass. I am now have very expensive insurance with $60 deductibles for doctor visit, $600 for tests and something over a $1000 for emergency room.
      i am self employed, so I have no subsidies if any kind, BTW

      But in addition to costs, more and more doctors add monthly fees just so you can see them – because reimbursement rates are going down so much.

    • Donald,

      My wife’s healthcare insurance almost doubled under Obamacare. Also, her doctor visits went from $10 to $50, exactly matching the rise in her prescription costs.

      I don’t know about ‘substandard’ care. I suspect that is coming. But what we pay for what we get has skyrocketed.

  66. Spoken like a true useful idiot on the latest bogeyman. They keep trying for one to stick and so far….I think with the help of the internet….this one has legs and without nature’s answer to their arrogance and deceit it may have been successful already.

  67. Attitudes like Obama’s are the problem. Climate change is a political battle not a scientific one. A non issue fabricated from opinion with government grant dollars based on severely flawed climate models.

  68. I tell you what people: once the climate change canard is defined as a threat to national security, those that question that assumption will be defined as a threat to national security. And you know what happens to them (at least if your domestic and on the wrong side of the current zeitgeist).

  69. Nothing goofier than American politics. “Foreign-born occupant of the White House”… Really? Jesus. I come here for the science but when you start up with this ridiculous tea-bagger rhetoric it makes it pretty hard to pretend that this is supposed to be a rational argument about facts and science.

    • Monckton’s stated position is he does not know the truth of where Obama is born. However Obama is the first birther. For over a decade his publicist claimed Obama was foreign born.

    • With labels like “tea-bagger”, you lost any credibility you might otherwise have had. Take your filthy references elsewhere.

  70. Obama is the best example of the progressive Liberal, that is righteous and closed minded.

  71. In answer to youir question; “Does the ‘leader’ of the free world really know so little about climate?”
    The answer is yes.

    What is really disturbing is that this moron was elected twice by an even more ignorant electorate.

  72. Our presidents are not leaders. They are the elected president of the executive branch of our government. It is when they believe they are also leaders that all of them fail miserably. The current one failed sooner and harder than most and is typical of people who don’t know they’re clueless.

    • +10

      The presidency was a rather residual function (as was the function of the federal government relative to the states). The president was an administrator.

      The presidency has been artificially promoted to the top of the heap. Now we really have a Cult of the Emperor.

      Nothing good will come from this distortion.

  73. I am waiting peer-reviewed research that shows the optimum climate for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.

    Strangely, nobody seems interested in this vital comparison. Not so strangely, the solutions that are frequently demanded in the most urgent voice, all converge on a socialist worldview: statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, even fewer people. That bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.

  74. For some real-world evidence of climate change, you could point to the wonderful tourist must-see destination at Mesa Verde, the largest national park of its kind.

    “The cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde are some of the most notable and best preserved in the North American Continent. Sometime during the late 1190s, after primarily living on the mesa top for 600 years, many Ancestral Puebloans began living in pueblos they built beneath the overhanging cliffs. The structures ranged in size from one-room storage units to villages of more than 150 rooms. While still farming the mesa tops, they continued to reside in the alcoves, repairing, remodeling, and constructing new rooms for nearly a century. By the late 1270s, the population began migrating south into present-day New Mexico and Arizona. By 1300, the Ancestral Puebloan occupation of Mesa Verde ended.”

    We could turn to Wikipedia to read:

    “By 1300 AD prolonged drought had caused the fragile adaptation to collapse and the Mesa Verde area was abandoned. The surviving Mesa Verde people retreated to the south and east.”

    So we have a national park that exists due to climate change that nobody in his right mind would attribute to human activity.

    Elsewhere, we could read how the ancient city of Rome was fed by wheat raised in areas of North Africa that are now desert, but people who scold the rest of us about what we must do right now to address climate change aren’t interested in ancient changes in the ever-changing climate.

    Grain supply to the city of Rome

    Or this from the Wikipedia entry on Tacfarinas, who was a Numidian deserter from the Roman army who led his own Musulamii tribe and a loose and changing coalition of other Ancient Libyan tribes in a war against the Romans in North Africa during the rule of emperor Tiberius (AD 14-37):

    The war lasted for about 10 years (from ca. AD 15 to 24) and engaged four successive Roman proconsuls (governors) of the province of Africa (modern Tunisia), which, although a small part of the empire, was economically vital as the source of most of Rome’s grain supply….

    “The direct consequence of the war was the registration of the entire Tunisian plateau for land tax and its conversion to mainly wheat cultivation. The Musulamii and other nomadic tribes were likely permanently excluded from what had been their summer grazing grounds and forced to lead a more impoverished existence in the Aures mountains and the arid zone. The war also probably sealed the long-term fate of the client kingdom of Mauretania, which was annexed in AD 44 by the Emperor Claudius (ruled 41-54).”

    From the Wikipedia article on Tacfarinas

  75. Now that the topmost idiot of the self-styled free-world has drawn our attention to the subject matter of the energy-efficiency of our armed forces, I think that it might be useful to perform a Lomborg style analysis of the cost (energy expended in kilowatt-hours) versus the gains (maybe, in land surface area acquired and held in “area-months”).
    I do not have the required data at my fingertips, but I’m pretty sure that we would discover that U.S. territorial gains in Iraq and Afghanistan will turn out to have been phenomenally costly.
    Especially when compared to the successes of a budget military outfit such as ISIS.
    Of course, the all-time leader in the energy efficiency stakes must surely be Vietcong, who transported their troops and equipment by bicycle whilst America expended phenomenal quantities of energy in it’s failed attempts to bomb them and their bicycles into oblivion.
    ISIS have recently taken to travelling by motorcycle, in order to reduce their own carbon footprint whilst increasing the carbon footprint of the drones and strike fighters targetting them from the skies above.
    In both these examples the most energy-efficient outfit appears to have made substantial military gains.
    Whilst the energy and technologically wasteful side seems to have only exhausted itself in a tragically foolish adventure.

    “In war, each side is kept busy turning its wealth into energy which is then delivered, free gratis and for nothing, to the other side. Such energy may be muscular, thermal, kinetic or chemical. Wars are only possible because the recipients of this energy are ill prepared to receive it and convert it into a useful form for their own economy. If, by means of, say, impossibly large funnels and gigantic reservoirs, they could capture and store the energy flung at them by the other side, the recipients of this unsolicited gift would soon be so rich, and the other side so poor, that further warfare would be unnecessary for them and impossible for their opponents.”
    – Norman Dixon, in On the Psychology of Military Incompetence

    • It was the North Vietnamese army, not the Viet Cong, who transported supplies by bicycle from the North to the South. The VC were guerrillas already in the South.

      The attempted conventional invasions of the South by the North, the last of which in 1975 succeeded largely due to the oil crisis, however were with fossil fueled armored and thin-skinned motor vehicles, to include diesel and gas-guzzling tanks and self-propelled artillery and tow trucks.

      • sturgishooper. Thanks for the corrections. I’ll be more careful next time!! My comment was of course, only faux serious. As was the Dixon quote. On the other hand, Obama’s references to the green credentials of P.V. bearing troops and bio-fuelled fighters/bombers were presumably intended to be taken seriously.
        It would be hard to come up with satire that was more ludicrous than the speech itself.
        Personally, I find that the best way to make war more energy efficient is to ask the all important question: “is this war absolutely necessary?”
        That and registering with a tank sharing scheme.

  76. What’s particularly galling to this investor is that the Royal Dutch Shells, the BPs, the Chevrons, the Totals and the Statoils couldn’t care less what policies government imposes. They’ll simply pass through whatever costs arise to the public.

    All of them are tired of dealing with continuous harassment by the CO-2 Klimate Krazies and are perfectly willing to go along with anything that relieves them of the annoyance.

    If you own shares in these companies, you should insist that managements resist the temptation to surrender to the enviro-nutters.

    If you own shares in any of these companies, be sure to vote your proxies against any shareholder proposals suggesting acquiescence to the Enviro-Extortionists.

  77. The list of topics the leader of the free world “Knows so little about” would likely stretch from here to the moon and back.

  78. It has been said that Western leaders used to become more and more obsessed with foreign policy as an escape from domestic political impotence as their political tenure inevitably shuffled off its mortal coil.

    It gave them something irrelevant to talk about, something irrelevant to make claims about, even praise from irrelevant foreign leaders (who had exactly the same problems back home). That it was largely removed from the problems that most voters cared about was what provided release from the real problems and pressures of the job.

    Climate and weather fits that bill nicely. Certainly in the UK, if you want to have an irrelevant but pleasant conversation with a complete stranger, you talk about the weather.

  79. Well the one scary part of Obama’s speech is that the US military has in fact wasted 100s of billions on plans integrating “global warming” and fantasy future conflicts into its responses at the behest of the same “thinkers” that brought you the EPA and Homeland Security. Joint Chiefs have been pretty much floor mats since the retirement of LeMay. You will notice though that the Navy still resists Solar and wind powered propulsion!

  80. The president’s attempt to fight climate change and extreme weather that he believes is due to man generated greenhouse gases is like fighting an enemy (Nature ) who has nuclear weapons level forces and he only has pitch forks . Does he really think that a 2 % reduction in greenhouse gases generated by man will have any measurable effect on extreme weather events like the number and severity of global hurricanes , tornadoes , snow storms , snow falls , thunderstorms ,floods , storm surges ,droughts , heat waves , cold waves , landslides, volcanic ash, forest fires and changes in ocean currents and levels . If he does, he is in for a big surprise because these events were happening naturally well before there was significant population to generate such greenhouse gases and these events will continue to occur in the future despite this president’s actions..
    One of his basic problems is an undefined and open ended mission. What constitutes a safe, acceptable or normal level of extreme weather events that he is trying to achieve? What is “normal “? Is it average weather and over what base and during what time in our history is it based on? Or is it regular, common or standard weather and who defines it for what part of the globe and during what time of the year? How do you distinguish natural extreme weather events from those caused by man if there is even such a thing?
    . Instead of leading his nation to adapt to regularly changing and natural major forces beyond the control of man, he seems to be leading the country to even worse situation in the future , by wasting valuable funds and leaving the nation unprepared for what really lies ahead., namely cooler weather during the next 2-3 decades

  81. Obama is an alarmist partly because so many of his followers are alarmists too, so as leader he must get out in front of them. But an equally strong reason is that he, like them, sincerely believes the alarmist template / narrative, especially the purported rebuttals of contrarian claims on sites like SkS. The alarmist story sounds convincing, It has persuaded many warmists that it that the alarmists have said the last word. (The Science is Settled, etc.)

    To counter it, Heartland (or somebody) should produce apoint-by-point collaborative collection of counterpoints to SkS’s rebuttals. It should be sent to leading contrarians for their input. There should be several rounds of such reviewing, to ensure thoroughness and anticipate responses. Care should be taken to avoid claiming refutation when only undermining has been accomplished.

  82. dbstealey May 21, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    Get a load of your HE-RO calling President Bush “unpatriotic” for increasing the national debt!

    dbstaley, I thought you were a reasonable chap, but your assertions grow increasingly bizarre. I’ve never said anything that could lead anyone to believe that I have any heroes among the politicians of our day, and certainly not a US president who has declared war on coal, to get back on topic.

    And again, I’m not fenced in by political loyalties. I do realize that some of you are stuck on that armature like the horns of a dilemma, and can’t seem to break free, but I really wish, db, that you wouldn’t make false accusations, insinuations, or representations about my heroes.

  83. If President Obama really believed that adding CO2 to the atmosphere was so dangerous then he would not be making unnecessary trips on Air Force One. All of his speeches could be made at the White House. Technology is in place to broadcast all of his speeches all over the world. The Washington press corp will cover any speech the President wants to deliver. But our President just loves to travel at the tax payer’s expense and really does not care what effect he himself has on the environment. Our President is known for his words of little or no real meaning. For example, the President was very emphatic about saying that he would have the power and promised to close GITMO within one year of his taking office. He said that he would bring the nation together and that he would solve problems between the parties by reaching across the isle. The President said that government should not make promises that it cannot keep and that government must keep those promises it has already made. After all what the President said, GITMO is still open. Apparently what the President said was all bs and that continues to be the nature of his speeches. our President says things that to him sound good a the time but that turn out to be nothing but bs.

    • willhaas commented:
      “If President Obama really believed that adding CO2 to the atmosphere was so dangerous…”

      If he or any politicians believed CO2 is so dangerous they would be stopping it completely instead of “cap and trade” and taxing it. Also anyone that thinks there’s a chance we could completely stop using fossil fuels altogether within the next 100 (+) years you’re either naive or ignorant. But most likely both.

  84. History is full of would-be-leaders blaming the innocent for something or other to promote their power and agenda. Hitler blamed the Jews. White racist blamed blacks. Black racist blame whites. The “99%” blame the “1%”. Etc.
    The problem for them is that some in whatever group they are appealing to know some in the group being blamed. They know personally that the the paintbrush is way to wide.
    So blame something is not a group of people as a threat to “National Security” to justify the desired nonsense.

    • OOPS!
      I knew I’d go into moderation but there’s a typo I’d like to fix.
      “So blame something is not a group of people as a threat to “National Security” to justify the desired nonsense.”
      Should be:
      “So blame something that is not a group of people as a threat to “National Security” to justify the desired nonsense.

  85. sturgishooper May 21, 2015 at 1:34 pm
    Steve @ 10:40,

    “Is there no tired old lie that you are not beneath trotting out?”

    I doubt the DIA was lying, sturgishooper, or their analysts made a mistake. Their investigation was made at the time, in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

    Pelletiere claimed that a fact that has not been successfully challenged is that Iraq was not known to have possessed the cyanide-based blood agents determined to have been responsible for the condition of the bodies that were examined, and that blue discolorations around the mouths of the victims and in their extremities, pointed to Iranian-used gas as the culprit.

    In any event, the Halabja incident took place in 1998 when the United States was supporting Iraq in its war with Iran. That such seemingly inconclusive evidence should be trotted out 14 years later as partial justification for invading a sovereign nation underlines how weak was the entire US case against Saddam and Iraq.

    • It’s not inconclusive. It’s dispositive.

      That the false assessment was made at the time is the main reason it is false.

      The DIA has often been wrong. So has the CIA; more often in fact.

  86. “And, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. ”

    Shares in Napalm Flame Throwers dropped 75% on the news. Their R&D department reports they are working on deep freeze throwers.

  87. “Does the ‘leader’ of the free world really know so little about climate?”

    Most likely but with this man it doesn’t matter how much or little he knows. He will say ANYTHING to promote an agenda he believes in and to vilify anyone that stands in his way of implementing it.

  88. Temperature on the Kelvin scale? On that graph, the difference between a nice human-healthy 37C and a life-threatening 40C hardly shows up. I grant you that the actual mean temp change of a little less than 1C is beneficial or benign, but that graph is a bad joke.

    • Kelvin is the unit to use when doing scientific calculations.
      In late 2006 my local news paper, The Vancouver Sun, has an author – Stephen Hume – write that the local temperatures were 68% above normal. This was written also at around the time of the great windstorm which the author assured us that such a wind storm would be from now on quite common. There has been nothing like it since and my further research showed such a storm took place in 1933.
      Stephen Hume’s calculations would turn out differently if he used the F scale (or Kelvin). If the normal temperature was 0.1 C and the temperature for that day was 1C, he could proclaim that the temperatures were 1,000% above normal.

  89. News Alert: You’d be surprised at how little the Leader of the Free World knows, period, end of statement.

  90. I am a retired U.S. Army officer who served in Korea under Presidents Truman and Eisenhower. The thought of this sorry pretender to greatness spouting what his Strangelovian science advisor tells him to a graduating class of Coast Guard cadets is sickening. They are a threat to national security if they don’t believe the Gaia worshiper’s ravings? Beam me up, Scotty. It’s all over.

  91. Mike McMillan May 21, 2015 at 2:25 pm

    Yellowcake is not WMD.

    Yellowcake, or uranium concentrate, produced by mines cannot be used directly as a nuclear fuel.

    The Niger Uranium Forgeries, aka Niger Yellowcake affair featured forged documents framing Saddam and Iraq for attempts to acquire yellowcake from Niger.

    “The reports made no sense on the face of it,” says Ray McGovern, the former C.I.A. analyst, who challenged Rumsfeld about the war at a public event this spring. “Most of us knew the Iraqis already had yellowcake. It is a sophisticated process to change it into a very refined state and they didn’t have the technology.”

    As Ray McGovern states, It was already noted during the Niger Yellowcake affair that Iraq had its own yellowcake and no need, therefore, to acquire any from Niger.

    In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” This single sentence is now known as “the Sixteen Words.”

    Sixteen days before President Bush’s January 28, 2003, State of the Union address in which he said that the US learned from British intelligence that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Africa — an explosive claim that helped pave the way to war — the State Department told the CIA that the intelligence the uranium claims were based upon were forgeries, according to a newly declassified State Department memo.'s_'16_words'_were_false

  92. Unfortunately many people are too dumb to know how deceitful and wrong the speech is and I understand that with a compliant media a proportion of them will never hear the truth, but what I cannot understand is how any person could possibly interpret the actions of the Chinese as an agreement to do something on climate change. I would urge all countries in Paris to reach agreement to do nothing till 2030 and we will all be better off.

  93. Next: “Severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram.” But the IPCC, in its special report of 2012 on extreme weather, and in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, says one cannot yet ascribe such individual events to global warming. And that is particularly true given that the area of the globe under drought is in decline.

    Monckton – You missed one opportunity to refute Obama’s Coast Guard speech. Joe Bastardi posted on a precipitation anomaly map for Nigeria. Guess what? No drought. In fact, it shows above normal precipitation for Nigeria. Joe does his homework. Take Joe Bastardi’s homework to the bank. Maybe Obama meant to say the flooding in Nigeria, instead of ‘severe drought.’?

    There has been no severe drought in Nigeria for AGW to cause. So what is BO talking about?

  94. Obama has found out that all it requires in a President is a complete lack of morality. Then he can do whatever he wants. Who’s gonna stop him?

    American patriot Patrick Henry said in a speech to the Constitutional Convention:

    “This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this government, although horridly defective.

    Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad?

    “Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.

    “If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens?

    “I would rather infinitely — and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion — have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke.

    “I cannot with patience think of this idea. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of his army, to carry every thing before him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him.

    “If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne?

    “Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push?

    “But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your President! We shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?

    Good luck, folks. All it will take is a convenient ’emergency’. Those happen regularly in every big country. Then it’s martial law, and suspending habeas corpus (like Lincoln did), and it’s for all practical purposes it’s King Obama.

    Can you imagine?

    I can.

    • “But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him?

      Reminds me of what Al Gore’s excuse when he, as VP, was caught violating campaign finance laws by using the resources of the VP’s office in his run for President, “There’s no controlling legal authority.” or words to that effect.
      It will take a great man of superb moral character to use the authority incrementally amassed power of the Executive Branch to dismantle it and bring it back in line with the INTENT of the Founders.

  95. Does the ‘leader’ of the free world really know so little about climate?

    Yes, but he’s positively brilliant on the topic compared to his “expertise” in Constitutional Law.

  96. Sea level rising!! We must stop the mighty rivers of the world dumping millions of tons of silt into the oceans and so causing the worlds water levels to rise (See Archimedes, below). We should be truly irate, on a war footing with China, for creating land mass in the South China Sea, displacing water at the Kuril Islands (see Archimedes, below).

    Of course, all of this could be solved by a single undersea quake. We argue here with significant data and yet are like a squeak in the wilderness, The propaganda war is being won elsewhere by such interjections as Mr Obama’s. It is as though no measurement has been taken and every fact refuted. Are we on the wrong tack? Have we established why there is a mania for this subject and what it would take to refute the underlying proposals?

    Everyone that has been seduced by a range of governments seems to think that all bets are off as they are sure that the leading protagonists against warming must all be in the palm of big energy and don’t seem at all fussed about the powers and subterfuges of big state.

    On the one hand it is OK for drilling in U.S. Arctic waters which will lead to more fossil fuels being burned, but on the other, that other nature, global warming is so sinister as to attract massively inflated language. I’m finding talk of all this water too hard to swallow!

  97. “Out West, deeper droughts and longer wildfires could threaten training areas our troops depend on.”

    How ever will the likes of 29 Palms and NTC cope? /sarc.

    In seriousness, nobody at the DoD cared one bit about AGW until the 2013 sequestration saw equipment procurement and training budgets slashed to the bone. The POTUS can claim a carrier group being a green success all he wants, but sadly that biofuel costs twice as much as regular old jet fuel. So is it any wonder the Navy was considering mothballing a carrier due to not having the cash to keep it in service due to budget cuts, potentially weakening national security. Conveniently, the money was found to keep it in service about the same time the Navy started claiming that sea level rise was a geo-political security issue. Hmmm….

    • “Mothballing a carrier potentially weakening national security” give me break!! The US has more carriers than the rest of the world combined and is currently building 2 more to a total of 12 WHY??? . Who is the enemy? And please don’t tell me terrorists . It would be miles cheaper for the US to pay for hotel rooms in the Ritz for every terrorist in the world for the rest of their lives than build and maintain 1 aircraft carrier.

      • Now you are just being silly.
        History shows “we” are always trying to gain territory.

        If you want to go up against 12 aircraft carriers and an armed citizenry, god bless you.
        The submarine captains must have itchy trigger fingers by now, also.

  98. “The leader of the free world”. Perhaps that meant something before the fall of the Iron Curtain. Seems a bit meangless now. Where is “the unfree world”?

  99. In January, 2011, the Australian Government’s Climate Change Department admitted that C02 rises followed increases in temperature, with a lag of about 800 years. This is the opposite of what Al Gore proposed in his infamous “An Inconvenient Truth” video. Search .
    On page 32 of the pdf: “…Ice core studies have shown that during past ice ages CO2 levels only started to rise about 800 years after the initial temperature increase. This is because it takes about 800 years for ocean processes to transfer the initial temperature rise to an increase in atmospheric CO2.” From the horse’s mouth. This is the biggest news since James Lovelock recanted his alarmism and the Australian Climate Change Commissioner, Tim Flannery, admitted that cutting all C02 emissions would not change the world’s climate for “hundreds of years, perhaps a thousand years.”
    Brian Wilshire Radio 2GB-873AM Sydney.

  100. If I recall correctly the last time we had someone with academic training in engineering or science as US President was Herbert Hoover. The next closest one was Carter who got technical training in the Navy running early nuclear powered subs. The rest over the past 80 or more years have mostly been lawyers with the odd business person like George W. Bush, Bush’ dad, and maybe a couple of others.

  101. Wow! Imagine that! Somehow the known lies of Obama were worth the energy of steve p expended trying to deny the realities of why this nation with congressional approval went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan…

    Did you forget about ‘slick willie‘ and the dancing Dems is all this?

    December 16, 1998 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 6:00 P.M. EST

    THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America’s Armed Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and, indeed, the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. (there’s more)

    Try some of this out: Democrats on Iraq + WMD’s

    • Defense of CAGW and the “Bush lied, people died” meme does seem to reach a religious fervor with some people, doesn’t it? It’s as if their entire world view will fall apart if they are forced to recognize that either is not exactly the full truth. They must make constant obeisance to protect themselves from the unbelievers.

      My brother has a PhD in an environmental science and he divides his entire world into those who “believe” (that religious overtone again) in CAGW and those who don’t. He doesn’t “waste his time with idiots”. I’m surprised he still talks to me.

  102. Warmists have claimed that the primary reason there is not unanimous support for the CO2 warming hypothesis is because it’s too complex to be understood. To explain the Earth’s energy flow involves 2 science subjects, Thermodynamics and Particle Physics. Completely identifying the forces and interactions is a complex subject for those with lifetimes of scientific study. The heat flow that is in question is Infrared (IR) emission of electromagnetic energy. The warmists claim that this energy is captured and re-radiated by CO2 as a primary factor that warms the planet. The term ‘greenhouse’ is an incorrect word for Earth’s warming factors, the correct term is insulation, which does not warm you, but only slows the rate of temperature change.

    Thermodynamics will provide exact, repeatable quantities for energy flows based on equations with 3 main variables: difference in temperature, mass and specific heat of the substances. The greater the temperature difference, the greater the energy movement, which is the ‘delta T’ component. A pound of water is easier to heat than 10 pounds of water, which is the ‘mass’ component. A pound of Aluminum is easier to heat than a pound of Lead, which is the specific heat component. Q=cm∆T- CO2 has a specific heat of 0.839 J/g- K, which means it gains or losses heat faster than standard dry air which is 1.01, and water vapor is 1.996. For simplicity we will assume this coefficient to be 1.0 J/g- K to simplify discussion.

    Humans produce 28 Gigatons of atmospheric carbon annually. For comparison, 28 G-tons of ocean would be 5.93 cubic miles. What warmists claim is that the ~6 cubic miles of warming ocean significantly controls the temperature of the rest of the 310,000 million cubic miles of ocean. CO2 is a benign molecule that is required for life and is currently around 400 parts per million (PPMV) or 0.04% of the atmosphere. Prolonged exposure to concentrations of up to 80,000 PPMV have shown no adverse side effects. All federal registries listed CO2 as ‘non-toxic’ until the recent EPA reclassification. Calling a substance a ‘toxin’ does not make that substance a toxin, except in the toxic mind of bureaucrats.

    All substances absorb and emit electromagnetic energy in discrete spectrum bands. The Earths outgoing Infrared energy is in a narrow band and can be absorbed by CO2 only in the 5 and 15 micron wavelength range. There is a finite amount of this IR energy, so the absorption is not directly connected with the amount of CO2. The term ‘absorption’ is misleading as it’s actually the amount of time that this IR flow is ‘interrupted’ and is called the lapse rate. The majority of the space around an atom is void, therefore most IR energy passes through the CO2 molecules with no impact. The higher the altitude the less air, therefore the less CO2 and the less the outgoing IR waves will impact.

    Professor Nasif Nahle of the UA de Nuevo Leon has calculated that outgoing IR energy is delayed at most by 22 milliseconds, that is the total extent of CO2 driven global warming, the 97% from natural and the 3% from man. This ‘delayed’ heat transfer is NOT radiated back to Earth, it’s leaving the Earth at night at the speed of light for the cooler outer space and is only delayed ~22 ms.

    The IPCC “experts” base their findings on flawed forcing parameters of climate computer programs that don’t fit the real forcing parameters of the Earth’s atmosphere. If they are run backwards they can’t effectively reproduce the climate cycles of the recent past with it’s cooling and warm interims. They admit the models can’t effectively model cloud activity and other parameters. So how can they effectively predict what will occur 10, 30 or 60 years from now. They can’t even account for the current 17 year stall in warming except by falsifying and cooking the surface temp data.

    Oxygen absorbs energy in the high energy 50 to 242 nm range. CO2 absorbs in the lower 1,400, 1,600 and 2,000 nm range, but the Earth only emits energy in the low Infrared emission of 1 CO2 absorption range based on a low 210o to 310oK temperature range,. The CO2 molecule is linear, with 1 Carbon and 2 Oxygen atoms, exactly opposite each other and has only 1 vibrational mode. Absorption results in a billionth of a second vibration, followed by an emission. This emission, according to the Laws of Energy Conservation, must be of lower energy and longer wavelength. The excited CO2 molecule releases this excess energy to the atmosphere of 79% Nitrogen and 19% Oxygen. This energy is eventually removed from the lower atmosphere to the upper by convective currents but can be transported to cooler areas of the Earth in the interim. The planet wide lapse rate of ~2oC (3oF) for every 1,000 ft of altitude increase is proof that this energy is being removed in accordance with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    The greatest buffering factor in Earth’s temperature, water vapor, absorbs almost continuously from the 200 nm to the 2,500 nm range, including the 3 absorption bands for CO2. “HITRON spectroscopy shows 37,000 spectral lines for gaseous H2O from the microwave to the visible spectrum”. This does not include the massive number of absorption bands by water vapor in the Infrared range. Water has multiple rotational, vibrational and electronic absorption states in multiple EMR bands.

    Temperature is a measure of the relative local kinetic energy (movement) of a gas, liquid or solid matter. Your body radiates IR energy and mirrors can reflect it, but your IR energy reflected back on your body will NOT increase your temperature. Wrapping yourself in blankets will reduce your convective losses in a cool environment, but cannot warm you by radiant energy. Liquid water absorbs in a range of solar energy bands and when sufficiently excited and transforms from a liquid to gas, by absorbing the surface energy of 2,270 kJ/kg called Latent Heat of Vaporization and releases that energy at high altitudes by Latent Heat of Condensation. To assert that the hydrological cycle is in any way an Earth warming factor is preposterous, it’s a moderator.

    Earth is cooler than the hottest lunar areas and warmer then the coldest lunar areas due to the buffering effects of liquid and gaseous water. The claim that 1 Earth emitted band of CO2 and water vapor energy can over-power the +50,000 bands of water vapor absorbed sunlight, is the faux reality of a Ptolemaic Greenhouse Gas Model of pseudo science. There is a distinction between moist cloudy regions being cooler than dry regions in DAYLIGHT, but warmer at night. That’s because water vapor RELOCATES heat away from the surface, so the surface is cooled by the water vapor. It’s DELAYED cooling / heating of the atmosphere by the action of the water cycle. The mechanism is called LATENT HEAT, not a CO2 driven “greenhouse gas effect.” And that is where the AGW claimants go wrong.

    My thanks to Joseph A Olson, PE for his spot- on articles.

  103. Dear Mr. Mockton,

    I would like to ask you to substantiate your claims between brackets in this part:

    The question is how fast it’s happening (not very), and how much it is to do with us (not much) and whether it will get worse (no)

    Breaking it down, I suppose the first one is a rather subjective one. I would imagine (correct me if I’m wrong) you base this claim on the satellite data showing more or less no warming for the last 17 years, since I see this argument a lot in your work. If you consider this to be the “true” speed of anthropogenic global warming, how do you explain the much stronger warming in the decades before? What mechanism was responsible, if not CO2?

    The second one leads me to sort of the same question, if it does not have much to do with us, then what did cause the warming over the last century? Also, how do you respond to the human fingerprints that some climate scientist claim can be found in the data, such as the changing carbon isotope ratio, cooling stratosphere etc?

    The third one surprised me the most. What surprises me is the certainty with which you make this claim. In previous articles you seemed to make the case that the science had not yet been settled and that we simply did not know with enough certainty what is going on. Now you seem to claim we do know what is going on and that it is not going to get worse. I would be very interested in the scientific reasoning behind this prediction as well as a quantification. E.g. what time frame are you talking about when you claim it will not get worse? How much warming do you predict during that time frame for ocean, surface temperatures and lower stratosphere temperatures?

    I hope you find the time to read and answer these questions. Looking forward to your reply.

    • Aran rightly asks for justification of my brief assertions that global warming is not happening fast, has little to do with us, and will not get worse.

      The three terrestrial datasets show one-twentieth of a degree of warming over the past 11 years; the ARGO ocean-temperature bathythermographs show one-fortieth of a degree over the same period; and the satellite lower-troposphere datasets show no warming at all. Previous warming periods this century (1910-1940 and 1976-2001) coincided with strong and active positive phases of the Pacific Decadal and other ocean oscillations. The warming trend since 1979, according to the satellite datasets, was at a non-threatening 1.1 degrees/century equivalent. None of the temperature records give any ground for alarm (except alarm at the extent to which the terrestrial records have been tampered with so as to show more warming than has in fact occurred).

      That global warming has little to do with us is deducible from the scientific literature. A survey by Legates et al., 2015, of which I was a co-author, shows that only 0.3%, or 41, of 11,944 climate-related papers in the reviewed journals over the 21 years 1991-2011 explicitly endorsed the IPCC’s definition of the imagined “consensus” – namely, that at least half of the warming since 1950, i.e. at least a third of a degree, was caused by us.

      That global warming will not get worse is self-evident from the very slow warming rate. A paper by me and three distinguished colleagues in the January 2015 edition of the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences estimates that about 2.2 degrees of warming might occur over the coming centuries if we were to combust all affordably-recoverable fossil fuels. Is this a problem? We think not. Sea level, the big bugaboo, only tends to rise by about 8 inches per degree of warming, so we might see about 18 inches of sea-level rise over the coming centuries – which is about what we’d have expected anyway as a result of the gradual recovery of termperatures over the past 11,700 years. In just about all other respects, two or even three degrees of warming will be more likely to be beneficial than harmful.

      And the entire global warming industry has not yet succeeded in answering the simple question what is the ideal global mean surface temperature. Without an answer to that question, lurid claims of climate disaster seem ill founded.

      • Thank you for your extensive reply. Just two questions:
        – You did not answer my question about the alleged human fingerprints. If global warming is indeed slow and hardly caused by human activity, and the stronger warming during the end of the previous century was caused by the pacific decadal, does that mean the alleged observations of human fingerprints are wrong?
        – The statement that global warming not getting worse is simply self-evident from the current rate seems dangerous to me. It is reminiscent of the same simplistic extrapolation into the future that the IPCC made during the 90s and which has failed miserably.

      • The changes in the carbon isotope ratio, even if the official interpretation is correct, demonstrate nothing more than that most of the increase in CO2 concentration since 1950 is manmade.

        The cooling if the stratosphere stopped in 2000′ notwithstanding continuing increases in CO2 concentration.

        The key fingerprint of manmade warming in the IPCC’s estimation was supposed to be a tripling of the tropical surface warming rate in the tropical mid-troposphere. That predicted hot spot, however, has not been observed.

        Besides, fingerprints or no fingerprints, the world has not warmed at even half the predicted rate. Scientifically speaking, that makes the predictions and hence the supposedly settled science behind them questionable at best.

  104. This man Obama, has anyone noticed? He’s totally insane. In his mind, he’s raising up a generation that will turn back the tides of all the world’s problems, and believes it. Most of us don’t think that way, but he does. Observe, there is a bit too much of that in every politician, but these American Left are truly enamored, nuts about themselves.

  105. It has become very apparent that ObaMao has an overprotective and information-stifling network of advisers to keep him uninformed on the top-ten pressing national crises, and focused on the wrong fluff-ball topics and the wrong angle in each of those.

    It is alarming that on nearly every topic of every speech he’s given in office, the true facts come out later to refute most of what he said. However, the damage was already done, as the impressionable young democratic voter-base sucks all that stuff up as fact and we must spend inordinate amounts of time on internet research and book-writing to ensure actual recorded facts and statistics tell the story instead of (in this case) the repeated lies and out-of context statistical overinflations of ObaMao’s “Climate Change” rhetoric.

Comments are closed.