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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is there no limit to Obama’s talent.
Then he better learn to play guitar. (apologies to J. Mellencamp)
Indeed not. Because ‘a good man always knows his limitations’.
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.
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.
Dear leader in North Korea is also a climate scientist, and master of any other field you care to name.
And one heck of a golfer….
Yup- Kim put a golf ball in an ICBM and it went 30 yards!!!
So was Bin Laden.
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.
I think what I said here ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/06/good-news-for-the-new-year-salon-explains-that-the-global-climate-emergency-is-over/#comment-2392208 ) applies.
I think Kim Jong-il had a number of scientific papers published, too. Great accomplishments ran in his family.
Entitled:
“Flucking crimate. Who give a frying fluck”
Saved children from a run-a-muck bear at a zoo also.
Pretty good for a short guy.
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?
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.
Obama does have,an institutional affiliation listed… President of the United States.
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. 🙂
“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.)
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.
Greenies should be all for fossil fuels after all it’s just recycling!
It’s really solar energy. Wouldn’t be around without it.
“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.
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.
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.
Way down at the end of the references is this:
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.)
Wal-Mart, no offense, is now a scientific reference.
He staffed it out.
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?
If you won’t take action for economic reasons, do it for the polar bears — I hear there’s only three left…
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.
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.
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.
Shark, consider thyself jumped.
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.
asybot, he worked as a community organizer from 1985 until 1988, before he attended Harvard Law School.
No, he worked DURING his tenure at the law firm. In fact, he was also a visiting lecturer and Professor – http://www.biography.com/people/barack-obama-12782369
So the claim of “barely practiced law” is accurate.
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.)
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
RACookPE1978, Ghost writers in the sky? perhaps his ability at Law School was also ghost-written.
Not everyone who works at a law firm practices law.
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.
Look at the last reference… to the 3 people that actually did the work.
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.
One does not write for a journal the way one speaks to the general public.
I didn’t say that I liked the way some papers get published and who gets credited. I’m just suggesting that this sort of thing goes on more frequently as a standard practice than many people realize.
Now, not only do I not like it, but I am having doubts about my original posture of giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. Here are some other articles that he has … “written” (define this as loosely as you wish):
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/182767
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2533698
http://harvardlawreview.org/2017/01/the-presidents-role-in-advancing-criminal-justice-reform/
I find myself flirting with the word, “fraud”, and I am enjoying the taste of my own words that I am now eating. (^_^)
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.
Obama is looking for signs of SLR, sea level rise, by looking for it through a microscope.
LOL……..
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.'”
Do contractions count as one word or two?
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. 🙂