![468px-NOAA_logo.svg[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/468px-noaa_logo-svg1.png?resize=300%2C300&quality=75){kind=logo}
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A NOAA study has been published, which claims to attribute various extreme weather events to anthropogenic climate change.
According to the NOAA press release;
“For the past four years, this report has shown that human activities are influencing specific extreme weather and climate events around the world,” said Thomas R. Karl, LHD, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. “In the 79 papers that have been published through the annual report over the past four years, over half of these papers show a linkage to human-caused climate change.”
When a climate change influence is not found it could mean two things. First, that climate change has not had any appreciable impact on an event. Or, it could also mean that the human influence cannot be conclusively identified with the scientific tools available today.
In this year’s report, 32 groups of scientists from around the world investigate 28 individual extreme events in 2014 and break out various factors that led to the extreme events, including the degree to which natural variability and human-induced climate change played a role.
Read more: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explaining-extreme-events-2014
The strapline of the report betrays the speculative nature of this effort;
This BAMS special report presents assessments of how climate change may have affected the strength and likelihood of individual extreme events.
The disclaimer in the report itself is even funnier;
Challenges that attribution assessments face include the often limited observational record and inability of models to reproduce some extreme events well. In general, when attribution assessments fail to find anthro- pogenic signals this alone does not prove anthropogenic climate change did not influence the event. The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.
Lets just say I would be a lot more impressed if NOAA could explain the extreme events of 2016, rather than trying to retrofit alarmist explanations to events they have no skill to predict. Starting with an assumption that an anthropogenic effect is playing a substantial role is not the same as demonstrating that this is the case. Retrofitting an explanation is easy – everyone can explain a stock market crash, after it occurs.
Consider the following (talking about Californian wildfires);
… A process called CO2 fertilisation (Donohue et al. 2013) tends to increase vegetation activity simply through the uptake of an increasing atmospheric CO2. Under such a scenario along with a wetter climate, vegetation growth would increase and subsequently supply sufficient fuel load.
And here I was thinking California was scheduled for perpetual drought. But I guess this is NOAA, they can disagree with James Hansen if they want.
Interestingly the report contains a testable prediction or two. Some good news for people in the Upper Midwest, who suffered through the brutal 2013-2014 winter. According to NOAA, nobody is likely to ever see such a winter again;
… While a winter comparable to 2013/14 would have been roughly a once-a-decade event in 1881 (return periods from 5–20 years), it has become roughly a once-in-a-thousand years event in 2014 (return periods from 90 to over 10 000 years). is implies that extremely cold winters are two orders of magnitude less frequent in today’s climate than in that of around 1881. Using a Gaussian t rather than GPD, the change in probability for such a cold winter would go from once-in-14 years in 1881 to once-in-200 years in 2014 (Supplemental Fig. S3.6). Due to the area-averaging, these changes in odds are more extreme than those found by van Oldenborgh et al. (2015) for individual stations since 1951, but match the drastic reduction in odds that Christidis et al. (2014) computed for cold springs in the United Kingdom. …
But lets assume for the sake of argument, that NOAA are right, and climate change is causing more extreme weather. What should we do about it?
Would you rather face a dangerous hail storm on your bicycle, or would you prefer to be protected by a safety capsule made of steel and toughened glass?
Would you prefer to suffer an extreme heatwave with, or without, the benefits of air conditioning? How insufferable would Summer be, if you couldn’t afford to cool your house, because electricity bills had skyrocketed beyond your ability to pay?
Would you give up home heating, so people who won’t be born until you are long dead, could enjoy a few more snow days?
Would you give up your right to travel by air, to make room for people rushing to attend climate conferences in exotic holiday destinations?
Nothing about the climate movement makes sense.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
‘In general, when attribution assessments fail to find anthropogenic signals this alone does not prove anthropogenic climate change did not influence the event. The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.’
Let me apply this “reasoning” to Karl et al and its temperature adjustments.
‘In general, when attribution assessments fail to find that Karl intentionally lied this alone does not prove that intentional deception did not influence the adjustments. The failure to find intentional deception could be due to insufficient data or Karl’s refusal to surrender subpoenaed documents and not the absence of said intentional deception.’
Gosh, that is a very useful little tool. I will have remember it whenever I could benefit from its use.
+1M
They ascribe “human attribution” to weather “events” the same way they used to blame “witches” for anything bad. My, how we’ve progressed.
Bruce,
My, how we’ve progressed.
??? /Sarc – I’m sure.
And + a whole basket load.
Auto
This is indeed striking. Somewhere in the 1700’s we left that thinking behind and started using ‘evidence based’ thinking. In the last 15 years Western Civilization has left ‘evidence based’ thinking behind and now base our beliefs on supposition and consensus. Everything from health products to climate, evidence based conclusion are now looked down upon.
Worse than that! This whole scam is predicated on words like may, possibly, could, and might.
I think the answer to the headline question is, Yes, warmistas would gladly give up our car to “prevent” a few heat waves.
Giving up their own car is another story.
I have to disagree.
I mean, they’re all riding bicycles to Paris. Aren’t they?
They gave up their car and are now forced to fly. Obummer will pop up with his private tricycle which is equipped with wings and jet engines.
Hugs.. it’s an electric powered aircraft, like my electric battery powered lawn mower. Gives out half way through. Be careful it doesn’t get wet .
No time to photoshop the proper heads into the pic so use your imagination. The positions of the faces relative to the buttocks are appropriate to the group headed for Paris.
http://www.bikeeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Tandem-road-bikes-004.jpg
Gunga old soul,
I believe a few of these super-humans are using pogo-sticks, with a residual light-emitting-diode function, so they can be seen on the road, power their own I-Pad (Cue RFK Junior above!), and keep the bird choppers turning during wind-stills.
A couple of extremists are, reportedly, crawling all the way to Paris, pulling their own personal carbon sink [(c) Armitage Shanks]. I think they have come from South Asia, but the reports are unclear.
[If only – nuclear!!!].
Auto
PS – Mods – not the Warmista weasel words – believe; and reportedly – thanks.
Stupid is as stupid does. And based on what it is doing, there be a whole lot of stupid these days.
By far the worst and deadliest US tornado was during 1925. The most intense US hurricane was in 1935. The deadliest hurricane was in 1900. By far the worst US heat waves, crop failures and droughts happened during the 1930’s. Worst wildfire in 1910. We could turn our cars in tomorrow and there is no guarantee that the weather might not get worse!
Does Tom Karl “believe” in global warming?
Enough that he has fabricated evidence wherever possible in order to confirm his belief and/or to avoid having to face the music of admitting he was so wrong.
He doesn’t have to do this to keep his job. He has been the head and the driving force behind the NCDC for nearly 30 years. He could have just remained objective and nothing would have happened. Instead, we have 30 years of pushing a belief by distorting evidence. Some day his Wiki page will reflect this and we should make sure people do not forget.
He doesn’t have to do this to keep his job.
==================
you don’t know this. I can think of no quicker way to lose your government job in the US than to contradict POTUS.
Climate change is US public enemy number 1. More dangerous that ISIS, drugs, crime, unemployment, terrorism, EBOLA, the plague, ingrown toe nails all rolled in together. you name it, climate change is more dangerous and worse than we thought. Even worse than we can think..
thus, if you deny climate change, you are worse than ISIS, worse than drug dealers, worse than any disease or terrorist. you are even worse than ingrown toe-nails. worse than anything we can think of.
So if Karl was to contradict POTUS, the government would be completely justified in coming down on him like a ton of bricks. In fact, the government would be duty bound to do so, to protect the people of the United States from what is in effect, an act of terrorism.
I work for NOAA. I even work for NESDIS. However, I hang my head in shame to be associated with these idiots – “Department of Commerce > NOAA > NESDIS > NCEI”
From their ‘About’ web page;
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/about
I guess they are a brand new ‘National Center’ & for their first act, they decided to make themselves look like fools (sigh)…
If they really had any expertise or skill at determining the cause of an extreme event, they could predict the next one. Saying that there will be extreme heat waves, extreme cold, extreme drought, extreme precipitation, and extreme weather of all kinds somewhere in the world at sometime in the future is not a prediction and takes no skill whatsoever.
I predict that there will be extreme predictions, caused by CAGW. The horror!
Ah ha. The money quote. Kennedy says “it’s much more important to change your politician than it is to change your life.”
And that explains the whole 40 year climate warming shebang.
She should have asked if he meant that the US should have done that in the last presidential election. 😉
If some wants/needs their “politician” to control or choreograph their lives (and that of everyone else) then yes, Mr. Kennedy is correct.
Of course Kennedy will be standing right next to the correct politician, and standing above everyone else.
“The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.
[…]
… A process called CO2 fertilisation (Donohue et al. 2013) tends to increase vegetation activity simply through the uptake of an increasing atmospheric CO2. Under such a scenario along with a wetter climate, vegetation growth would increase and subsequently supply sufficient fuel load.“.
Do I detect a logic problem here? They are saying that the poor quality of the models causes there to be no evidence supporting them, but the evidence might exist really. A normal person would think that if lack of supporting evidence means that the models are poor, then the models’ findings, which include man-made global warming, are unreliable.
Having twisted the logic, it is then no surprise that they twist the outcomes. They see only the bad result that increased vegetation growth makes Californian forest fires worse. A normal person would also equate increased vegetation growth with food production and see net benefit.
“The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to monkeys flying out of my butt and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.”
To me that statement is just as valid.
I’m not quite seeing the analogy.
O.K. … human induced extreme weather and climate events are just as real as Butt Monkeys.
I read their statement as:. “Our failure to tie things together could be due to our incompetence, and not a lack human impacts”. And butt monkeys didn’t jibe with incompetence.
(and since I’m a bit childish, I wanted to throw analogy in there with the butt monkeys)
Don…Should have used anal-ogy.
The only linkage is maybe, if, or could, there is no science involved for this suggestion whats so ever. Please stop lying to the public, you can’t demonstrate any link between weather events and humans. What mechanism v,w,x,y causes weather event z? What weather event z would be like without mechanism x? You have nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We know you have nothing because you have to blame it on everything. If they was any science you would state actually was it was that proves humans influence CO2 causes x. We know your blatant agenda so have to tamper with data. You blame it on everything because you don’t have a clue what it actually does and the reason being because there is no human fingerprint found.
CO2 has no affect on climate distinguishable from normal because it has not been found to change SW radiation, troposphere, albedo, water vapor or oceans. When something has no influence on these then it has no influence on climate.
Ah, but you say the deeper oceans are warming?
The only thing that can warm the deeper oceans without warming the surface or upper oceans is shortwave radiation. Why? It has wavelengths that penetrates many meters below the ocean and are nonabsorbent near the surface and upper parts of the ocean. A slight change in the solar irradiance to more of these type wavelengths would cause the deeper ocean to warm more. Yet, even this would not be necessarily as a decease in global cloud albedo would also cause the same thing. Satellites have shown global cloud albedo have declined in the past by a few percent. See, It’s easy to back this warming up with science that doesn’t include CO2.
Sorry, didn’t quite go to plan. (typo – what it was that proves……, only should be in bold no human fingerprint
“Would you give up your car, to stop a few heatwaves?”
No, I’d make sure it had aircon.
Funny how the challenge to lead by example is the most daunting of tasks to suggest to folks, particularly if they consider themselves as entitled to authority or celebrity.
No snow this year?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/07/record-siberian-snow-could-bode-ill-northeast/75224060/
Note in that linked story they mention a “low level of sea ice” in the Arctic, kind of implying that that contributes to this phenomena, so of course if it does snow like a mother they can still tie it to AGW.
I’ll give up everything.
I’ve only just learned that we had, “500 days to avoid climate chaos”.
Although, this prediction was made by the French foreign minister on May 13th 2014.
Which means that we are now officially experiencing CLIMATE CHAOS.
Even John Kerry seems embarrassed.
I’m going to give up my electric toothbrush.
So here it is straight from the donkey’s mouth – 500 days…and then…and then what?
Just one question? Is this man drunk, ill or simply a cretin?
nicely matching ties, though..
Auot
And slopey shoulders.
Auto
Yeah, the ties also match the carpet and the walls.
That’s how they get these top jobs in politics.
By focusing on the important details whilst goofing up every major decision that they ever make!!
Yes, and the tie colors nicely match NOAA’s logo. A coincidence?
Well he is right…. climate is chaos.
If he really tried to be accurate he would say we have one second to prevent ….
and it would be just as futile.
michael
Also, we have 500 days before climate turbulence.
That’s my prediction.
Who will rid me of this turbulent turbulence? 🙂
He’s a French politician. You know hell was once aptly described as a place where the Germans are the police, the British are the cooks, and the politicians are French.
I thought we only had 500 days to save the world back in 1998.
a la Sesame Street
“I am the Count.
I like to count.
Ha, ha,ha, ha.”
I don’t think any of them said the 500 days were consecutive or when we had to start using them.
If we still have 500 days today, then we didn’t use a single one of them in the years since 1998!
Climate chaos was on auto-avoidance, clearly; no user input required.
I don’t know… Roll another number and we’ll see if that one burns any hotter.
500 days? If I were French I would be more worried about the 500,000 Muslims that have just walked into my country.
Dear old44,
Regarding the French … I just couldn’t resist this.
The following words came not from me but from a person whom you may well know.
“The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.” Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.” The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France ‘s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”
The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbour” and “Lose.”
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be right, Mate.” Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is cancelled.” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.
Regards,
John Cleese ,
British writer, actor and tall person
And as a final thought – Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.”
END
Where’s Charles Martel when you need him?
Warren-
Now that’s funny! I don’t care who ya are!
Even better than setting an empty cellophane from a cigarette pack on the table and declaring it’s the Cubs’ World Series trophy case.
Warren – funny, but the “brave” British chickened out at Dunkirk, and if it had not been for the Channel, they would have chickened on all the way to the Outer Hebrides, with the Germans in hot pursuit. Safe behind their Channel, they managed to get back on their feet, but they were not a major factor in deciding the outcome of WW2.
Oh, and in 430 B.C. the Persian wars were long over, with Marathon having taken place in 490 and Salamis in 480. Instead, Sparta and Athen were duking it out.
Michael Palmer: “Safe behind their Channel, they managed to get back on their feet, but they were not a major factor in deciding the outcome of WW2.”
Utter drivel.
If the Royal Air Force had not won the Battle of Britain and thus removed the threat of a German invasion, the British would not have been able to channel huge supplies of materiel from both the US and UK to the Soviet Union – without which it is unlikely the USSR could have resisted the German army – and act as a staging point for the Allied invasion of France on D-day, not to mention the massive damage done to German industry by the combined efforts of Harris’s Lancasters and Spaatz’ Fortresses and Liberators, all possible only because of the existence of the ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier off the coast of Europe’.
And without the Allied invasion of Europe stopping the Red Army from continuing its advance clear up to the Atlantic, the USA would have had no buffer zone between the US and the USSR – so no NATO.
You haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
Catweazle: of course my post was utter drivel – just like the post I was referring to. The British did fight well, and their contribution mattered – even if considerably less so than they like to believe. The invasion of the continent could as well have been staged from Southern France, and despite all the bombing, German armament production reached its peak in September 1944.
I don’t begrudge the British their pride in their victory, but I absolutely hate the abuse they like to heap on the French. British and French showed themselves equally inadequate in 1940. The Germans had had all of 6 years to prepare for WW2, and the British and French failure to defeat them in 1940 is a black eye for the ages. The British should man up and wear it, too, instead of heaping scorn on the French only.
Michael Palmer
November 7, 2015 at 6:57 pm
“… with the Germans in hot pursuit.”
catweazle666
November 8, 2015 at 7:36 am
“And without the Allied invasion of Europe stopping the Red Army…”
If the mustached man leading Germany had really wanted to win WWII, he would have bagged the BEF trapped at Dunkirk, before turning to face the Soviet Union.
According to some sources, the Red Army had large airborne assault forces deployed along its western borders by 1941. Revisionist historians like Victor Suvorov suggest that H i t l e r beat S t a l i n to the punch by launching a preemptive attack with his mechanized formations against the relatively lightly armed paratroopers. The stunning early success of the German invasion becomes more understandable when seen in this light.
By August, the Heer’s panzers had advanced to within 200 miles of Moscow. Now, with a chance to drive with all his forces on the Bolshevik capital, kick in its front door, and possibly capture S t a l i n, the man with the little mustache instead dithered and dickered and divided his forces, and the slim German chance for victory against the Bolshevik state slipped from his grasp forever.
There were other strategic German mistakes as well, but however you slice it, the fact remains that it was the Germans who stopped the Red Army, not the Allies.
Steve P:
You make the laughably untrue assertion
The Russians captured Berlin, the German capital, and continued until they stopped at what became the border between East Germany and West Germany. The Germans did not stop the Russians: clearly, the Germans could not stop the Russians.
Without the allied Western Front the Russians would have continued on through Germany, then German-occupied France, and then fascist Spain while Britain and the US would have been cheering them all the way.
Thus, D-Day and the subsequent Western Front prevented the replacement of H1tler’s Europe by Stal1n’s Europe. As it was, the Russian empire included all of Europe East of Berlin and took from 1945 to 1989 for it to fail. It may have never failed if it had stretched from Portugal in the West to the Bering Strait in the East.
Be grateful to the British, American, Commonwealth and allied troops who suffered and died creating the Western Front and pushing it on into Germany.
Richard
richardscourtney
November 8, 2015 at 12:47 pm
No doubt the Germans were crushed in a vise by 1945, but without the Wehrmacht standing in their way, the Soviets might have reached Calais by 1943.
“Undoubtedly the T-34 went a long way to enabling the USSR to be ultimately victorious, but the price was huge with approximately 44 900 T-34s (82% of total production) being irrecoverably lost.”
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance
I don’t think the Western Allies destroyed a single one of those T-34s. That distinction would go to the Wehrmacht’s Heer and Luftwaffe.
I suggest it was Iosef Stalin who stopped the Red Army based on agreements reached with Roosevelt and Churchill at Tehran and Yalta. With the war over, the Red Army troops in Germany could occupy themselves exacting revenge, raping German women, and hauling porcelain toilet fixtures back to the USSR.
It wasn’t until after the conclusion of WWII that the Western Allies really became interested in stopping the Soviet Union. As Churchill is recorded to have exclaimed: “We’ve slaughtered the wrong pig!”
In any event, up to the conclusion of the war, the United States was doing everything in its power to assist the Reds, going so far even as to ship uranium and atom bomb plans to the Soviets under the cover of Lend Lease, over and above the enormous amount of raw material as well as finished war machines shipped to the Soviet Union.
Steve P
November 8, 2015 at 2:30 pm
I wrote:
“As Churchill is recorded to have exclaimed: “We’ve slaughtered the wrong pig!””
I can’t find a good source for this quotation now, and I really meant to say “reported” not “recorded,” so the alleged remark by Winston Churchill about slaughtering the wrong pig falls into the realm of hearsay, although I don’t think there is much doubt that, in the post-war period, he came to recognize the Soviet Union as a great threat.
If the British had not won the Battle of Britain there would have been no war to win.
“Annie
November 8, 2015 at 8:41 pm”
And if it were not for the Hurricane and RADAR, not the Spitfire, Britain surely would have lost.
“Michael Palmer
November 8, 2015 at 8:51 am”
Remember, the official language of England was once French. English was banned.
“For the past four years, this report has shown that human activities are influencing specific extreme weather”
sure
last world-wide drought in 1934.
“In general, when attribution assessments fail to find anthropogenic signals this alone does not prove anthropogenic climate change did not influence the event. The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.”
You also can not rule out the extreme events being caused by a chaotic system and the Jurassic Park “Butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo”.. The article gives no objective method to rule out either.
Just another example of the Climate Change Brigades use of fallacy. In this case, circular reasoning, or assuming what you are trying to prove.
Kerry has an odd smirk on hie face, makes me wonder what’s going through his head.
I think the eye-rolling is what clued me in.
Hugs above mentioned something about a negative IQ.
No offense to Fred Gwynne, but…
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091022161118/headhuntershorrorhouse/images/6/6b/Herman_Munster_001.jpg
Taxidermy is an art form …
Isn’t that a good thing?
Jeff
Sure.
My concern – no higher, yet – is that in a decade or two we may revert to the 1880s return period.
And, having had many forms of power taken from us by watermelon politicians – how will the average person survive?
Especially if they are old – or disabled.
Quilts, blankets etc help.
Auto
Especially if they live in Canada. Most winters we hit -35°C for a week here in Calgary. It is worse farther North. I can’t imagine it being worse.
One of the goals of Agenda 21 is depopulation !!
Jeff – I live a couple of hours north of your balmy Calgary climate. We want 45 below weather to ensure the pine beetles get killed. When I lived in Saskatchewan, I had one day of 50+ below. That’s chilly. 35 below is log on the fire watching, 20C below or less is skiing and horse riding weather in my world. Up this way, we often get a week or two of 40 or more below C, often in late November, early December, then it gets nice again for a bit before the February snowbird season. Won’t happen this year with the blob and El Nino. But I have been wrong before. 😉
It would be if history didn’t suggest that a grand solar minimum will bring back the frequencies of harsh winters experienced in the early 1800s.
“Would you rather face a dangerous hail storm on your bicycle, or would you prefer to be protected by a safety capsule made of steel and toughened glass?”
The ideological elites who drive this would like to see us all on bicycles so we could be mown down by the hail. They, of course, will be in the safety capsule because they are indispensable and rules do not apply to them.
“Would you give up your car, to satisfy the lunatic fantasies of a bunch of hot-heads?” : Improved Headline.
When the facts get in your way do as NOAA and warmists do change the data in or title of their movement. First Anthropogenic Global Warming whoops – warming not happening most people still not believing lets go for Climate Warming – whoops that ones not happening either lets go for climate change no one can argue with that one – whoops that means it’s natural we won’t get funding and Paris is coming up lets see what haven’t we used – I know Anthropogenic Climate Change and that one no one can argue with as the stats are MAN MADE aren’t they NOAA!!
Would you give up your raw data and your adjustments to stop a Congressional investigation of your agency?
When Obama is at the dinner table in Paris, after he french-kisses Pope Francis he should issue a Executive Order criminalizing the possession of gasoline.
Ha ha
imagine if noaa were detectives. they,d charge you with murder even if they could’nt prove it. but just because we cant prove it does’nt mean you did’nt do it. so we’re charging you anyway. some would say that’s a set up.
[Note: “Kent Pitman” is a sockpuppet name used by a banned commenter. ~mod.]