Barack Obama, Climate Scientist

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I fear that Science magazine has beclowned itself as badly as the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. They’ve published a “scientific” policy paper by the noted climate scientist Barack Hussein Obama. Not a paper with Obama as one of the signatories. No, Science magazine claims that the President wrote the deathless prose all by himself, not a co-author in sight.

dr-obama

Here’s an example:

At the same time, evidence is mounting that any economic strategy that ignores carbon pollution will impose tremendous costs to the global economy and will result in fewer jobs and less economic growth over the long term. Estimates of the economic damages from warming of 4°C over preindustrial levels range from 1% to 5% of global GDP each year by 2100 (4). One of the most frequently cited economic models pins the estimate of annual damages from warming of 4°C at ~4% of global GDP (4–6), which could lead to lost U.S. federal revenue of roughly $340 billion to $690 billion annually (7).

Ignoring “carbon pollution” will lead to loss of US Federal revenue? OMG … can’t have that.

Now I gotta ask … is there anyone on the planet who thinks that:

a) Barack Hussein Obama was the sole author of this piece of drivel? … or that

b) Any of this is anything but politics? … or that

c) We should get our climate science advice from op-ed political pieces by outgoing politicians? … or that

d) Science magazine is doing its reputation any good by publishing this puff piece? … or that

e) Obama made it into Science magazine (or to be the Editor of the Harvard Law Review) on his own merits?

January 20th … could you hurry up please?

w.

My Usual Request: If you are commenting please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO, so we can all understand what you are discussing.

My Blog: As some folks know, I’ve started my own blog called “Skating Under The Ice“. There I discuss, well, interesting stuff. Come over and take a look, follow the blog … enjoy.

Advertisements

374 thoughts on “Barack Obama, Climate Scientist

      • Nah ! he’s just watching 15 micron photons getting gobbled up before his eyes.

        And thinking of all the royalties he’ll get when people cite his paper; or citing it in “The Journal of Irreproducible Results.”

        G

    • He obviously required the microscope to see the infinitesimal small effect humanity produced CO2 has on climate.

      • Well that could easily be a 400 X microscope set up there so that would blow up the 15 micron photons all the way up to 6 mm size where they would be clearly visible for anyone to see.

        g

    • Gues you found out that a person can actually hurt themselves by laughing too hard, hence the term- “busted a gut”.

    • I laughed hard and loud. (Laughing at BO is going to be the most effective thing we can do, just before turning off the device.)

      • Don’t laugh at it. It wrote totally serious prose, or at least, seriously undersigned it. But the thing with ScienceMag is sad.

        [NOTE ON CASUAL READERS. My mother tongue does not contain a grammatical gender (he is gender-equal, kind-of) or even a complete distinction between human and non-human subjects or objects, and in absence of her, I sometimes make mistakes in my grammar. My apologies to whatever might have gotten hurt.]

    • Isn’t this just the Obama version of Kim Jog Il shooting a 38 under par in his first round of golf he ever played, with 5 holes-in-one? Do these people really think that this is convincing anyone? It is making a mockery of Obama, Science magazine and climate science in general.

      I guess it goes to show how desperate they are becoming in trying to stay relevant as the world, the facts and the climate start to catch up with them.

    • There’s a reason why Trump won. A whole lot of them, actually. Denial of reality by the Left for me was Reason Number One for my vote.

      • My opinion of Obama is much too harsh and truthfully full of real criticism for someone who did a lot more harm to the United States than, deliberately, all the previous Presidents and even some of our dedicated enemies have done. His ‘legacy’ should go down as the lowest point in American history and his delusional ego should be cited in future psychology texts as a study of a complete, ignorant, traitorous A**hole with a hate for his own country and most of the citizens occupying it. I am in complete disgust that Obama calls himself a citizen of the U.S.

    • Yes, like Obama giving himself a medal. Embarrassing to our country, embarrassing to Obama personally, and beneath the dignity of the Office of the President. Now he is not only a self-defined national hero, he is working on a Nobel Prize in science? This man must know his inadequacies are monumental. Probably more than we will ever know.

      • Obama did not give himself a medal — it was given to him from Ash Carter (Defense Department Secretary)

        I guess he got the medal for losing two wars.

        I find it smaemy when a subordinate gives his boss a medal.

        G. W. Bush got the same medal from his Defense Department Secretary.

        I guess he got his medal for starting two wars.

        Based on what I just reported, the purpose of the medal is confusing.

        Obama also got a Peace Prize, and then he ramped up the war in Afghanistan.

        And he dropped at least 26,000 bombs in 2016.

        I guess this Defense Department medal is a War Prize?

    • Interesting numbers: “…~4% of global GDP (4–6), which could lead to lost U.S. federal revenue of roughly $340 billion to $690 billion annually…”

      With current GDP, 4% comes pretty close to his $690 Billion that the government would lose. I guess that they already consider 100% of GDP really belongs to the government.

      • @ MarkW

        No, even if Mr. Obama would be as ingenious as he obviously thinks, he could not be the FIRST person to win the Peace Nobel Prize and an additional scientific Nobel Prize. This honor was reached once before by Linus Pauling, who won the Nobel Prize of Chemistry in 1954 and later the Peace Noble Prize in 1963 for his engagement against nuclear weapons, and I’m sure, Pauling deserved his Peace Nobel Prize much more than Obama…

        Nothing reveals the stupidity and vanity of Mr. Obama more than his shameless acceptance of that totally undeserved Peace Nobel Prize just at the very beginning of his first term!

      • Well what about Marie Curie (Madame) who won two real Nobels; one for Physics, and one for Chemistry.

        I believe she was actually Polish.

        There’s still time for Janice to get one.

        G

      • @ Gentle Tramp Agree with your comment about Obama who a) should not even have been put forward for a Nobel prize and b) let alone have the ego to accept it for doing nothing. However Linus Pauling should not have been nominated for the Chemistry Noble Prize. His name came up in first year Chemistry in 1960 but it was already clear that there were so many exceptions to his theories and that his contribution was worthless and a waste of learning time. Back in the early 1960’s there were decent honest lecturers in chemistry, maths and engineering.who questioned the consensus elite and let students think and discover without marking them down.

      • Response to: Gentle Tramp – January 9, 2017 at 4:57 pm

        Nothing reveals the stupidity and vanity of Mr. Obama more than his shameless acceptance of that totally undeserved Peace Nobel Prize

        “HA”, you haven’t seen anything yet.

        Just wait until O’bummer Obama gets his Presidential Library built …… and chocked full of all the wonderful and great things that he accomplished during his tenure as POTUS.

  1. Obama could not write his way out of a out of school note. The sad part is, the person he got to write this is no smarter than he is. But then the mag is not very smart for running it either. It is not a science piece.

    • He is a gifted speaker. But eloquence is not a science. Was the paper peer reviewed? Or did it enjoy a special treatment, possibly by an executive order?

      • He’s only a gifted speaker when the teleprompter is working.
        When he has to speak off the cuff he’s awful.

      • Because he is a good reader the only job he was ever qualified for is as a reader of audio books. He never could cut it as POTUS.

      • CG,

        There is an old Japanese proverb that “It is rare to find a man who speaks well and is trustworthy.”

      • Well he was good with the Tennis neck, when reading his stereo teleprompters.

        Almost real like.

        g

      • CG, I must echo the others who point out that Obama is a gifted reader, and has little gift at oration. He could benefit greatly from dedicating 6 months to Toastmasters if he could stop stammering long enough to listen and comprehend the lessons of actually practiced and skilled orators, though 6 years might be a more reasonable expectation level.

      • MarkW. I could not stand to listen to an audio book narrated by hussein for 5 seconds. His whistling S’s and smarmy accent are enough to put off a deaf hearing-ear dog.

      • Roger, not sure of the alarm. “economic damages from warming of 4°C over preindustrial levels ”

        If we consider 2000 BC, 1000 AD and 1470 AD “PreIndustrial”, we have 4°C+ degrees to go. Not heard anyone saying we will gain this much for a long time now.

        Furthermore, we now know that many of the glaciers around the world did not exist 4000 to 6000 years ago. As a case in point, there is a glacier to the far north of Greenland above the large ice sheet covering most of the island called the Hans Tausen Glacier. It is 50 miles long ,30 miles wide and up to 1000 feet thick. A Scandinavian research team bored ice cores all the way to the bottom and discovered that 4000 years ago this glacier did not exist.

        Let us know when this melts and we can start the temperature clock.

        An ancient forest has thawed from under a melting glacier in Alaska and is now exposed to the world for the first time in more than 1,000 years. Stumps and logs have been popping out from under southern Alaska’s Mendenhall Glacier — a 36.8-square-mile (95.3 square kilometers) river of ice flowing into a lake near Juneau — for nearly the past 50 years. However, just within the past year or so, researchers based at the University of Alaska Southeast in Juneau have noticed considerably more trees popping up, many in their original upright position and some still bearing roots and even a bit of bark, the Juneau Empire first reported last week.

        Kenai Fjords National Park where Obama hiked

        Changes in magnetic susceptibility (MS), organic-matter content (OM), and biogenic silica (BSi), record environmental changes since ~9500 BP. Goat Lake is situated ~450 m north of a drainage divide at ~70 m above lake level that separates the lake basin from the Harding Icefield (HIF) outlet glacier. Sediment analyses focused on the last 1000 yr; this interval includes a sharp transition from gyttja to overlying inorganic mud at ~1660 AD, which marks the first time since the Pleistocene deglaciation that the North Goat Outlet Glacier (NGO) of the HIF overtopped the drainage divide to spill meltwater into Goat Lake. One 14C age of ~1470 AD from a subfossil log buried by till in the NGO valley requires ~145 yr for the outlet glacier to have thickened 150 m to the elevation of the drainage divide where it remained until ~1890 AD. Since ~1890, the NGO has thinned 150 m and retreated 1.4 km, back to where it was in 1470 AD.
        https://nau.edu/uploadedFiles/Academic/CEFNS/NatSci/SESES/Forms/Daigle_2006.pdf

        Current glacier positions last seen in 1470 AD.

    • When you write an out of school note you do NOT begin with : “My mother sez I can’t come to school today because of the chickin pox ! ”

      g

  2. Obama really isn’t behaving well on his way out, is he?

    Not happy with him here in the UK since he tried to interfere in the EU referendum in a far more direct way than Putin seems to have done in the US election.

    • You’re not happy with hypocrisy? I can’t imagine why not. 😐

      If you want to know what the so called liberal left is doing just look at the accusations they make against their opponents.

    • The outgoing administration is having trouble accepting that the vote did not keep them in control and is determined to steer a hard left until forced to give up the wheel. I can’t believe he is representing the US in Paris 5 days before his term ends and could do some damage yet to foreign policy or worse. His legacy is one of pushing the envelope of executive power and end-running the constitutionalists.

      • (Better stated)
        His legacy is one of pushing the envelope of executive power and end-running congress while thumbing his nose at the constitution.

      • Thankfully, a small list of people who are smarter than 0bama:
        Putin.
        Nigel Farage.
        Trump.
        Everyone else on the planet, except people who think 0bama is great.

      • Well he was trained in childhood to regard the Constitution as heresy and expunge as much of it as he is able to. Also taught that it is ok; even required to lie, cheat and steal to further the faith.

        G

      • Old Woman of the North

        Sounds like one of the African dictators getting medals for his birthday!

        Almost, but this “president” demanded his out-going Dept of Defense give him a medal before leaving office.

    • Stephen. Many of us in the US weren’t happy about his interference with your elections either.

      • His attempted interference. The left hasn’t yet realised that the voters have woken up and can now see through a lot of the lies being pushed down their throats.

        SteveT

      • I agree — I don’t know how people rationalize that it is okay for Putin to interfere in our elections.

        This is not the same thing as giving a speech in support of Trump. This is active intervention in our elections.

        It doesn’t matter who you supported (or if you believe it had an influence Steve T) it is still abysmal.

      • lorcanbonda commented: ” I don’t know how people rationalize that it is okay for Putin to interfere in our elections.”

        First….no proof, only speculation. Second… since when is bringing truth to light “interfering”? The contents of the emails weren’t fabricated. You should be more indignant that they were conspiring rather than being exposed.

      • Obama is probably the most ungracious, least intelligent, dishonest, most self-centered, phony, and hateful president we have ever had. He defines racist by his ever action. He is mean spirited and low minded, unprincipled, and most unpatriotic man to ever serve as President.

      • Every state in which Obama campaigned for Hillary was won by Donald Trump. Obama’s attempt to oust Bibi Netanyahu was also a disaster–for Obama! The Dems have lost over 1,000 positions in state and federal governments since 2010.

        We’ve observed Al Gore’s temperature-depressing impact every where he goes; maybe we can credit Obama with a similar impact when he campaigns for anybody but himself.

      • lorcanbonda: I guess the same way people rationalize it was okay for the US to interfere in Israel’s election, and for Europe to actively campaign for Hillary while saying they would never allow Trump into their countries, etc. Much worse than hacking emails—much, much worse. It was just that this was a losing strategy, so no one mentions it anymore. Apparently, Putin is more powerful than the media, Europe and all of Hollywood. Guess that makes his the most powerful person in the world, doesn’t it?

      • Well no evidence that any single person’s vote got changed.

        Also the fuss stinks of: The gullible American public should have been allowed to go to the polls without the news media revealing all of her skullduggery to the American voters.

        Remember it was what the Washington crowd were doing that was made available to the people; something the media clearly knew but refused to bring to the notice of the electorate.

        Not praising Putin if he was involved; but condemning the MSM because they WERENT involved in informing the voters.

        G

      • lorcanbonda,
        “Active” interference would imply that voting records were directly manipulated, which of course, there is no evidence of AT ALL. So please stop with this nonsense. EVERY country ATTEMPTS to influence the elections and policies of every other country, including the US. Think about all the state-run media around the world that endorsed Hillary and/or ran supportive “news” stories about her while they vilified Trump. Not to mention the social media efforts to get Hillary elected by these same state actors. So even if Putin did order his minions to attempt to get Trump elected via indirect means, this is nothing new or novel. And yet despite this meddling, our Republic survives. In fact, the election of Donald Trump against all odds is proof that our voting system is healthy. Despite having spent more money, and having the endorsement of more media, Hollywood, foreign governments, and international NGOs, Hillary still lost, which proves that money and political power alone are not enough to ensure a successful presidential bid.

      • @ lorcanbonda = January 9, 2017 at 4:05 pm

        I don’t know how people rationalize that it is okay for Putin to interfere in our elections.

        Why isn’t it OK?

        You can “bet your bippy” that some segment of the US government has, for the past 69 years (post-1947), interfered or attempted to interfere in or with the “elections” in every country on earth that engages in elections of political positions.

        Mostly secret clandestine activities, ……. but not this one, to wit:

        Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is a United States government-funded broadcasting organization that provides news, information, and analysis to countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East “where the free flow of information is either banned by government authorities or not fully developed“.

        During RFE’s earliest years of existence, the CIA and U.S. Department of State issued broad policy directives, and a system evolved where broadcast policy was determined through negotiation between them and RFE staff.[6]

        RFE/RL was headquartered at Englischer Garten in Munich, Germany, from 1949 to 1995. In 1995; the headquarters were moved to Prague in the Czech Republic.

        Read more @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty [

      • “lorcanbonda January 9, 2017 at 4:05 pm
        I agree — I don’t know how people rationalize that it is okay for Putin to interfere in our elections.

        This is not the same thing as giving a speech in support of Trump. This is active intervention in our elections.

        It doesn’t matter who you supported (or if you believe it had an influence Steve T) it is still abysmal.”

        You lost track of that particular conversation.
        The specific sidetrack topic is Obama preaching to the UK and directly interfering in their vote. Live, on TV and other media.

        Beyond the agonized Democrat groans blaming Russia and Putin for email hacks, there is zero real evidence that Russia, or anyone hacked the emails.
        Assange said several times that he was getting the Democrat emails from a whistleblower.

        The emails alone are best explained by a whistleblower. Someone who was sick to their stomach regarding Democrat dirty tricks and fed specific topics to Assange.

        Hackers would have had to download several email servers in order to cross reference enough emails. Nor are hackers really interested in Democrats’ hiring thugs to beat up Trump supporters or insiders using donations to gain insider influence.

        None of the alleged hacking reports have anything more than hearsay information, mostly dug out of various news reports; not from analyzing servers or emails.

        No interference from Putin. Lots of interference from the Obama himself, not just in the USA, but all over the world.
        International relations are now at an all time low, thanks to the one-two punch of Obama/Kerry or Obama/Kerry/Clinton for a true international disaster.

      • What irks me is that the public’s attention has been diverted from the contents of the released DNC emails to a so-called hacking story. The truth is out in the open and that should remain the real focus regardless of who released them or how.

        Climategate followed a similar path.

        I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you to FOIA yet again.

      • eyesonu commented: “…What irks me is that the public’s attention has been diverted from the contents of the released DNC emails to a so-called hacking story…”

        That’s the plan. Russia has become the next boogeyman except I don’t think it’s going to work this time. The MSM has lost it’s credibility.

      • Lorcanbonda
        A blank email is not what was hacked, so logic says that the “hacked” emails were written by somebody, people who write emails that contain sensitive information “should” be intelligent and “thimk” before hitting send!

  3. As long as President Obama doesn’t get us into a nuclear before he leaves, I really don’t care what he says about anything. He’s gone in 10 days, and some change. Jan 20 can’t come fast enough.

  4. Does this mean that Obama will now allow the public disclosure of his college transcripts from his years at Occidental and Columbia, so we can see whether he ever took a math or science course?

    • Personally, I would like to see whether he was registered as a foreign exchange student during his time there.

  5. I don’t see on their web site any contact for making a complaint with regard to false claims of authorship. Pity, that.

    • It’s in his numbered footnotes:
      ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: B. Deese, J. Holdren, S. Murray, and D. Hornung contributed to the researching, drafting, and editing of this article.

      • Well so Moonbeam Brown can now hire J. Holdren to be HIS science advisor; to join that scoundrel lawyer the Dems have hired in California.

      • I would be astonished if any of this work product is actually by the Idiot-in-Chief rather than some (soon-to-be-unemployed) staffer. It may be understood by some who circulate among the great and powerful that the underlings do the real work and present the final product for signature, but if you’re publishing in a scientific journal it darn well better be your own work. Science magazine is be-clowning itself.

      • While LBJ’s policies were disastrous, he was an effective president – in fact one of the most effective ever to the hold office. Damn his soul.
        Obama had bad policy and was ineffective to boot. A total failure.

      • In my opinion, the worst US President, by far, was Abe Lincoln.

        I know that’s a very unpopular opinion, but a few hours of research will make it obvious.

        Lincoln was the first President to imprison newspaper publishers, editors, and writers, without a trial, simply because they did not agree with him!

        He also “deported” a Congressman from Ohio to the Confederate states simply because the man did not agree with him.

        Most important: Although every country in the world outlawed slavery, the US is the ONLY country that had a huge civil war over the subject, where 4% of American white men killed each other and many more were left maimed.

        If all other nations could end slavery without a civil war, then why is Lincoln a hero?

        Lincoln was a racist, thinking slaves were inferior, and once had an idea to ship all the slaves back to Africa.

        In addition, there were slaves in Union States — several hundred thousand — who remained slaves during the war.

        The Union States were specifically exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Confederate states ignored it — it was actually a public relations effort to distract attention from the fact that Union soldiers in Confederate states were killing farm animals, killing pets, raping women, killing civilians, and burning down towns.

        Lincoln was a tyrant, and slavery would have ended without a civil war, just like it did in every other nation.

        However, the victors get to write the history books, and I imagine 99.9% of Americans will disagree with me.

        Perhaps 99.99%

        https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/06/thomas-dilorenzo/words-that-got-a-congressman-deported/

      • Well, that was an impressive screed, but I do see one minor hole in it. The US Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery. While that was a difference between the North and the South, it wasn’t the only one, or even the most important (at least from their prospective). While the Historical Revisionism that has painted the Civil War as ‘about slavery’ has become almost universal, it wasn’t all the slave states the seceded, at the start or even finally. Several stayed in the Union. And the issue of slavery wasn’t made a part of the war until the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 (2 years into the war) which only freed the slaves in the Confederate States, not the border Union slave states. In fact, for the first two years of the war the Union diplomats where hampered because they couldn’t argue to the Europeans that they were fighting to free the slaves.

        one of the biggest issues that brought the Civil War was the belief in the Southern States that the North was coming to control the federal government. With a much larger population then the South they naturally dominated in the House and also the electoral collage. They were even coming to control the Senate, as Northern States with their higher population density tended to be smaller and more numerous. The Southern States were worried that soon they would have no say in their own government. It didn’t help that the North and the South had such different views on many issues, including slavery.

        Of course, we could never get into that situation today, with a few heavily populated states with different opinions and beliefs then the rest coming to dominate the national government. ~¿~

      • But don’t include Harry S. Truman in that bunch.

        Izzat S. stand for Smith ? I know it does for Gen George Smith Patton.

        G

    • History may agree with you, Sunsettommy.

      Very unfortunate, too, since being the first Black President had great potential for the country.

      • Well it seems that the S. in Harry S. Truman doesn’t stand for anything; so I am going to adopt it and name Harry Smith Truman as my favorite Democrat President.

        Give ’em hell Harry S.

        Gs

      • The greatness of a person is not measured by his skin color, but by his deeds. MLK knew that. Obama never did. He tried to use his race to suppress dissent, but even if he had succeeded (and there are some that say he did), that could not substitute for deeds.

      • Obama had great talent, unfortunately undermined by a destructive ideology.
        And more unfortunately, I don’t think we’ve seen the last of him.

    • Hardly, William Henry Harrison would have that comfortably, of modern presidents G W Bush and Nixon would comfortably lead that list.

      • Not even then. If you read the articles of impeachment, you will find that Obama was guilty of all of them as well. The difference is democrats had more backbone.

        Nixon opened China. Obama sold out to them.

      • Really, you certainly appear to be partisan! How you could not rank a president who died 30 days after his inauguration as one of the worst presidents ever? I agree with lorcanbonda that Harding and Andrew Johnson were two of the worst. Richard Nixon was the only president to resign the office, doesn’t need one to be ‘hopelessly partisan’ to judge him as one of the worst modern presidents.

      • You can call him the most ineffectual since he did indeed die 30 days after taking office. But what did he do that was “bad”? Clearly you equate doing nothing with being bad. I sure hope you are not a doctor.

      • Nixon didn’t do anything that your heros hadn’t already done. The only difference was he was a Republican with a Democrat congress.
        Die 30 days after taking office puts you in the middle. Didn’t do anything good, didn’t do anything bad.

      • Under Harding, the 1920 recession came to nothing. In contrast, Hoover and FDR, by their active intervention, prolonged the 1929 recession for 16 years.
        Harding released several prisoners incarcerated during Wilson’s administration, including the communist
        Eugene Debs who was imprisoned for speaking out against US involvement in WWI and thereby violating the alien and sedition act- so much for free speech under Wilson.

        True, there were scandals from Teapot dome, but this was relatively minor- contrast that with Lincoln and
        Johnson- in 1864 under Lincoln’s administration, the US agreed to reimburse the UP and
        sp railroads for building a cross country line. The Credit Mobilier scandal happened during the
        Andrew Johnson administration, and the seeds for the corruption opportunity were planted during the Lincoln administration, but thanks to biased historians, Grant’s administration gets the blame for DISCOVERING the prior corruption.

      • You should learn history. Old Tippecanoe was only in office for 30 days. He was the shortest tenure president, but did nothing bad during that brief tenure.

        Given your lack of historical knowledge, we can safely discard the rest of your comment in the same vein.

      • He was the greatest president ever. He didn’t make any messes, didn’t see any scandals during his term, and taught us a very valuable lesson: Don’t leave old men out in the rain for hours in January. ○¿●

      • If you know your “present” then Obama is the worst president evah.

        Obama has put the U.S. in more danger than ever before. Obama has enabled the nuclear enemies of the U.S. Obama is the biggest promoter of radical Islam since Mohammed. We will be dealing with Obama’s mistakes for many years to come and fixing those mistakes will cost us blood and treasure.

        A resurgent Russia on Obama’s watch. A resurgent China on Obama’s watch. A resurgent Iran on Obama’s watch. A resurgent North Korea on Obama’s watch. The loss of two won wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, on Obama’s watch. The disintegration of the Middle East and North Africa and Western Europe on Obama’s watch. The throwing of Israel to the radical Muslim wolves on Obama’s watch.

        One hell of a legacy.

        We are in great danger from emboldened enemies and Obama has put us there.

        And that’s just a litany of mistakes on the foreign policy side. The domestic side is as long and as bad for the U.S. The most devisive president in U.S. history.

        At least he wasn’t crazy enough to try to hang on to power. He has missed his chance on that one now.

        Unfortunately, Obama thinks his opinion will still matter after he leaves Office, so I expect we will have to see him continuing to try to insert himself into our business more in the future. We can safely ignore Obama in 11 days. After that, it doesn’t matter what he says or does, but it will probably take him a while to figure that out.

        It must hurt to be an egomaniac that is ignored. Obama is going to find out what that’s all about.

        How long will it take before Obama fades into the background noise?

      • Technically, Lincoln did start it. Secession has never been ruled illegal, so the secession was merely an act by sovereign states. Lincoln invaded the south starting the war.

      • Jefferson Davis directly ordered the firing on Fort Sumter which started the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln had merely order the resupply of a Federal fort.

      • Once SC seceded, the land reverted to State ownership. The federal forces were then an occupying force. SC took care so that no lives were lost. And none were.

      • Of course no one bothers to mention the fact that Fort Sumter was illegally occupied by the commander of Fort Moultrie who defied a stand still order while Congress worked out the arrangements to turn over all installations to the Confederacy. Nor the fact that Lincoln ordered Fox to reinforce the Fort but be slow about it so that all the newspapers in the South would have advance notice. The whole incident was a set up which Beauregard fell for thus giving Lincoln the excuse that the South fired on the American flag.

        Let us admit. Lincoln was a bigger scoundrel, he was after all a railroad lawyer.

      • Oh, good grief, Earl. Are you really trying to justify the South’s indefensible, unprovoked attack on a U.S. federal fort? Next you’ll be telling us that the Southern States did not secede and launch the war for the purpose of preserving slavery.

        FACT: The secession was illegal, South Carolina and Georgia both having formally and permanently renounced the right to secede when they ratified the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Nevertheless, the Southern States might have gotten away with secession, if they hadn’t launched the war.

        FACT: There were no “arrangements to turn over” federal installations to the Confederacy in prospect in Congress.

        FACT: South Carolina’s militia had already laid siege to Fort Sumter, before Lincoln took office.

        FACT: Lincoln sought to avoid war. His order was not to “reinforce” Fort Sumter, but to resupply it, which was urgent, if the men within were not to starve. To that end, he announced that he was sending three unarmed supply ships to the fort. Furthermore, he sent notice to the Governor of South Carolina that, if the South Carolina militia held their fire, the United States would supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and not with men or ammunition.

        FACT: In response, Jefferson Davis ordered Beauregard to attack the Fort before provisions arrived. There was no “set up,” and Beauregard didn’t “fall for” anything. He just followed orders.

        It was a premeditated, unprovoked act of war, ordered by Jefferson Davis, and it cost about 600,000 American lives, for a profoundly evil cause: a futile attempt to prevent the atrophy of the Peculiar Institution.

      • FACT: No one is defending or attacking history. They are reporting it. So stop trying to out liberal everyone and create your own strawmen.

        FACT: Secession was never renounced by any State as it was always their right since they were and are SOVEREIGN States (not territories owned by a central government).

        FACT: No one, not even Jefferson Davis, was tried much less convicted, of treason following the war because Johnson and his AG were told, discretely, that they could not be convicted due to the fact that Secession was not illegal.

        Stick to the facts. Leave the pontificating to the clowns that published the stupid paper by Obama.

      • Lincoln ordered a re-supply of a fort that the North was holding onto illegally. It was in SC territory.

      • Let us for once get our definitions correct.
        The War was not a civil war. In a civil war two (or more) parties contend for the control of the SAME government.

        A better term would have been The Second American Revolution. The South wanted nothing to do with the North and the new policy of taxing the agricultural South and West (via high tariffs) to pay for the industrialization of the North. Just as the original Revolution was fought over the issue of taxes so to was the Second. The First only involved an estimated 2% tax but the Morell tariffs eventually reached close to 50%

        If the war had really been about slavery the South would have been satisfied with the Corbin Amendment (the original 13 th) that Lincoln supported that would have preserved slavery forever. But would have left them being taxed to death by the majority in the North.

        But who among you have even heard about the compromises and deals that were tried to prevent the South from leaving. A fat pig is a treasure to the one in control. A fat pig it was. A premium price on cotton and 98% of the worlds market was a very rich source of income. So what happened? The cotton supply shifted to Egypt and India because of the war, and the farms were ravaged to the point that recovery took close to a century. War crimes? read about the Shenandoah Valley where a crow would have to travel with his own food to cross. Or the destruction on Sherman’s March. The code of warriors from time immemorial was not to wage war on civilians, but the North threw out the concept of Honor.

      • Personally Earl, I’m kind of straddling the fence on this issue. The Confederacy’s own founding documents make it clear that one of their major concerns was making themselves secure to continue slavery. But you’re right, that wasn’t what the civil war was fought for. At least 4 Slave States that I know of stayed with the Union the whole way through, and the Emancipation Proclamation (made 2 years into the war) only freed the slaves in the Confederate States, not the Union border states.

        ‘Preserving the Union’ didn’t garner much sympathy in Europe. It didn’t inspire the people as well after the first rather disastrous year either. ‘Freeing the Slaves’ sounded much better, and thanks to the Confederacy admitted stance was even true. Eventually it was rewritten to be the whole reason for the war.

        The lesson here I suppose being, don’t give your enemy a good excuse to vilify you. It’s worth more then troops or weapons in the end.

      • Well into the 20th century,what’s now “the Civil War” was more commonly referred to by Northerners as “the War of the Rebellion” and by Southerners as “the War Between the States.”

      • Actually, Lincoln did not start it, neither “technically” nor practically. The Civil War started when insurrectionists in South Carolina fired on a United States Ship, the Star of the West, and laid siege to a United States military fort, Fort Sumter, while Democrat James Buchanan was still President. The conflict escalated after Lincoln took office, when Jefferson Davis ordered the unprovoked attack on that Fort.

        The insurrection was not “legal,” either. People who claim that secession was legal must play “living, breathing document” games with legal terms like “perpetual,” just like Chief Justice Roger Taney did in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case.

        The insurrectionists started the bloodiest war in U.S. history for a profoundly evil purpose: the prolongation of the “Peculiar Institution” of human slavery. If your great, great, great grandpappy fought in that war on the side of the Confederacy, then I’m sorry, and I don’t blame you for that, but the truth is the truth: he fought for an evil cause.

      • verdeviewer: My mother was taught it was the “War of Northern Aggression”. She was from Texas.

        Earl: I agree. It wasn’t really a civil war unless one contends the South could not really leave the Union, thus making the war between two parts of the United States. Many would not agree with that explanation, I know.

    • I’d put Herbert Hoover as one of the worst ever- great depression started under him.
      I’d put Franklin Delano Roosevelt in number two, prolonging the great depression until 1945.

      Thomas Jefferson and James Madison rank pretty low- They provoked a destructive trade war with Britain, ultimately leading to a war which we could easily have lost. Jefferson gets no credit for the Louisiana Purchase. He originally was trying to get access to the Port of New Orleans. Napoleon offered the sale of the whole territory after losing a 50,000 man army to yellow fever when trying to suppress the rebellion in Haiti- the only successful slave rebellion ever.

      • My family came to the New World way back when Henry Hudson sailed up the Hudson river, nay, some of my ancestors walked over during the previous Ice Age. Throughout the history of North America, there has been lots and lots and lots of fighting, everyone fighting each other, native Tribes fought each other, various colonizers from Europe fought not only Tribes but each other over and over and over and over again.

        This fighting never really ceases. The struggle for power goes on its merry way, just look at European history of the last several thousand years! Oh, my more distant ancestors invaded England in 1046 and before that, came out of the harsh north and were called ‘Northmen’ or the ‘Norse’ for short or ‘hell raisers’ if one is a victim meeting one of these ancestors.

      • “fighting continues” Sure but in our world the weaponry has changed. It’s more like soap: psychological warfare and intimidation. Self declared moral superiority. Social exclusion, Demonization.

      • emsnews January 10, 2017 at 9:32 am
        Oh, my more distant ancestors invaded England in 1046 and before that, came out of the harsh north and were called ‘Northmen’ or the ‘Norse’ for short

        You mean 1066.

  6. You give an “a, b, c, d, e” set of choices, but left out “f. All of the above”.

    Is Barack Obama the new Al Gore?

    /cynic

    • “Is Barack Obama the new Al Gore?”

      He appears to desire to remain in the public’s eye as some sort of “rock star”, so that would not surprise many to see him become a protege of Gore’s and head the same direction to fill his coffers likewise. Too bad he has no business savvy or singing talent.

      • Well, Obama’s business savvy and singing talent may be on a par with Gore’s, so there is potential.

        /grin

      • Obama will fade away quickly … he’s a mouthpiece and a lazy one at that … he literally has no skills outside reading a teleprompter …

  7. He wrote this probably right after writing his speech about how racial relations are much better now than when he got in. Which,as I recall, was right before he wrote the speech about how his administration was the most transparent in history. This may have been before he wrote the
    words that acompanied the Federal Award that he bestowed upon himself and went to the Pentagon to have a (not so) cheering crowd applaud his work, before having a Fed stooge pin it on him. This also was before the announcement that his administration has had no scandals (Clinton Cash,etc ? ) . I’m not even mentioning his military action/inactions.

  8. He spent 8 years and billions of tax payers dollars paying people to find evidence to support this assumption. Now, 8 years later, he can use their findings to justify this conclusion. It’s the perfect circular, selfl-justifying exercise, reeking of personal vanity and narcicism.

  9. As the late, great Leonard Nimoy would say, “Fascinating”.

    I was discussing the wonders of our incredibly stable, reliable climate with a friend in the fall and mentioned to him that it is quite obvious that Obama is an idiot for saying that “the science is settled”. My friend begged to differ, saying that Obama knows exactly what is going on, and that he wants to get in on the action after his second term expires, to reap in the rewards the way that Gore has done so very well for the past decade or two. Yup, doesn’t look so bright now that Hillary (a.k.a. “Turd Sandwich”) lost.

      • Just making a statement as to the state of affairs in the US, but –

        If Scott Frasier is black, then his post would not be considered racist by many since, you know, black people can not be racist in the US.

        Just sayin’.

      • It gets really complicated if Scott Frasier happens to be Hispanic. Anytime we let identity politics get a foothold, we’re going the wrong direction.

    • Not only is “ni88a” a racist dogwhistle, but the 88 refers to HH (8th letter of the alphabet), and is shorthand for “Heil Hitler” i.e. a Neo-Nazi dogwhistle too.

      That this comment is still on the site, without comment from Anthony Watts and his mods, is depressingly awful.

      [On the other hand, thank you for the alert. .mod]

  10. I think Obama may have plagiarized NRO…

    Greentards.PNG

    by OREN CASS November 22, 2016 4:00 AM

    He will reverse a policy that isn’t working anyway.

    Given the emotional reactions that Donald Trump and climate change each trigger separately, they offer an especially combustible combination. Paul Krugman worries that Trump’s election “may have killed the planet.” Activist Bill McKibben calls Trump’s plan to reverse the Obama climate agenda by approving the Keystone XL pipeline and other fossil-fuel projects, repealing the Clean Power Plan, and withdrawing from the Paris agreement “the biggest, most against-the-odds, and most irrevocable bet any president has ever made about anything.” And let’s not forget “Zach,” the DNC staffer who reportedly stormed out of a post-election meeting upset that “I am going to die from climate change.”

    […]

    — Oren Cass is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the forthcoming report, “The Costs of Climate Change Are Real — and Manageable.”

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442383/donald-trump-climate-change

    Zach must be the poster child for “50 shades of green“…

    […]

    Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as “a rip-roaring speech” to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.

    “Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”

    Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.

    “You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”

    Zach gathered his things and began to walk out. When Brazile called after him, asking where he was going, he told her to go outside and “tell people there” why she should be leading the party.

    […]

    The Huff Puff

    Let’s return to the NRO article to see what has poor Zach so terrified…

    Just listen to President Obama. His administration developed a “Social Cost of Carbon” that attempts to quantify in economic terms the projected effects of climate change on everything from agriculture to public health to sea level, looking all the way out to the year 2100. So suppose President Trump not only reverses U.S. climate policy but ensures that the world permanently abandons efforts to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions. How much less prosperous than today does the Obama administration estimate we will be by century’s end?

    The world will be at least five times wealthier. Zach may even live to see it.

    The Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model, developed by William Nordhaus at Yale University, which has the highest climate costs of the Obama administration’s three models, estimates that global GDP in 2100 without climate change would be $510 trillion. That’s 575 percent higher than in 2015. The cost of climate change, the model estimates, will amount to almost 4 percent of GDP in that year. But the remaining GDP of $490 trillion is still 550 percent larger than today. Without climate change, DICE assumes average annual growth of 2.27 percent. With climate change, that rate falls to 2.22 percent; at no point does climate change shave even one-tenth of one point off growth. Indeed, by 2103, the climate-change-afflicted world surpasses the prosperity of the not-warming 2100.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442383/donald-trump-climate-change

    Setting aside the facts that the Social Cost of Carbon is 100% mythical and that neither 2.27% nor 2.22% growth are robust… 2% growth is basically treading water… We’re supposed to gleefully spend $44 trillion over the next couple of decades based on a statistically insignificant difference between two rolls of the DICE?

    Well, the climate is certainly more important than money.  Poor Zach must be terrified that the Earth will turn into Venus under President Trump.  So, even though the economic benefits of CLIMATE ACTION NOW! are insignificant and mythical, the actual effect on the weather in the year 2100 will be significant… Right?

    Even with U.S. “leadership,” the commitments made by other countries under the Paris agreement look almost identical to the paths those countries were on already. Thus the agreement’s impact is at best a few tenths of a degree Celsius. MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, for instance, projected 3.9°C of warming by 2100 without the Paris agreement and 3.7°C with it.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442383/donald-trump-climate-change

    I’m not a CPA (I do pay one to do my taxes), but I’m going to go out on a limb here:  $44 trillion now is worth a Helluva lot more than a mythical 0.05% annual GDP boost and 0.2°C of averted warming by 2100… Particularly since a realistic “business as usual” model wouldn’t predict more than 2.0°C of warming by 2100…

    […]

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/22/the-trump-climate-freakout-im-going-to-die-from-climate-change/

    • Very OT.
      I see that you changed the color of the text in a blockquote. Off and on, as sort of a hobby, I’ve been trying to change the color of my text here on this WordPress blog for a couple of years.
      I’m not asking you to tell me just how you did it. (We all like to see a rainbow but I’m sure the Mods would quickly tire of seeing them everyday!8-)
      I just want to say, “Hat’s off”.

      • search for: html span
        Then use the Test page to try things. Please.
        And yes, use sparingly.

      • Anthony trusted me with editing privileges… Without which, I would he incapable of of such font-astic tricks… ;)

      • Thank you, David (and John). I figured it was probably a matter of “permissions”…but it has been frustratingly fun trying to get around them.
        (Anybody out there know if Schumer has a private email server?8-)

    • If a cost model called “DICE” doesn’t scare the you-know-what out of you, nothing will.

    • The only damage to the GDP is being done by this government absolute waste of billions on the scam, the global damage could run into the trillions if not stopped.

  11. He is busy cementing his legacy…as one of the worst presidents ever. With the whole CAGW thing teetering, he proves himself a blindly devout warmunist. Right up there with Kerry saying CAGW is the biggest threat, not ISIS, not Russia annexing Crimea, not China in South China Sea.

    Except for a now rapidly cooling El Nino blip in 2015-16, no warming this century. That despite the fact that ~35% of all the increase in CO2 concentration since 1958 (Keeling curve) occured in this century. No acceleration in SLR. Arctic ice hasn’t disappeared, and Antarctic is gaining ice. Greening. Thriving polar bears. Models falsified three ways: no modeled tropical troposphere hotspot exists, the pause/model troposphere tempeature discrepancy, observational ECS half of modeled. Intermittent renewalbles reaching penetrations where grids collapse as in SA.

  12. All you have to do is believe! and you, too, can become a Climate Scientist! Here, enter some trendy buzzwords like ‘unprecedented’ and ‘unsustainable’ and our 97 million dollar software will even write your paper for you!

    • All you have to do is believe! and you, too, can become a Climate Scientist!

      The re-wording of an old joke comes to mind:

      Wonse I cudint even spel climit sientist now I are one.

  13. I’m glad to hear that Obummer found a new career now that he is out of politics for good.

    Sadly, I have a feeling that the gravy train for alarmist climate science will come to a stop in the coming years…

  14. He knows that CO2 causes “Global Warming” – because he asked his daughters if they believed it – and they told him that it was true! Seriously – I wish I could find the video clip.

      • The latter was to find out her generation’s opinion. The former was to check to see if the programming had been successful.

      • The daughter of a president, constantly surrounded by secret service agents, and who attends a very exclusive private school, in the middle of government town, is going to know the opinion of her generation?

      • Heh – he brought that up during a debate too.
        Dems should stop letting their candidates go into debates completely unarmed… no facts, no knowledge, no intelligence.

      • I see what you mean, but I think the reasons for asking the questions were different. Carter was more ingenuous than Obama could ever feign.

  15. The Nobel Committee preemptively celebrated progressive wars, and now the scientific “consensus”, social or political, really, celebrating conflation of logical domains and liberal departures from the limited scientific domain.

  16. We shouldn’t be too critical. He might in fact BE a scientist. There are lots of scientists: Christian Scientists, Scientologists, Dismal Scientists … I feel so sciency writing this. I think I’ll award myself a PhD.(this piece was pier reviewed. I read it over once while sitting on the local dock).

    • In climate science, you are a scientist if and only if the current “scientists” declare you to be one.

  17. Had a quick look at the full report of BHO – I only lasted the first two paragraphs and had to leave laughing. BHO trumpeting his “achievement” … 8% reduction in CO2 “pollution” (when CO2 is an inert gas) and at the same time increasing economic growth of 10% over 8 years.
    Think about that .. economic growth measured in $terms averaging 1.25% for each year of his presidency. Factor in inflation and there is no economic growth – factor in the increase in the cost of power alone and there is economic decline
    But BHO says it so beautifully I’m sure the environmentalists are amazed by his brilliance !!

    • 10% over 8 years is by far the worst performance of any US president.
      And that’s assuming the official inflation index is accurate.
      Most of that CO2 reduction was caused by power plants switching from coal to natural gas. Something he had nothing do with, and in fact fought against with his ridiculous war on fraccing.
      The next largest CO2 reduction was from the continuing adoption of energy saving devices and techniques. Something that started decades ago, and would have progressed much faster had the economy not been so bad.

      • “And that’s assuming the official inflation index is accurate.” Poor assumption. Using the methodology from mid/late 80’s inflation is over 9% and has been all during BHO shift. And that is assuming even the poor numbers have not been jiggered and including all the government expenditures in GDP/GNP which are monumental compared to just 8 years ago when they were already ridiculously high.

      • There was never a single quarter where GDP growth was over 3% while Obama was in office. No other President in history has this distinction. And, keep in mind, Obama “redefined” GDP which now includes includes R&D expenditures and works of art — so the actual numbers are even worse than that.

    • That is the nominal rate. The compound annual rate would be 1.1985%. Might be below the rate of inflation.

      • The official GDP numbers are already adjusted for the official inflation rate.
        That assumes that either “official” number is also an accurate number.

    • jimbobby,

      I think that it would be more accurate to say that “…CO2 is an [relatively] inert gas,” at least compared to oxygen. It is certainly more reactive than argon or even nitrogen.

  18. I think Kim Jong-il had a number of scientific papers published, too. Great accomplishments ran in his family.

  19. Now, now, don’t be too hasty. From the abstract it’s about private sector incentives to reduce CO2. Go with it, but with a tiny modification. The funding to come from a voluntary tax by those who sign up for it. They fill out a ‘I want to pay to reduce US/Global CO2’ and the government just fills out the ‘how much’ box when they know what it will cost. What’s not to like?

  20. Lol, I was just getting round to emailing Science to say I have a paper on asteroid spin behaviour and what are the chances of having it published with no astronomy qualifications or institutional affiliation whatsoever. The chances are sky-high, it would seem.

    • You just need to state that you want to study how CO2 effects the asteroids spin and you are good to go. Right at the top of the list. :-)

  21. “Barack Obama, Climate Scientist” and so is Al Gore.
    The contributions of both to actual science have been pee reviewed.
    (Adding to ocean acidification, I’m sure.)

  22. As soon as I hear someone use the term, “carbon pollution” I know immediately that I am in the presence of a scientific imbecile. That certainly describes our soon to be ex-President, Barack Obama. Thank God he’s leaving.

  23. “The latest science and economics provide a helpful guide for what the future may bring, in many cases independent of near-term policy choices, when it comes to combatting climate change and transitioning to a clean-energy economy.”
    Ah yes, the “latest science and economics”. As in, “new and improved”, because it has “great taste” and is “less filling”. “Helpful guide”? To whom? Certainly not Trump. Maybe they are already looking ahead to 2020.
    Yes, 2020, that’s the ticket.

  24. For me it all started when Obama said that the White House dog would be “a mutt like me” from a shelter yet the dog they got was a pure bred who has never set foot in a shelter. The President is suppose to be the most powerful man in the free world yet he could not keep his word on something as trivial as the White House dog. Obama is in the habit of saying things that sound good at the time but that turn out to have no real meaning. His “paper” is really just wishful thinking on his part and his staff and really has no real meaning. As far as economics go we are still waiting for the budget cuts that are suppose to have gone along with the tax hike on the rich and the ACA taxes as part of the President’s balanced approach to deficit reduction, yet Obama’s term in office is ending. Obama said that devicit spending showed a lack of leadership so we are talking about a President whose Halmark of his adminiatration is ” a lack of leadership”. So much for peer review.

  25. You know, I used to consider young women taking part in a sIut walk were just about the last word in self-debasement. I do feel sorry for those young women. They must have suffered some severe trauma to debase themselves like that. However, Science has beaten those young women out of the self-debasement award. If anybody anywhere is not relieved that Trump won, reading this article should change their mind. He sounds like some 3rd world dictator who must “teach his people” how to think, and who has complete control of the media to get “out his message” to the masses.

    Gawd, did we dodge the bullet.

    However, who knows, this article might get him another Nobel prize.

    But you know, my big fear is that Russia has hacked his policy statement and is already racing ahead to implement it and leave us behind in the (coal) dust. And, you know, I wouldn’t trust the Chinese not to steal a march on us, too.

  26. Way down at the end of the references is this:

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: B. Deese, J. Holdren, S. Murray, and D. Hornung contributed to the researching, drafting, and editing of this article.

    Right… he wrote it all by himself… NOT!

    From Whitehoust.gov
    <a href=Brian Deese is currently serving as Senior Advisor to the President. His duties include overseeing climate, conservation and energy policy and advising the President on a range of domestic and international policy issues.

    From Wikipedia:
    John Paul Holdren (born March 1, 1944) is the senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science and technology issues through his roles as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)[

    From Whitehouse.gov
    Shailagh Murray currently serves as Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications.

    From Linked in: linkedin.com/in/daniel-hornung-5a65739
    Daniel Hornung
    Special Assistant to the President and Senior Policy Advisor at The White House
    (what I note about his CV is that he was an Intern in 2009, 2010, 2011.)

    • As a journal editor I would never have allowed BHO to bury his ‘ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS‘ against a fictitious citation number (24). There is no attendant bibliography pertinent to this citation number. His acknowledgement should have been placed in an suitably visible place, as is customary, usually after the conclusion and before the bibliography. There was in my view no intent to offer ‘acknowledgement’ and “Science” was clearly party to this.

      Isn’t it the small things that so often betray one?

  27. If you won’t take action for economic reasons, do it for the polar bears — I hear there’s only three left…

  28. In college in the 50s I had a professor who brought Science to the class when it had a new discovery. I suspect he would grit his teeth if he now found a comparable there to use, but still bring it in. It would not be this, although he might have quietly identified it for what it is.

  29. Obama has not been all in on the CO2/climate change in spite of the rhetoric. He has supported drilling in the Gulf and SE Atlantic. By not doing much to inhibit fracking, he has tacitly approved it. His claim has not to stop CO2, but to make the US energy independent of the MidEast. Had he announced this, few would have gotten excited about it, compared to the response that the sky is falling. He did a good job of appearing to satisfy both – the US will be exporting more energy within the next few years than it imports.

    • Damning with faint praise.
      Regardless, you are giving Obama credit for not doing anything in areas in which he had no power to act.
      The drilling in the Gulf and SE Atlantic were all approved and begun long before Obama was president. He banned new exploration and new drilling.
      The only fraccing that occured was on private land. It was banned from federal lands.

      • And Obama took credit for the increase in US petroleum production even though he did everything in his power to oppose it.

  30. Willis,

    I had to follow your link to Science magazine to see if this was satire. There it was in print.

    The article could not have been written BHO. First off, that baboon could not complete a birthday card with “fill in the blanks” or “multiple choice” options. Second, if he wrote it would have been in first person gratification using “I” at least 100 times. It must have been a photo copy of his teleprompter. It was certainly not written by BHO.

    Scotty, beam these clowns up ASAP.

  31. He’s not even competent at what he was trained in, barely having ever practiced law, yet he’s presented as an expert in climate science where his formal science training is nill? I’ll bet he never even took a science related course in school (political science is anti-science). IPCC driven climate science is getting more and more absurd every day. Can claims that ‘it all works by incomprehensible magic’ be that far away?

    • Co2isnotevil: ” barely having ever practiced law.”
      ..
      After passing the bar exam, Obama worked in the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 until 2004. I believe that’s 11 years no?

      • Are you sure he practised law or was he a community organizer during those years. That seemed to be the only thing he talked about.

      • Steve Heins (challenging Co2isnotevil’s original observation)

        ” barely having ever practiced law.”

        ..
        After passing the bar exam, Obama worked in the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 until 2004. I believe that’s 11 years no?

        Well, sort of. Most was part-time work, and he spent a good deal of that aprt-time work at this small Chicago law firm running for office and “investing” time in being a community agitator. From the Weekly Standard’s http://www.weeklystandard.com/would-you-hire-barack-obama/article/16541 (who made substantial errors by misstating his “journal” work at Harvard (Obama was only “president” of the Journal “society” NOT the daily editing tasks of the Law School Journal! He has NEVER written an article for the Journal either.)

        It’s when Obama leaves law school in 1991 that his résumé starts raising questions. He didn’t begin a full-time job until 1993. Between 1991 and 1993, Obama divided his time between lecturing at the University of Chicago Law School, writing a book, and returning to his pre-law school activity, community organizing.

        In 1993, Obama went to work for the small Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland. He could have gotten a job with any major law firm in America. His belated selection of a boutique law firm that offered lower pay but a better lifestyle than the top firms is striking. A lot of people in the legal industry, rightly or wrongly, would infer a certain softness from Obama’s chosen path.

        Between 1993 and 1996, Obama was a full-time associate at Davis, Miner. On the side, he continued lecturing at the University of Chicago Law School, and his autobiographical Dreams From My Father came out in 1995. (Initial sales of the book were poor, though they would take off years later, once Obama became a national figure.) By 1996, Obama was also running for the Illinois legislature. After winning that race, he became a part-timer at Davis, Miner and a member of the Illinois senate, also a part-time job, while continuing to lecture at Chicago.

        What is striking about Obama’s résumé circa 2004, as he began his U.S. Senate campaign, then, is that 13 years out of law school, he had yet to commit himself to one line of work. More important, potential employers would wonder about a gulf between the ability Obama showed at Harvard and his actual accomplishments. Obama never made it beyond lecturer at Chicago, where he wrote no scholarly articles. He wrote one book, then stopped writing for over a decade. And he was less than a force in the Illinois legislature. After roughly three years practicing law, he had turned away from that career.

        Obama’s second book was ghost-written – The actual author was admitted to be Bill Ayers, a political terrorist in the 1960’s who lived nearby Obama in Chicago. Obama, and Michelle Obama, have subsequently lost their Chicago law licenses – Like ALL of his personal life, the details why or under what order are sealed under a court order. Ironically, all of Obama’s political victories in Illinois came only after his opponents’ sealed legal records were released to friendly newspapers before each election.

        From the LATimes, Obama’s record as a lawyer includes only 3,723 billable hours spread over 8 years, and only 30 court cases – most of them defending the firm’s wealthy Chicago clients AGAINST the poor people who had claims or complaints. This law was a major contributor to all of Obama’s political campaigns – seeing that as an easy way to gain influence and friends in the Illinois state offices.

        http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/06/nation/na-obamalegal6

        Senior attorneys at the small firm where he worked say he was a strong writer and researcher, but was involved in relatively few cases — about 30 — and spent only four years as a full-time lawyer before entering politics.

        Obama arrived in Chicago in 1993 with a degree from Harvard Law School and was hired as a junior lawyer at the firm then known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. He helped represent clients in civil and voting rights matters and wrongful firings, argued a case before a federal appellate court, and took the lead in writing a suit to expand voter registration.

        But the firm also handled routine legal matters and real estate. Obama spent about 70% of his time on voting rights, civil rights and employment, generally as a junior associate. The rest of his time was spent on matters related to real estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits.

        In one instance, Obama defended a nonprofit corporation that owns low-income housing projects against a lawsuit in which a man alleged that he slipped and fell because of poor maintenance. Obama got the suit dismissed.

        In another case, Obama appeared on behalf of a nonprofit corporation that provided healthcare for poor people. A woman who claimed income of less than $8,000 a year had sued Obama’s client to obtain a $336 payment for baby-sitting services; Obama’s client paid up, and the case was settled.

        In 1994, Obama appeared in Cook County court on behalf of Woodlawn Preservation & Investment Corp., defending it against a suit by the city, which alleged that the company failed to provide heat for low-income tenants on the South Side during the winter.

        Those were not the cases Obama highlighted in the self-portrait drawn in his first memoir, “Dreams From My Father.”

  32. Oh, I feel pretty confident that Obama wrote the paper, but look at his list of references to see where he got his material. Need I say it? … IPCC and associated good ol’ boy networks, including EPA, Department of Energy, … the whole circular ping-pong network of “consensus” information dynamics.

    I found reference # 19 interesting:

    19. Walmart, Walmart’s Approach to Renewable Energy (Walmart, 2014)

    Who thinks that Walmart’s adopting a climate consciousness consistent with “consensus” information is just good marketing ? … and that this paper Obama uses as one of his references is as much a marketing pamphlet as it is a status report ?

    You’d think Walmart would sign off on something a little more financially realistic than wind and solar. When Walmart starts selling an affordable solar powered lawn mower, then I might start believing them on this energy philosophy. In the meantime, I will continue to appreciate Walmart mainly for its reasonable prices on food and other items.

      • He probably had editorial control, though. I don’t think he just let those people do ALL the work, simply to read a final draft that somebody else wrote and said, “Let’s go with that.” He probably took some time with it, added some of his own touches, and took all the credit upfront, with his helpers noted obscurely, not unlike in some academic papers, where the main researchers have grunts doing the repetitious stuff of the experiments, recording of data, … data entry, etc, and then the main researcher tweaks it, makes overriding statements and conclusions, takes all the credit upfront with a list of acknowledgements in small print.

        … or like doctors, who have medical assistants greet you, take your blood pressure, help you fill out forms, get your insurance information, move you around to different rooms for about an hour or so, until you finally meet the doctor for about five or ten minutes.

        That’s a privilege of position.

    • There is no way that BHO wrote that piece. It’s not his language. We have 8 years of his utterances to base it on.

      Anyway, he’s too busy to write or think as he has to release his brothers at Guantanamo.

    • Not so Robert Kernodle.
      Journals are strict these days with a formal requirement to document and stipulate the precise involvement with the work presented for publication. In fact, the “privilege of position” as you put it merely ensures a position in the authorial line-up but never the important first position, which is always accorded to the lead researcher who physically undertook the research (or in the case of a commentary article) actually conceived the idea and drafted the article. So, one would be obliged to show the BHO did not materially write the commentary.

      A toe-nail or two from the menagerie at (24) could probably sort out the facts quite quickly.

  33. No greater evidence that Climate Science is an ideological movement than when a “Science” magazine trots out a politician with a constitutional law degree to warn the great unwashed that disaster is impending.

    conjuring the Spirit of Reagan here: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”

      • Depends entirely on the context of the count. Some places one, some places two. I’d give Reagan the benefit of the doubt, but opponents of Reagan will say no, he couldn’t count. :)

  34. January 20th … could you hurry up please?

    Sorry, not possible. But if all the people who want to flee Trump’s America leave now at speeds approaching that of light, time will slow down and Obama’s administration will last longer (for them anyway), and the remaining time will be less unpleasant for the rest of us.

  35. It reads like a speech, including such timely references as ‘ A U.S. Department of Energy report released this week…’. Take away the footnote references, and it could have been in his next State-of-the-Union,

  36. “…….At the same time, evidence is mounting that any economic strategy that ignores carbon pollution…..”

    I sincerely hope that I am not the only one here is getting REALLY sick and tired of carbon dioxide being referred to as “carbon pollution.” Propaganda is of course the reason behind why this is done. Never mind that CO2 is also composed of an oxygen atom.

    Is it hydrogen that comes out of my kitchen tap when I turn it on? Do I season my food with sodium or with sodium chloride (Yea, I know. Pure sodium is nasty stuff when exposed to air or water. I saw it happen in a college chemistry lab many years ago).

    I’m about as much a scientist as Obama is. If he can publish a piece in this “science” magazine, then I guess I can too, right?

  37. Ironically, the photo used to illustrate this WUWT post is a picture of Obama looking at brain cells through a microscope during a tour of a laboratory with Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, September 30, 2009.

    The brain cells, of course, must be those of a current “consensus” climate scientist — thus, making it a very fitting photo for this post.

    • Ironically, the photo used to illustrate this WUWT post is a picture of Obama looking at brain cells through a microscope during a tour of a laboratory with Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, September 30, 2009.

      He’s not looking AT the brains cells of a climate scientist, but looking FOR them.

    • The other possibility is that he is looking at a plot of satellite data over the last two decades in the hope of finding a rise in global temperatures. Or maybe sea-level data in the hope of finding an increase in the rate that it’s rising, or maybe oceanic pH in the hope of finding an increase in de-basification.

  38. It’s just like in the “Golden Years” in Romania. Mrs Ceausescu seemed to be the author of almost all science school books. Yeay her!

    • He’s not that old and he’s rich from being in politics. Don’t expect him to fade away too fast. Look at what Bill and Hillary tried to pull off. For that matter, Al Gore’s probably not finished quite yet on the global power circuit. As long as these characters can get donations, they can continue operating at some level.

      • Now THERE’s a topic I’d like to see investigated. Exactly how do politicians grow their personal wealth during office and continue to grow their personal wealth after leaving office? From the outside it looks like a very effective gravy train.

      • oh I know he is planning on butting in often and loudly but…he won’t have any real authority at least.

  39. I doubt the coverage for CAGW will change much under Trump….most likely at first it will intensify as is. Count on official findings contrary to the CAGW meme either getting no recognition or being skewered. The CAGW bank rollers control the necessary news outlets to assure a continuation of the narrative and they have too much invested to give up now. I would be wary though if I were an outlet that falsely reports or tries to spin an official government statement though as Trump is already on record to dislike false and misleading press coverage. He also seems to be vindictive. In this case I hope he is.

    • One interesting possibility is the declining influence of news outlets. Social media is quite a cesspool but it does have the benefit of almost direct communication. Why would any public figure subject themselves to interviews by hostile propagandists?

  40. Obama looks as uncomfortable and ridiculous and Mike Dukakis did in his tank photo. Fortunately, that came during his campaign and people saw him for the idiot he was. Unfortunately, this is on the way out, so it doesn’t matter.

  41. Political stunts of this sort became increasingly common under the editorship of Donald “used NSF funds for my yacht” Kennedy. It is the reason I quit AAAS in 2001. I’ll bet this leads to some resignations as well.

    By the way, isn’t it ironic that so-called right-wing people are chided and mocked by the left for religious beliefs, but left-wingers the world over turn their charismatic leaders into near deities with nary a second thought? Of course, Barack Obama is a deity in a league of his own.

  42. Some of the comments upthread led my lawyer’s nose to do a little sniffing before dinner and football. For regular papers, no ghost authorship is allowed, and there must be original content. This fails both tests.
    But this is not a regular paper. It is a policy forum review submission. That has separate written rules (a quick single google fu finds them):
    1. Advance scientific understanding–fail.
    2. “Opinion is acceptible but other views should be acknowledged.” –fail.
    3. ‘Conflict of interest’: “If you cannot judge this paper impartially, please notify us immediately.”–fail.
    4. Your review—fail. Holdren’s review, Fail. WHO, yup, but to which identifier ‘you’ and ‘yours’ does not apply in the Science rules sense.

    So, Science mutiply violated their own written Policy Forum submission guidelines to humor Obummer on his way out to oblivion. Par for the course in corrupted climate science.

  43. Not bad for a guy who is “lost” trying to understand 9th grade math.

    Obama:

    “The math stuff was fine up until about seventh grade [but] Malia is now a freshman in high school, I’m pretty lost.”

    If he can’t do 9th grade “math stuff,” it’s not surprising that he’s confused about climate change.

    • Perhaps he doesn’t perceive the relationship of math and science. Therefore he can be a “political Scientist” without the “math part”.

      • He’s a “social scientist,” therefore, no math, science, or even logic. Just emotions and feelings (and ruthlessly attacking your opponents with scandalous accusations of racism, sexism, genderism, or whatever the victimhood -ism of the moment is).

  44. The most important point is not about the president, but about AAAS, should be renamed the American Association of the Alienation of Science.

  45. “…roughly $340 billion to $690 billion annually”. This from a president who has already added $1Trillion every year of his presidency to the national debt.

  46. I dropped my subscription (and membership) several years ago because Science has become so political.

    • Maybe, but our lifetimes as wretched humans are not long enough to grasp the entire scope of our reality. That is what separates us from the demigods we envision ourselves as. One must observe many cycles (annual, decadal, centennial, etc) before arriving at a mean behavior in nature. perhaps after a century of satellite observation humanity will have a small glimpse of the actual drivers playing a “rock-paper-scissors game” of chaotic counter forcing.

  47. Barack Obama was NEVER the Editor of the Harvard Law Review.

    He was the President of the HLR – an affirmative action creation by elite universities to increase “diversity” in an institution that exists solely on the basis of merit earned by its members.

    The Editor of any Law Review is usually the smartest student in the law school who chooses to compete for a place on the Law Review (in his/her first year) and thereafter serves with exceptional distinction during their time on the Law Review. The Editor is chosen for his/her legal acumen, diligence, good humor, and sole-minded dedication to producing a quality product of exceptional merit.

    The President of a Law Review is something else all together.

  48. “At the same time, evidence is mounting that any economic strategy that ignores carbon pollution will impose tremendous costs to the global economy and will result in fewer jobs and less economic growth over the long term. Estimates of the economic damages are …” -Barack Insane Obama

    This has a lot of credibility after this “scientist” also estimated that passing his healthcare plan would cut costs for the average family by $2500 a year. No, instead health costs have gone through the roof under Obama’s plan. And Obama knew that would happen, just like Obama’s knows that adopting his climate change plan would take a wrecking ball to the economy:
    Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket:

  49. What is the social cost of removing the first expression in this formula?

    6CO2 + 6H2O + light energy = C6H12O6 + 6O2

    If we get below 300ppm (.03%), it may be immeasurable.

    • Anyone worried about maintaining the oxygen content in the atmosphere should remember that more CO2 results in more plant growth, which makes more oxygen and sequesters more carbon in biomass as it easily meets the global food requirement (except where politics screws it up).

      • Pop Piasa January 9, 2017 at 5:25 pm
        Anyone worried about maintaining the oxygen content in the atmosphere should remember that more CO2 results in more plant growth, which makes more oxygen and sequesters more carbon in biomass as it easily meets the global food requirement (except where politics screws it up).

        But of course burning fuel consumes oxygen and since more oxygen is consumed, than is generated during photosynthesis overall the oxygen concentration is decreasing.

        http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/plots/daily_avg_plots/ljo.pdf

  50. Relax, guys. Here’s my “surprise-free” model.

    All sorts of great economic things start happening and America gains status (real, actual status, not what the left thinks passes for it). And somehow or other, none of it will turn out to have anything at all to do with Donald Trump.

    So I look forward to all sorts of wonderful things that Trump has Absolutely Nothing to Do With. That’s my model.

    And it backtracks well, too. It’s not as if we haven’t seen all this before: My alma mater (Columbia University, GSAS) is where you will learn about how Reagan didn’t save — or even help — the economy, he actually ruined it. And about how the fall of the Soviets had nothing (Nothing, NOTHING) to do with him. (NOTHING!) And all it will cost you is a mere two grand a credit.

    • Actually, Reagan inherited a bigger mess than Obama kept whining about and his administration set the stage for the dot com boom that Clinton took credit for. I never remember Regan complaining about the mess Carter left him, nor do I expect Trump to whine about the mess left behind by Obama.

  51. Science did not accept my two page letter, which I wrote myself, so I am jealous. Not only did I write it myself, I read the references.

    Who believes that Pres Obama contributed anything to this paper, even as much as a full read of the manuscript?

    • When did this dude have time to research this properly? Who was running the country while he slogged through the papers and adopted an informed stand for himself to claim authorship of?

  52. Willis,

    Now I gotta ask … is there anyone on the planet who thinks that:

    b) Any of this is anything but politics? ”

    I don’t think it’s about politics, but rather corruption. In brief, I believe corruption has become rampant to the point of there being a great many people who face loss of status/wealth (and in some cases imprisonment) if people not deeply involved in the now extremely corrupt “establishment”, unleash/activate the rule of law (and not men). Hence, everything (including the kitchen sink ; ) is being thrown at the incoming Administration, which might help de-legitimize and/or demonize it.

    • “is there anyone on the planet who thinks that:
      b) Any of this is anything but politics?”

      I agree about the corruption, but would add that on Science’s behalf it is also publicity. Selling copies, being “relevant” and being quoted in the non-scientific press as well as the light science press – Sci Am and New Scientist.

  53. Science Magazine should be forced to change their name to “Mullarkey” Magazine or some other fitting title. They’ve blown any credibility they had left.

    • No, Gandhi, the fix for the title of the magazine is muuuuuuuch easier than what you suggest.

      They merely need to add a big question mark at the end of the word, “science”. … Give me a few minutes to work up a mock front-page cover.

  54. At least there was only one, er, author for this “paper”. Didn’t a wise fellow devise a formula that relates the increasing number of authors to a decreasing level of validity?
    /snark

    • V = 1/n,

      where V = validity
      n = number of authors

      1, thus, rates as high validity

      Of course, Nick S. will chime in to challenge my math. (^_^), and so this could get verrrrrrrrrrrry involved.

  55. Can’t help but remember the #1 Obama rule “Don’t EVER do anything unless there is a political reason”. He has been consistent with this rule for his entire presidency. It is somewhat worrisome that he perceives a political gain from this particular bit of faux ‘scientific’ drivel.

  56. Why is there any sense of surprise or shock in this post at all? The AAAS proudly boasts 90% + non- Republican membership. They consider themselves the largest Science organization in the world and WUWT contributors are Holocaust Deniers. The climate cabal is largely leftist in nature globally and here in the US specifically. Most of baseline science academics is run through debt and government grant systems, bought and paid for. Of course Science magazine is going represent its culture and do anything Obama might wish to do.

    What kind of world do you think you’ve been living in?

    I find the list of rhetorical questions somewhat obtuse to the reality most on the board seem to understand. If you want on the Trump bandwagon you might want to consider just what a farce the debate “about science” has been all through the AGW peak of 2006 on. It was always “about politics” first and last and if you want a healthy skeptical contingent that’s the first thing that needs to be acknowledged.

    Another comment to be deleted Anthony?

    • I don’t think we’re really shocked or surprised. We’re just having fun with the painfully obvious.

      You gotta laugh to keep from crying, or maybe laugh so hard that you DO cry. We all cope with stupid differently. (^_^)

  57. Obama is looking under a microscope to find some economic growth, which was the weakest 8-year recovery since the 1940’s under his administration.

    I wonder if he found any?

  58. I assume that this is the same Barack Obama who said he had trouble following his (then) 15 year old daughter’s math homework.

  59. Bomber Barry got a Peace Nobel (actually, just an Oslo Emmy, not a real one from Stockholm) then proceeded to drop up to 26000 bombs a year, mostly on behalf of the M-Brotherhood and its offshoots, head-loppers personally known to John McCain..

    Barry is great at copping applause for stuff he once promised to do…long after he started doing the opposite. I think he’d make a great science communicator in this age of Publish-or-Perish. John McCain can help by organising the muscle while Barry does his soaring rhetoric schtick.

  60. According to Willis the only qualification to be a scientist is to be published in a science magazine.

    The essence of Obama’s claim for reducing ghg is replacing coal with natural gas. The best I can tell, this is not a result of any of Obama’s policies.

  61. This is what you get when the population encourages leader worship. Leaders will tend to rise to the occasion and think themselves infallible. Let us not make the same mistake with Trump.

    • But it could make for good Saturday-morning TV. … Remember Mystery Science Fiction Theatre ?

      What you are seeing here could easily be a scene from one of those episodes:

      • This picture is really cool ! Is Obama studying Climate with a Microscope ?
        I can’t wait till Jan-20-2017

    • True.
      I said something to the effect before or during the primaries that we need someone who use the abuses of the executive branch to undo what those abuses have done and then eliminate the ability of a future President to continue the abuses.
      (I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but the ability for a president to issue “executive orders” is hinged upon there existing “a state of emergency”. Congress has never declared that the “state of emergency” that started that started the mess is ended.)
      I think of George Washington. He had the support of the army. He could have been the first King of The United States. But he turned that opportunity for personal power down in favor of the ideals of The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
      Some have been twisting all three to become King (or Queen).
      Hillary personified what we don’t want. No integrity.
      We can only hope and pray that Donald is more like George.
      (And that the individuals that make up Congress remember and honor the goal. There were no “parties”, Democrat or Republican, when the Declaration of Independence was written and signed …at the risk of the signer’s lives.)

      • (I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but the ability for a president to issue “executive orders” is hinged upon there existing “a state of emergency”. Congress has never declared that the “state of emergency” that started the mess is ended.)

        No one has replied.
        I genuinely would like a correction if I have that wrong.

  62. Wait, I just checked, and apparently it’s not April 1st, or an article by the Onion.

    Seriously? History and lack of warming is someday going to roast these people in hindsight.

  63. To be fair, the paper is about The irreversible momentum of clean energy, not climate change so upfront, it just accepts statements on climate change and economic damage from Stern Garnaut etc as fact and then draws conclusions about the desirability and success of renewable energy schemes.

    It doesn’t stop the whole piece being hogwash but let’s tar and feather it for what it is rather than as a climate change piece.

    • Yeah, and I am perhaps one of the few who believes that Obama actually wrote the paper, and I think that he did a good job at the writing. … This says nothing of his interpretation, however, for which the term, “hogwash”, seems like a good candidate as a descriptive term.

      I once knew a guy who was seemingly the nicest, most likeable person you could meet, but he turned out to be a sociopathic thief. He knew how to act so that people would like him and trust him. I’m not suggesting that President Obama is such a person. I’m just saying that appearances can look really good, while hiding something really bad. It’s called “showmanship”, and I know a thing or two about that, having screwed up parts of some of my stage performances on a few occasions (years ago), but pretended so well that these were not screw ups that audiences did not see that they were screw ups.

    • This is justification for the continuation of tax policy which favors inefficient means of energy production, over efficient means of production. The justification is climate models designed to produce global warming. The output of these models is fed into economic models designed to produce lost economic output. The output of those models are fed into tax revenue models designed to produce decreasing revenue. The output of those models is fed into public opinion models that are designed to produce public policy based on the need to fix all the problems caused by all the models. There is no need for reality, or measurements in any of this. It is models all the way down.

  64. 4oC is a science fiction scenario. Mr. Obama is perhaps going to transition from political fiction?

  65. This paper along with all his other boasting of how great his many accomplishments have been for the nation reminds me of how Castro, Putin, the North Korea leader , and others in history find it necessary to pontificate and constantly tell their “subjects” how omnipotent and accomplished they are in everything they undertake. This takes narcissism to the extreme level. Obama is trying to write his legacy apparently afraid it may not look too good if left to history. .

  66. I’m sincerely impressed. Notwithstanding all his other responsibilities, the President finds time to publish under his own name an article on climate science in Science magazine and a scholarly article on criminal punishment in the Harvard Law Review. Amazing.

  67. In the interest of fairness, I can name one unqualified good thing that’s come from getting 8 years of Obama.

    And that is we didn’t get 8 years of Hillary. Not in 2008, and not in 2016. We can unironically thank Obama for that.

  68. This is “post-modernism” at it’s best : 1. the laws of physics are just personal views 2. facts and opinions are fully interchangeable and as a result 3. the truthfulness of an assertion depends completely on the authority speaker, not on it’s content.
    Were did we see this before? Ahh , the church. Endless repetion and meteorological threats make religious theses become true as long as heretics are silenced, of course.
    But in one respect the church is more realistic stating that the future is unknown (in God’s hands).
    Quacks and false prophets however pretend to know the future and sell their seeming certainties.

  69. We have a similar climate expert spokesman in the U.K. – he happens to be a member of our royal family (aka “The Firm”) and has university qualifications to in the history of art (I believe- or something equally relevant) and apparently he is taken seriously by all the trees he talks to.

  70. They make a lot of claims but provide absolutely no proof. They think we should just take their word for it. That is what religion does.

  71. And a quick scratch calculation: if using fossil fuels without restriction increases growth by 0.1% annually over decarbonisation (pretty conservative I would venture to suggest) that accounts for 8.6% increase in the world economy by 2100. So accounting for a 4% reduction, use of fossil fuels improves the world economy by 4.6% by 2100, this is likely to be an under estimate and it includes the rather dubious assumption 4 degrees is a reasonable expected warming from that use of fossil fuel.

    Are these people really that stupid that they cannot do this calculation?

    • “Blood flukes” are parasites, so, OK.
      A “hairworm” is a also a parasite, so, OK.
      An “insectivorous lizard” feeds on the life of others, so, OK.

      I didn’t follow the link to find out what the other 6 are.

      But I’m not surprised that some scientist have named parasites and those that the life out of others after him.

  72. I hear stuff from time to time. I have recently heard the NRA is planning to honor the soon-to-be-ex-President with a lifetime achievement award on January 21, 2017. He has single-handedly managed to increase the sale of firearms and ammunition to ordinary citizens by almost a factor of 10 during his eight years as POS. Whoops! Sorry about that typo–it should be POTUS.

    The ceremony should be a real humdinger as he will be presented a green ceracoated AK-47 specially modified to hold only a one-round magazine. At least he should be familiar with the firearm and its operation.

  73. OK, since they have come out of the closet, so to speak, can we now rename Science magazine “Politics Today”?

  74. Carbon pollution !
    Considering that humans are made of carbon, considering that he is himself a human If he consider himself as a pollutant, well, he might be right after all

  75. FROM ARTICLE:
    “I fear that Science magazine has beclowned itself as badly as the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.”

    MY comment:
    Barack “Nobel Peace Prize” Obama dropped at least 26,000 bombs in 2016, which was at least 3,000 more than in 2015.

    Those numbers are almost certainly understated, because for some airstrikes the actual number of bombs dropped is unknown, so one bomb dropped is assumed, to be conservative.

    Source:
    http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/01/05/bombs-dropped-in-2016/

  76. Here’s your quote-“Now I gotta ask … is there anyone on the planet who thinks that: e) Obama made it into Science magazine (or to be the Editor of the Harvard Law Review) on his own merits?”

    …Editor of the Harvard Law Review?

    Willis, Very disappointed in your logic, civility, and charity. You almost always have appealed to your readers “better angels.” One can find interviews with several of Obama’s classmates who describe why the voted for him as editor of Harvard Law Review. I read them a few years back.

    How many fallacies can you be guilty of in one sentence?
    False equivalence
    Onus probandi
    Proving too much
    Faulty generalizations
    Cherry picking
    Hasty generalization
    Poisoning the well
    Abusive fallacy
    Appeal to spite

    Obama’s “science policy” information probably comes from one of the worst science advisors IMO ever selected- John Holdren. I think Holdren and Science Magazine deserve your scorn, and Obama, too, for sticking with Holdren. However, Your Argumentum ad hominem et al does not represent the Willis Eschenbach I’ve loved to read and recommended to others.

    • I am sorry but this kind of emotionally phrased objection is absolutely unfair towards Willis. The name of the author if a part of a scientific paper and in this case, it’s obviously the most important part of it. The article has absolutely no scientific value, the only interesting thing about the article is “Barack Obama” at the top, and I agree with Willis that it was almost certainly this name that secured the place for this political driven in a science journal.

      You may call these comments “ad hominem argumentation” but in that case, the ad hominem argumentation is clearly the essential one in this situation.

  77. Just in case no-one has yet hi-lighted Obama’s education:
    From wikip:
    “Later in 1981, he transferred as a junior to Columbia College, Columbia University, in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialty in international relations[32] and in English literature[33] and lived off-campus on West 109th Street.[34] He graduated with a BA degree in 1983 ”
    So much for his qualifications for speaking authoritatively to anything scientific (beyond Poli-Sci, which isn’t proper Science anyway).
    That puts him in the same category as Bono and diCapricio … a shill.

    [Technically, no one knows what he actually studied, nor what classes he actually attended at any of his “schools” .. No transcripts, applications, grants, attendance records, nor grades or Law school tests have ever been released from any of his claimed “schools” for any of his assumed degrees. .mod]

  78. How do you all feel about Trump nominating Kennedy Junior to review the links between Autism and Vaccinations? In reality, if Trump really feels they are connected in some way, it speaks volumes about his understanding of scientific proof and investigation.

  79. “momentum is irreversible”

    Actually it is not ‘sustainable’. There is more than one aspect to sustainability. While the source of energy may be ‘renewable’, the equipment to convert energy to useful power is not renewable.

  80. The leftist progressives are all delusional !!
    And only morons would claim Obama wrote this all by his lonesome. Unfortunately, there are about 60 million of them )-:

  81. Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

    I fear that Science magazine has beclowned itself as badly as the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. They’ve published
    Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

    I fear that Science magazine has beclowned itself as badly as the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. They’ve published a “scientific” policy paper by the noted climate scientist Barack Hussein Obama.
    ____________________________________________

    – a “scientific” policy paper by the notorious ‘climate scientist’ Barack Hussein Obama.

    leaves air to breath. Thx.

  82. My Blog: As some folks know, I’ve started my own blog called “Skating Under The Ice“. There I discuss, well, interesting stuff. Come over and take a look, follow the blog … enjoy.
    _____________________________________________

    Johann Wundersamer on January 12, 2017 at 7:22 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Yes, I like that my comment is still awaiting –

    Johann Wundersamer on January 12, 2017 at 7:14 pm

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    _____________________________________________

    Willis, you’re pregnant not wanting abortion?

    show me your belly on youtube and tell me, lil’l mam’.

    Like
    _____________________________________________

    Lot’s a manly Americans not willing to show their pregnant bellys on youtube but behold:

    abortion is women’s payment not taxpayers.

    Willis, hast Du Scheisse im Hirn?

Comments are closed.