Obama's Climate Swan Song: "without some common baseline of facts … we’ll keep talking past each other"

Obama and Trump
President Obama. By Official White House Photo by Pete SouzaP120612PS-0463 (direct link), Public Domain, Link. President-elect Trump. By Michael Vadon – →This file has been extracted from another file: Donald Trump August 19, 2015.jpg, CC BY-SA 2.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

President Obama has found time in his farewell speech to accuse opponents of his climate policies of not caring about science.

So regardless of the station we occupy; we have to try harder; to start with the premise that each of our fellow citizens loves this country just as much as we do; that they value hard work and family like we do; that their children are just as curious and hopeful and worthy of love as our own.

None of this is easy. For too many of us, it’s become safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or college campuses or places of worship or our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions. The rise of naked partisanship, increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every taste – all this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable. And increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we accept only information, whether true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that’s out there.

This trend represents a third threat to our democracy. Politics is a battle of ideas; in the course of a healthy debate, we’ll prioritize different goals, and the different means of reaching them. But without some common baseline of facts; without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your opponent is making a fair point, and that science and reason matter, we’ll keep talking past each other, making common ground and compromise impossible.

Isn’t that part of what makes politics so dispiriting? How can elected officials rage about deficits when we propose to spend money on preschool for kids, but not when we’re cutting taxes for corporations? How do we excuse ethical lapses in our own party, but pounce when the other party does the same thing? It’s not just dishonest, this selective sorting of the facts; it’s self-defeating. Because as my mother used to tell me, reality has a way of catching up with you.

Take the challenge of climate change. In just eight years, we’ve halved our dependence on foreign oil, doubled our renewable energy, and led the world to an agreement that has the promise to save this planet. But without bolder action, our children won’t have time to debate the existence of climate change; they’ll be busy dealing with its effects: environmental disasters, economic disruptions, and waves of climate refugees seeking sanctuary.

Now, we can and should argue about the best approach to the problem. But to simply deny the problem not only betrays future generations; it betrays the essential spirit of innovation and practical problem-solving that guided our Founders.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-obama-farewell-speech-transcript-20170110-story.html

I would take President Obama’s appeal for more inclusiveness more seriously if he wasn’t such a hypocrite when it comes to applying the principles he claims to value. When President Obama talks about “a common baseline of facts”, he means his own view of the world.

Obama’s climate lackeys over the years have repeatedly point blank refused to engage with people [who] dispute their version of the facts. Take the following interview, in which NASA’s Gavin Schmidt refused to even sit in the same room as renowned climate skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer, because he didn’t want to talk to a scientist whose interpretation of the evidence differed from his own.

If Gavin Schmidt’s behaviour isn’t an example of “talking past” an opponent, I would like to know what is. Roy Spencer would have been happy to engage with Gavin Schmidt, it was NASA’s Gavin Schmidt who refused to engage with Roy Spencer.

President Obama never to my knowledge criticised this lack of engagement by politically favoured climate scientists. As far as I know President Obama has never sought advice from climate scientists who wanted to say things which Obama didn’t want to hear.

President Obama in my opinion only wants his opponents to acknowledge other points of view, because he is no longer in the driving seat.

President-elect Trump does listen to people whose viewpoints differ from his own – which is why Trump will be a far better President than Obama was.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 11, 2017 3:41 am

Here is a great review of the “facts.” If AGW believers argue the facts they lose.
How to Discuss Global Warming With A Liberal. The Smoking Gun Files.

Reply to  co2islife
January 11, 2017 3:47 am

I did not find that at all convincing (though I am not a liberal, so perhaps that’s why it didn’t work)
I especially found quoting David Rose’s Daily Mail article unconvincing – this is a man with a track record in misrepresentation – just about every article he has published has been demolished…
I find skeptics have nothing to say when confronted by the Berkley Earth results, or the Arctic sea ice record

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 3:51 am

You mean YOU find that you can’t hear a word when skeptics blow so many holes in YOUR interpretation of the world that one can’t even find the edges of it to put it back together. Just like OH!Bummer.

Tim Hammond
Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 3:56 am

Sorry, but how does whatever the sea ice is doing prove that humans are causing whatever it is the sea ice is doing?
And if only “just about” every article has been demolished, at least one has not. And i only need to be right to be right: it doesn’t matter if I have been wrong a million times before. saying he has been wrong a lot cannot show he is wrong now.
Prove cause to prove cause. Be right to be right. That’s pretty simple stuff, even if you are not a liberal.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 4:17 am

Griff, when will you ever acknowledge the fact that Current Arctic Ice conditions are above average for the Intergalactic period?
You have been shown at Tony Heller’s blog, repeatedly shown based on published science papers,that there were long periods of time in the Early part of the Interglacial period with little to no Summer ice.
When are you going to stop ignoring it?

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 4:22 am

Awwww poor Griff missed being first to post his trollery, and came in second. Read co2islife’s comment, read the link, studied it carefully, typed it up and replied within 6 minutes to get as close to the top as possible with his usual paid troll buffoonery.
Well done Griff, keep showing the world how fr@udulent is your team.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 4:23 am

Griff, I’ve never lost an argument with an alarmist – because I stick to the facts. And the simplest fact of all is that the climate has not warmed as predicted and not one of you alarmists can explain it and instead you just resort to fluff hyperbole tantrums and when you finally realise you are losing the argument ad hominems and if possible getting us banned so you don’t have to hear the truth.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 5:06 am

Less than six minutes to read and digest 5865 words. You see, these guys are geniuses. No wonder we just don’t get it.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 5:07 am

In that case, Griff, you have been listening to the wrong sceptics!
Sceptical views on Arctic sea ice do not rely on the cherry-picked satellite record that goes back a bare 40 years (how old is the planet, Griff? Clue: it’s even older than me and was around even before Moses!) nor on the blinkered assumption that everything that happens to floating ice is to do with temperature (the clue is in the word “floating”, Griff, as in it moves about a bit due to currents and winds and things.)
As for BEST. I see it as one temperature set among all the others, created by a man who claimed to have been a sceptic until he saw the light mainly to divert attention from the unreliability of the “floating” datasets that never seemed to stay the same long enough to mean anything useful.
And for the rest. Two simple questions:
1. What at the co2islife link do you disagree with and why.
2. Identify which of Rose’s articles have been “demolished”.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 5:09 am

Giff: Arctic sea ice records??? Arctic sea ice records??? You think that measuring the Earth’s temperature involves looking at sea ice? Jeeezz!! A scientist you are not.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 5:44 am

Welcome back, Skankhunt42 – at least I am assuming that you are feeling better hence my personal choice for your moniker.
Once again, you focus on one part of the system and not the whole. The PRIMARY reason for what you believe is a catastrophic retreat of Arctic ice is due to ocean currents. This has been happening in the Arctic for as long as Pangea separated into the continents we see today, placing a body of water at the North Pole. Warmer waters reduce the sea ice, colder waters allow for growth. Yes, the Arctic is currently in a current “low”, but the rate of increase of sea ice coverage over the past few months is impressive.
How about Greenland? How about Antarctica? Both are growing in mass. And as I said, Skank, ditto Mt. St. Helens.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 5:48 am

I have also looked at the available and extensive pre-satellite ice records (recently collated by a new piece of research). There are (just to name a few) records from Denmark, University of Alaska, soviet Union and many other sources which show that even the 1940s low was not as low as 2007, 2012, 2016 (or really any post 2006 date).
I can even point you to Judith Curry’s blog series on historic ice conditions which says the same

richard verney
Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 6:03 am

You have been shown at Tony Heller’s blog, repeatedly shown based on published science papers,that there were long periods of time in the Early part of the Interglacial period with little to no Summer ice.

But one does not even have to go as far back as that.
It appears that current levels of Arctic sea ice are about the same as those observed in 1974. In the IPCC First Report (AR1) the IPCC suggested that approximately 2 million sq.km of sea ice accumulated been lost between 1974 and 1979. There was a reason behind the global cooling scare of the 1970s and that was the accumulatuion of Arctic Sea ice, the cold Greenland and Iceland temperatures of that time.
The warmists plots always start from the highs of 1979, not from the lows of 1974. Interesting that cherry pick.
Form about 1979 there has been a decline of about the same order, uie., about 2 million sq.Km.. That being the case, the amount of Arctic Sea Ice is about the same as that observed in 1974!!
See AR1:comment image

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 6:25 am

As always, Griff just lies when the facts don’t suit him.
1) Misrepresentation means we disagree with the warmist interpretation.
2) Griff has been refuted time and again, by dozens of people regarding BEST and arctic sea ice.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 6:26 am

Sunsettommy: “Intergalactic period”?

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 6:28 am

I see that Griff is still trying to claim that we can tell what the entire arctic was doing on a daily basis from a handful of ships logs scattered over 100 years.
Poor Griff, he doesn’t even realize how dumb he is.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 6:33 am

Griff logic:
Post the same trite and irrelevant “facts” 30 times.
The first 29 times he is refuted. The 30th time he’s ignored.
Griff response: See I knew you guys would have nothing to say.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 6:34 am

Griff, are you really waving off that entire mega-series of points made in the Smoking Gun document that lightly, and citing David Rose’s journalistic career as some stamp of it all being not ‘convincing?’ Wish I had balls that size.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 7:15 am

Berkeley’s Earth had to use the data that had previously been adjusted. They have only referred to them from a source, and have not adjusted them again, such as, for example, GISS. This is the best, how Berkeley could have gotten millions of raw data, homogenize them without knowledge of the localities and then prepare them in a short series of time. No, they had to take the data which had already been submitted to you beforehand. It is clear that there is only a marginal difference in trend as with GISS, the top rider. And as for the ice data, you have to look at the AMO or AMOC, which is currently at its peak. Also the very strong El Nino 15/16 plays with purely, also in Antartica. Such ice-free times, at least on the European side, we had 400 years in the medieval warm period, thus nothing new and at that time not due to CO2. And now? I do not think so either. I think, however, that this will not interest you until the next post, as a paid troll on this site.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 7:37 am

The Berkley Earth “results” would be much more convincing if they hadn’t been systematically corrupted in the same way that the NASA GISS results are.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 8:07 am

Sunsettommy-“intergalactic ice age”. Made me chuckle. Auto correct is evil. 🙂

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 8:15 am

I don’t understand the Alarmist’s obsession with Sea Ice, the biggest factor in Sea Ice melt is the ocean currents, followed by the wind blowing the ice to warmer water, followed by solar heating and lastly by air temperatures. I’ve got a picture of people sunbathing on a Lake Superior beach with the lake a few feet away 50% covered in ice. Air temperatures don’t mean a lot for floating ice.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 9:16 am

“I find skeptics have nothing to say when confronted by the Berkley Earth results, or the Arctic sea ice record”
That is because you keep closing your eyes and ears, but not your mouth.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 9:18 am

Griff states, “I have also looked at the available and extensive pre-satellite ice records (recently collated by a new piece of research).” Is that “new piece of research” the Berkeley Earth correlation? I am dubious about that study’s validity, simply because it erases the results of so many other studies, and denies certain records.
I think Griff has not in fact checked out the “the available and extensive pre-satellite ice records”, because if he had he could see the records which the Berkeley Earth study so adroitly avoids looking at. Rather I think he trusts the Berkeley study, and feels that he knows about all sorts of records he has never taken the time to peruse, because he figures they looked at it and therefore he doesn’t have to.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 9:55 am

Polar Bears!

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 9:56 am

I find skeptics have nothing to say when confronted by the Berkley Earth results
Then Griff, you haven’t looked.
I for one have written about the flawed methodology of BEST from the perspective of Fourier domain. Best uses a Hi-Pass filter as a consequence of its short splices. All climate data is in the low frequency content that is eliminated by using the scalpel. I wrote of this before seeing the BEST results because the flaw was in the methodology — the results would be non-credible whatever they were.
to which richardscourtney replied:

Every now and then one comes across a pearl shining on the sand of WUWT comments. The pearls come in many forms.
Your post is a pearl. Its argument is clear, elegant and cogent.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 10:50 am

Paul Jackson
“I don’t understand the Alarmist’s obsession with Sea Ice”
It’s the only lame excuse for science they have left, other than the outright lies that fool stupid people (sea level rise, hurricanes, California droughts etc.)
In other news, I see that Robert F-wit Kennedy may be deserting the sinking ship and getting into the former “vaccines cause autism” field. What does the F stand for anyway ?

Brett Keane
Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 11:32 am

@ Griff
January 11, 2017 at 3:47 am : Of more interest is what Barclays is doing here, spouting untruths endlessly. We know you lot have barrows to push at the warmist trough. I recently saw a claim, also, that “this one (speculative debt cycle) is different”. The first of these claims is a sure sign that this one is faltering, and you want to stretch it out as far as possible.
Your PR fluff here, and your colleagues elsewhere, is again going to cause untold harm to tour dupes. Just understand that here you run into a wall of rightful contempt, and your time is short, troll,construct, or both. Your employers/makers are FR@UDS!!.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 11:49 am

I guess you don’t talk to skeptics much then. Neither the BEST dataset nor the current Artic Sea Ice conditions are relevant to my skeptical position And if someone brought them up that was actually curious (wouldn’t want to waste my peals) then there are multiple reasons why neither the sea ice nor the BEST dataset has any relevance to the discussion.
For me, the best evidence of lack of human influence is most any Paleo climate proxy you care to look at. Our current warming out of the little ice age is but one of a number of decreasing peaks in temperature since the last ice age. Smooth those peaks and we are still actually in the long (hopefully) slog of a decline and return to normal ice age conditions.
Sad, but true, when looking at actual data, it’s looking impossible to ‘tease out’ (to quote Mann) the human signal out of the wide swings of Natural Variation.
But I work with computer models so I know GIGO when I see it. That’s

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 12:45 pm

Griff – you’re back!! I thought you had gone into permanent hiding after questioning Susan Crockford’s expertise on polar bears. But still can’t admit that the actual science is overwhelmingly against your views.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 4:53 pm

I did not find that at all convincing (though I am not a liberal, so perhaps that’s why it didn’t work)

I know that when a liberal responds like that, I’m on to something. Who would take the time to write such a nonsensical post if they weren’t concerned? Arctic Sea Ice? The earth’s tilt is warming the N Pole and its water more. The S Pole is gaining ice. Global Sea Ice is unchanged.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 7:39 pm

Richard Verney
Thanks for the great graph showing who inconvenient information is buried, hidden, denied. That is as scandalous as the famous ‘hiding of the decline’ .

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 10:15 pm

Here is a WUWT post from June 28, 2014 started by Willis that looks at many problems with BEST’s scalpel and some of the breaks they make in their station records. 184 comments running to July 7. It investigates how a sawtooth of instrument drift can be sliced into segments where the drift becomes climate signal. It also questions how BEST can slice Lulling, TX, a well sited station into 20 segments, yet somehow BEST does not create a slice on the month of March 1945 for Tokyo, a month in which a quarter million people died in a firestorm.

David Cage
Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 12:31 am

If you really believe surely you should not be shouting down sceptics you should be convincing them.
My conditions are simple.
1) Change all grants for one year to fund only those putting down CO2 based climate change.
2) Make CO2 support research a condition for total rejection of any grant application by any organisation.
3) Make all temperature data be subjected to quality control by an engineering team not a scientific one as using scientists puts untrained people in a position of false expertise. Scientists get little or no practical training and the quality of the data measuring stations proves this.
4) Have an investigation into the primitive methods of predicting the trend of “normal” climate used by climate scientists which seem to professionals in trend analysis from engineering and marketing to be three hundred years out of date.
If none of the studies show any signs of defective work then we take the CO2 theory as proven and divert the resources from further research into climate change into research into properly viable renewable energy with the test of does it produce energy to match demand in the required amounts.
I think it unfortunate for reporters to be ignorant but in turn I find the work of climate scientists to be shoddy and amateurish and full of the most inadequate standards including measuring stations with a provable error of several degrees used for proving a sub one degree difference case.
I have found it is impossible to get a sub degree accuracy in just the garden of my home and even that is further from buildings than some of the sites used for the data used to “prove” CO2 base climate change.
A study of the nearest station to me shows a near 2 degree error upwards from reality.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 7:32 am

That Intergalactic period may have been a Freudian slip- a referral to Nir Shaviv’s theory:

Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 3:37 pm

Have you apologised to Professor Crockford for lying about her credentials to attempt to discredit her, slimeball?

Bill Illis
Reply to  co2islife
January 11, 2017 3:54 am

How can there be a common baseline when they change the temperature records every month.
And Berkeley Earth just cuts up every station record into 8 different parts and then adds warming to 6 of those 8 parts. They do not even have any data on what this impact is or how it is enacted over time. We are just supposed to “believe” such nonsense, like it was the “Gospel according to Luke/Mosher”, which is what you are asking us to do.

Wim Röst
Reply to  Bill Illis
January 11, 2017 4:24 am

Bill Illis January 11, 2017 at 3:54 am
“How can there be a common baseline when they change the temperature records every month.”
There can’t be a common baseline when ‘the facts shown’ are not a presentation of ‘reality’.
But I wonder whether the advisors that ‘advise’ Obama tell hem that the graphics they show him all are tricked. Those advisers and their advisers are all part of the big ‘climate fear’ money machine and their good money is based on the fear of innocent people. The advisers of the advisers of the advisers mostly read media that in turn are badly informed by the biased IPCC machine. And the biased IPCC machine by other ways prevents ‘science’ to function as it has to, by directing all the money to biased research that misinforms all people from ‘normal people’ to presidents.
Some intelligent people formed a biased machine that is made to misinform all of us. The monopolising of the ‘science opininon’ by the IPCC was a great trick, misinforming all layers of society for tenths of years. The time is there to stop them. Science has to be science again. And ‘facts’ will have to show reality. And nothing else.

Reply to  co2islife
January 11, 2017 4:20 am

Griff, until you actually come up with credible counterpoints to co2islife’s comment,you are simply blowing evasive babble.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 11, 2017 5:16 am

Or as I like to call it, passive-aggressive smokescreen.

Climate Heretic
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 11, 2017 10:29 am

Or as I like to call it “Dribbling Sh*t.
Climate Heretic

Gunga Din
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 11, 2017 2:47 pm

Sun, I can’t say I like your comment.
The mind picture of Griff relaxing in a hot tub while sipping a carbonated beverage while emitting methane….

Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 11, 2017 10:13 pm

Richard Verney wins the big prize today! I’ve been watching Griff closely when he shows up and after several potshots and corrections sent his way, eventually somebody levels an absolutely devastating blow to his gobbledegook. It is pretty obvious from the irrefutable truth of what is thrown at him, and then proven by the fact that we don’t see Griff comment on that matter again. EVER! It’s actually pretty laughable. He’s such an idiot. His life is defined by ice he has never seen and knows nothing about.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 11, 2017 10:39 pm

Why are all of you guys even responding? Leave him be and it will go away.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 12, 2017 10:09 am

Ignorance is Griff

Reply to  co2islife
January 11, 2017 5:28 am

Here’s my version of climate facts that devastate the alarmist’s case

Reply to  jim
January 11, 2017 5:29 am

Here’s my version of climate facts that devastate the alarmist’s case

Reply to  jim
January 11, 2017 6:19 pm

Thanks a million.

Steve Case
Reply to  co2islife
January 11, 2017 9:16 am

That was great (-:
No mention that Tide Gauges haven’t manipulated and say that sea level rise is a lot less than 3.0 mm/yr.
No mention that Satellite Sea Level has been manipulated upward a full mm/yr.

Reply to  Steve Case
January 11, 2017 5:05 pm

That was great (-:

Thanks a million, much appreciated.

No mention that Tide Gauges haven’t manipulated and say that sea level rise is a lot less than 3.0 mm/yr.
No mention that Satellite Sea Level has been manipulated upward a full mm/yr.

I think those are covered in Smoking Gun #21

Steve Case
Reply to  Steve Case
January 12, 2017 12:35 am

co2islife January 11, 2017 at 5:05 pm
No mention that Satellite Sea Level has been manipulated upward a full mm/yr.
I think those are covered in Smoking Gun #21

You’re right, there’s a link to Steve Goddard’s Blog
Sea level rise is probably the biggest scare associated with “Climate Change” and that the numbers look like they’re being fudged doesn’t get a lot of press.

Reply to  co2islife
January 11, 2017 10:42 am

I took a quick look at your link. Everything there is fine, except the simplest argument of all is the Karl Popper/ Richard Feynman methods of establishing a hypothesis. AGW is disproved, not only by the lack of correlation with the climate models but also with the lack of explanation of any causes of previous warmings.
In my opinion, with the null hypothesis being – any warming and cooling is natural -, there is no real need to go beyond that.
This fact also illustrates what a waste of resources has occurred as governments etc have spent billions trying to get past the disproving of the hypothesis.


Reply to  rogerthesurf
January 11, 2017 4:57 pm

Thanks, I’ll get that one added. Keep the suggestions coming.

Reply to  co2islife
January 11, 2017 10:54 am

Hello co2islife.
Please do forgive me for my directness with the following question, but for better of me I have to ask, and even contemplating that somehow that helps Griff too.
I am not sure or certain, but it has being somehow “bothering” and triggering my thought in relation to your position in regard to your comments here.
And the main meaning of my following question to you is not about the actual answer you can give perse, but more about the way you will consider it.
Please is all about me trying to figure out your position, and I could be very wrong with my direct approach, but never the less I must go through and ask the question:
“Are you are you not a “puppet” of Phil Jones or some one else of the same or similar cut?”
You are entitle and in whole your right to ignore my question and this reply to you…..
I just had to ask, and I could not resit asking…

Reply to  whiten
January 11, 2017 5:08 pm

“Are you are you not a “puppet” of Phil Jones or some one else of the same or similar cut?”

LOL, absolutely not.

January 11, 2017 3:50 am

He understand that not only himself is about to become irrelevant, but his legacy (of disaster and scandal) will stand for all time, while his ‘legacy’ (of supposed ‘good’ for the US and the world) becomes less than a footnote in history.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
January 11, 2017 6:34 am

Obama’s farewell ode, was longer than the last 3 president’s combined.
Only fair, he’s run up more debt than all previous president’s combined.

Reply to  MarkW
January 11, 2017 8:09 am

“Or as I like to call it, passive-aggressive smokescreen”
That’s can’t be carbon neutral…:)

Reply to  MarkW
January 11, 2017 8:10 am

Mark, no one loves the sound of his own voice as much as that man does.

Reply to  MarkW
January 12, 2017 6:58 am

He had to! He had to refer to the first person 75 times. and that takes time.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
January 11, 2017 10:33 pm

I really loved this :
“Because as my mother used to tell me, reality has a way of catching up with you.”
Boy did it ever!

January 11, 2017 3:56 am

“In just eight years, we’ve halved our dependence on foreign oil, doubled our renewable energy …”
… (if you ignore the contributions of “renewable” hydroelectric, that is), and begun the process of prematurely closing the power plants that are the largest source of carbon-free electricity in the country.
So the guy takes credit for the success of a technology (fracking) that he wants to regulate out of existence, brags about having “doubled” something trivial, and won’t admit that his eight years has brought the industry (nuclear) that has the greatest promise to provide carbon-free electricity from an optimistic phase of building new plants to a new era, when the existing plants are being shut down and Bill Gates promises to build his new plants in China.
Way to go Obama!!

Bryan A
Reply to  Brian
January 11, 2017 4:38 am

That first statement probably purposefully reads as if we replaced half of our foreign oil dependance by doubling renewable sources which isn’t the case. Going from 2% renewables to 4% is barely a drop in the bucket when compared to the ammount of energy garnered from our fossil fuel imports. It is the Fracking Revolution which has led to our halving our fossil imoports, increasing renewables has had nothing to do with it. OK Well maybe increasing renewables had given us a 1% decrease in fossil imports.

Reply to  Bryan A
January 12, 2017 4:10 am

If you consider renewable’s need for backup fossil fueled power, I doubt any reduction in imported oil can be attributed to renewables.

Reply to  Brian
January 11, 2017 2:25 pm

ScienceDirect, September 2016
‘Electricity governance and the Western energy imbalance market in the United States: The necessity of interorganizational collaboration’
“In the Western United States, widespread growth of wind and solar resources is putting pressure on state policy makers, electricity system operators, and utilities to integrate renewable resources into the grid, while maintaining reliability, affordability, and improving efficiency.”
How things get done.
Read at:

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Barbara
January 12, 2017 9:38 am

Sounds like an unnecessarily complex way of saying “We’re wasting lots of money to accommodate lousy, intermittent, unreliable power sources into the grid powered otherwise by dispatchable, consistent, reliable power sources because such stupidity is being forced upon us.”

Tim Hammond
January 11, 2017 4:03 am

Obama always sounds good at first, then when it comes to his examples, it all falls apart.
The nonsense about corporate tax is a great example: corporations do not pay tax, employees and customers do. That can be demonstrated practically by looking at regulated industries.Where a business is allowed to charge a price based on returns to investors, the regulators use POST-TAX returns. If tax rates decrease, the price allowed to be charged will also decrease. In no-regulated industries, whether the tax cut goes to employees or customers depends on lots of things, but provided there is proper competition, it will go to one or both groups.
And theoretically: investors only care about the cash that comes to them. That is always after corporation tax, I will only invest if that after tax cash meets my return criteria. So corporation tax is not (except in the short term if rates go up), is not paid by investors. That leaves employees and customers.
And of course lower corporate tax rates means more investment, as more projects will meet return criteria. Which means more jobs, less welfare, more labour taxes, more spending with more taxes, and so on.
Whereas the government spending money has very little positive impact and is usually just a substitute for what we would choose to spend our money on.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tim Hammond
January 11, 2017 4:39 am

Personally, I’ve always thought Obama gave eloquent speeches up until the moment his lips start moving

richard verney
Reply to  Bryan A
January 11, 2017 7:32 am

The purpose of a company is to create an income for it’s owners.
Of course, that is true.
I am talking about its social context. I make no claim as to whether companies ought to have a social context.
I do not know the position in the US, but in the UK, the State pays in work benefits. This means that the UK tax payer subsidises every company who employs people at less than a living wage. There is no reason why a company should be so subsidised. It is akin to windfarms being subsidised for the service that they provide and the guaranteed high strike rate which is paid to them and passed onto the public.
Thus in the UK, a company may employ someone at say £6 per hour, and the State may then top this up by a further £4 per hour so that the worker/employee receives a living wage of £10 per hour.
A company should pay the full wage, and that full wage will be reflected in the price it charges its customers for the goods/services being sold. If the product is then too expensive the company will go bust. That is fine, that is how the market works. But if the company is supplying a worthwhile product the desirability for which the customer is willing to pay, the company will survive and make profit. Again, that is how the market works.
By reducing the amount that the State pays for in work benefit, the tax payer will have less tax taken from him by the State. He will have more money in his pocket and will be able, should he so desire, to buy the company’s goods/services at the increased price (reflecting the living wage being paid to the company’s employees).
I do not object to the likes of C0stas or St@rbucks not paying much in the way of corporation tax. But I do object to having to pay their staff when I never buy anything from them. I can count on the fingers of 1 hand the number of times I have bought something from these chains, but despite not using their services, I am being forced to pay their staff making up their wages from say £6 per hour paid by the employee to a £10 per an hour by the State paying each employee an additional £4 per hour.
It is no job of the State to subsidise corporations in this manner. This lies at the heart of the economic migr@nt crisis and the consequences of globilisation that many countries are now facing. Companies can hire large numbers of migr@nts at below living wages since the State then pays this cheap labour in work benefits funded by the ordinary hard working tax payer. That is a system that needs to be stopped.

Reply to  richard verney
January 12, 2017 8:46 am

Sorry, no. The government is not subsidizing the company by paying welfare. A common mistake is to claim that the government “subsidizes” because someone does not meet an arbitrary standard. But the company pays for the labor of the person, not their opinion of self worth. If the labor is only worth $10/hour, then the company cannot afford to pay them $15 (or more) per hour. If the government then decides to create an arbitrary standard at $15 or $20, that does not change the value of the labor. It is still only worth $10/hour.
And as Dr. Williams has said many times, the real “minimum wage” is $0. You can put the company out of business if you want, and then there will be a “subsidy” (welfare) to all the workers of the full arbitrary amount. But the subsidy is to the CITIZEN, not the company. And it is called welfare.

Reply to  Bryan A
January 11, 2017 8:21 am

I’ve always picture a deaf interpreter standing beside him tossing glitter and horse bisquits covered in cotton candy into the air with dramatic flourish….

Reply to  Bryan A
January 11, 2017 8:32 am

A few years back, one of our presidents visited S. Africa. The local government provided a sign language interpreter. It was quickly discovered that the interpreter was a fraud and was doing nothing more than randomly waving his hands around during the speech?

Reply to  Bryan A
January 11, 2017 12:16 pm

richard, so companies should be penalized because the state is doing something stupid?
I don’t care how big your bleeding heart gets, the simple fact remains. When told to pay someone more than their labor is worth, companies will do the obvious thing. Fire the person.
Is a person better off with a low paying job, or no job?
The mere fact that the state decides to give out welfare does not create an obligation on others to also give out welfare.
The fact that the state decides to reward people for not working, is not a subsidy on anyone other than the person receiving other peoples money.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
January 12, 2017 10:14 am

Thanks Aphan…now I will have to change my depends

Reply to  Bryan A
January 12, 2017 10:48 am

Sorry about that Bryan!

richard verney
Reply to  Tim Hammond
January 11, 2017 6:13 am

The nonsense about corporate tax is a great example: corporations do not pay tax, employees and customers do.

This is what people do not understand. All expenses incurred by a company are passed on to those that engage its services/buy its products. Corporation tax is just one of these expenses that is passed onto the customer.
The politicians are being very disingenuous with the voters when they seek to persuade the public that there should be a clamp down on big corporations such as Amazon, eBay, Google, Starbucks, Costas etc not paying their fair share of tax. People do not realize that a clamp down on this tax avoidance will merely involve the public, the paying customer, in paying extra for the services offered. They will be paying the avoided corporation tax.
The purpose of companies is to provide employment, and to pay a living wage for those that they employ. The tax that a corporation may pay is largely incidental. What is needed is the creation of jobs, real jobs and it is that which will lift people out of poverty and reduce the state welfare bill.

Reply to  richard verney
January 11, 2017 6:38 am

The purpose of a company is to create an income for it’s owners. It does this by providing products and services that customers want to buy.
Any employment created in this process is incidental.
All wages are based on their value to the employer. If the government demands that a person be paid more than his job is worth, the company will simply not hire that person.
The idea that companies “owe” their workers a living wage is nonsense on stilts.

Mark T
Reply to  richard verney
January 11, 2017 3:07 pm

Thank you, MarkW. Richard Verney was doing good right up to that last point.

Reply to  richard verney
January 11, 2017 6:13 pm

“The purpose of companies is to provide employment, and to pay a living wage for those that they employ.”

Socialism in action.
Instead of low salaries driving prices down, the government covering an estimated difference between actual wage and a “living” wage.
What is a living wage?
Is it living in one’s parent’s basement? If they’re still alive.
Is it living in a one room efficiency in the poor side of town?
Is it a three room flat in a nice neighborhood?
Or does it mean that one lives in their car or a cardboard box near the dump?
Or could it mean twenty people over zoning code living in one room and sending their “living” wages back to the country they came from?
Governmental interference in employee wages removes responsibility and diminishes pride; while keeping the “estimated” cost of living wage elevated. Nor is it a proper reflection of how people utilize the wages they earn.
Seems to me, your government is using your tax dollars to subsidize the lowest wage earners, e.g. immigrants.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 12, 2017 10:19 am

It is also a lie. Regardless of the income of the lowest folks, they will always be in poverty by government definitions. Clearly you do not NEED a computer, car, Cable, Flat Screen TV, smart phone, etc. to live. Yet that has crept in to be defined as a need and not a want. The government dictates the rich and the poor based upon a bell curve that very rarely moves (except in times of stress when the definitions cannot be changed fast enough to compensate for changing incomes – like the past 8 years). 50 years ago, at the onset of the “Great Society”, 15% of the population was defined as being in poverty. 50 years later and trillions of dollars later, 15% are still defined as being in poverty. Of course the Internet, Smart Phones, and PCs did not exist 50 years ago, but that is superfluous to the simple fact that the defined level of poverty still has the same percentage of people in it.
So if you jack up the minimum wage to $50/hour, that will merely move the poverty line up (and of course cause a lot more unemployment) to compensate. So it simply becomes a vicious cycle that can have only one ultimate finale. Everyone but a select few being equally poor.

Rob Bradley
Reply to  richard verney
January 11, 2017 6:25 pm

ATheoK says: “the lowest wage earners, e.g. immigrants.”
Obviously ATheoK does not have teenage children who want a driver’s license. These teenage children need to have insurance besides money for gasoline and an actual running car. ATheoK must be wealthy and can provide these things for his children. The rest of us in the real world make our children TAKE A MINIMUM WAGE JOB to pay for these types of things. It teaches our children responsibility and instills in them the work ethic that got us where we are today.

I suggest to ATheoK to look around at the people that are actually working minimum wage jobs. You’ll find that the majority of them are not immigrants, but are either young unskilled teengers, or old social-security recipients trying to make ends meet.

Reply to  richard verney
January 11, 2017 10:31 pm

@Richard Verney
I agree with you to the extent that taxes on corporations are self defeating in that they are an added cost which is passed on to the end user. When the end user is foreign, the tax diminishes competitiveness and when the customer is domestic the tax is actually paid by that citizen. Taking tax from one point in the economy and giving it to a company at another point is simply a market distortion ( which Western democratic economies are full of). When products such as cigarettes are marketed which cause harm I am not opposed to taxing the product to subsidize the resulting need for care or correction. In a purest sense even that is the top of a slippery slope because the politicians can’t be trusted with the keys to even tiny tax principles ( see comment above re: what Western democracies are full of).
When multiple obligations are loaded onto the shoulders of business we undermine their basic functionality and competitive status. Socialists stick their fingers in their ears when we discuss nasty, nasty facts about economics in this way. That’s why they should never, ever be elected. They can’t do even basic math! The fact that they are populated with many economists notwithstanding!

Reply to  richard verney
January 15, 2017 3:12 pm

“Rob Bradley January 11, 2017 at 6:25 pm
ATheoK says: “the lowest wage earners, e.g. immigrants.”
Obviously ATheoK does not have teenage children who want a driver’s license. These teenage children need to have insurance besides money for gasoline and an actual running car. ATheoK must be wealthy and can provide these things for his children…”

It does appear at times, there is an irrational leap from a point to some absurd collection of incorrect assumptions and rants.
I do not read one correct thing in your insult(s). You couldn’t be more wrong.
At age 26 I received custody of a fourteen year old Cousin who was kicked out of his house by his step-Father. Yes, full written and signed custodial assignment.
His family lived 3,000 miles distant, I picked him up as he drifted past.
He stayed with me until High School graduation, where thankfully a repaired relationship with his step-Father he returned to his family.
At age 29, I received custody of two Brothers, aged 14 and 15; when my Mother suffered a heart attack.
They stayed with me until they left for college.
The younger one was the first member of my family to attain an advanced degree; and Engineering Doctorate.
He was also the one who returned to live with me for a few more years while he repaired his college grades and reputation. After the party school he attended, Penn State, had put him on probation.
Afterwards came my own two children. My youngest also graduated as an Engineer.
All of the “children” received driving lessons.
None of the children obtained a genuine drivers license. Our existing condition for that required the child pay extra insurance burdens, plus car repair.
All of the children learned car and tractor repair.
All of the children learned and practiced gardening and husbandry.
All of the children received support for education, but only what we could afford; all loans were theirs and theirs alone.
All of the children, now adults, are responsible working members of society without criminal records. None have used welfare or unemployment.
If one checks into health insurances, there is often a clause that covers dependents until age 25.
For my Cousin and Brothers, I paid cash to doctors and emergency rooms.
The same approach works for mobile phones. When they can afford it, they bought into a family plan.
My Niece, who live near us and visits frequently for homesick prevention, paid for her phone since she was fourteen; living by the paid phone card and careful use of message minutes and texts. She is attending college while working and is still using prepaid cards.
I am a child of depression era parents.
They lived through a global depression followed by world war and then the Korean war.
Making do with what you have is a requirement.
Lusting after someone else’s electronic goodies, home achievements, earnings, whatever, is still a vice of zero use to practical people.
It was a family joke that we couldn’t let my Father take the trash to the dump, (no pickup where we lived), because he would come home with more than he took. Old TVs, microwaves, lawnmowers, etc.
I cleared a quarter of an acre of densely overgrown brush with a repaired 5hp lawnmower.
People have forgotten just how strong a five horsepower engine is. With a direct drive five HP engine, if I could get the mower over the brush, tree, stump, and hang on; the mower would reduce the brush to chips.
Re-sharpening blades was easy.
I also replaced the ‘key’ that linked the blades to the engine’s drive train several times. I bought them by the dozen.
Final point(s):
e.g. is a literary device representing “exempli gratia”.
Meaning “for example”.
An example is just one possibility of many.
Your assumption that I only meant immigrants is incorrect. They are just one of many who are victimized; but perhaps the egregious abuse of low salaries is aimed at immigrants. A problem that has existed since the early 1800s when my forbears Williams, Lane and Howell ran into intolerance for new immigrants exemplified by substandard wages and dangerous working conditions.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Tim Hammond
January 12, 2017 9:43 am

Very nice summation. Amazing how the “tax and spend” government idiots never seem to figure it out.

January 11, 2017 4:06 am

What makes politics ‘so dispiriting’ is when ‘reason’ is defined as ‘I’m right, you’re wrong, shut your mouth denier’. Given the president’s wretched webpage ‘Call out the Deniers’ ( sic!) he can hardly complain when his contentious worldview is being overthrown (one might reasonably conclude). But he is; and don’t the crowd love it!
I am afraid I have no confidence whatever in his supposed ‘irrelevance’, for his intolerance has been ‘socially constructed’ in the universities, then transmitted throughout the media,and finally accepted by the weary Boss Class ‘lost boys’. Where once he stood, many future destroyers are waiting to take his place.

Reply to  Kolnai
January 11, 2017 5:35 pm

No, what makes politics dispiriting is politics. The left have spent the last fifty years politicizing EVERYTHING, and now complain that everything is politicized… but only because it’s the other guy making the political decisions.

Ian Cooper
Reply to  Kolnai
January 12, 2017 2:02 am

Kolnai, that is like philosophical poetry to me. Compared to so many emotional comments here your prose is so succinct! Your words not only cut to the chase they warn us not to rest on recently won laurels that are yet to come to fruition. I have noticed quite a change in the stance among many of us sceptics since “that day” in November. That change is one brought about by a victory in the middle of a long campaign. Dare I liken it to Stalingrad & El Alimein during the darkest days of WWII? There seems to be somewhat of a swagger about us sceptics since the Trump victory, and I am talking world wide here. I feel that we should be more careful in how we proceed.
Here in New Zealand we have an indigenous saying that is more than apt in current circumstances. We say, “Just taiho bro’.” Taiho in my translation means, “Take a step back. Re-assess the new situation before rushing in.” In ‘Pool Table’ terms we’ve been playing from behind the “8 Ball” for so long we need to re-think our strategy in how we proceed to a meaningful victory over the forces of deceit & hypocrisy evidenced here in the last gasp of the current POTUS. For me he has consigned his legacy to the dust heap of history. And he was the leader of the free world for the past 8 years?

January 11, 2017 4:15 am

From the first line in his speach:
“[..] to start with the premise that each of our fellow citizens loves this country just as much as we do.”
Coming from someone who seems to hate his country and is trying his best to destroy it is so hypocrite.

Reply to  sebmagee
January 11, 2017 4:41 am

Zactly. Coming from the man who traveled the world telling them what a crappy country the United States is. And his fine wife, telling us that up to 9 years ago, she was NEVER proud of her country.

Bryan A
Reply to  sebmagee
January 11, 2017 4:42 am

In my opinion, it took him way to long to get to the “My Fellow Americans” part

Reply to  Bryan A
January 11, 2017 9:56 am

Well, it’s a hard line for him to speak without choking, isn’t it.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
January 12, 2017 10:16 am

Well, His first ‘Lame Duck” one liner took him about 3 or 4 tries to choke out

Reply to  sebmagee
January 11, 2017 5:10 am

Since he and his followers hate America…they assume we do, too?

Reply to  sebmagee
January 11, 2017 5:25 am

100% honest version: “[…] to start with the premise that each of our fellow liberal elites loves to hate this country as much as we do.”

Reply to  sebmagee
January 11, 2017 8:26 am

Well…think about it. His message is for haters…so “fellow citizens who love this country as much as he does” just means he’s talking to liberals. He has more idea how much some people love this country.

Bryan A
Reply to  Aphan
January 12, 2017 10:19 am

Good point, Obviously he was addressing those who actually Love this country AS LITTLE as he does because only they love it to the same miniscule as he does

Reply to  sebmagee
January 11, 2017 10:54 pm

“Because as my mother used to tell me, reality has a way of catching up with you.”
I doubt he will ever realize that.
What a terrible “Leader” this man has been and the damage he has caused hasn’t even been calculated

David Wells
January 11, 2017 4:21 am

I have tried to engage with FOE, Greenpeace, UEA, UK politicians, George Monbiot and when I ask them to debate the climate change issue with me in front of a public audience even if I offer to fund the proceedings out of my own pocket at the first sight of numbers they just run away just like Gavin Schmidt.
If there ever was an example of someone under pressure desperate to maintain some sort of reputation after nearly 4 decades of contempt for reality and the existence of real numbers Schmidt made it clear that in his mind the end really is nigh and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Co2.
Every part every detail of our current civilisation would not exist had it not been for the luxury and availability of fossil fuels. Without the portability of oil you could not have iron ore or wind turbines or manufactured products of any description. The only risk to our civilisation is that oil will eventually expire – maybe – and if it does then how exactly do you manufacture replacements for fossil fuels because to my certain knowledge there is nothing on the horizon that gives any indication that we could either manufacture or find another source that could replicate or replace the portability of oil. You cant even service off shore wind turbines without oil. As John Christy makes clear science is about numbers and the numbers that Schmidt likes to promote are fallacious cant and humbug whereas satellite data presents a picture that makes Schmidt look stupid and without the support of Obama my feeling is that the numbers will win.
Yesterday Nick Herd MP and minister for energy in the UK said “don’t worry about Trump the UK will continue to fight the battle against climate change” patronising twit but even worse is Australia where Rudd and Trimble continue to preach saving the planet and imposing wind turbines on Australia whilst continuing to export 332 million tons of Hansens black death across the planet. Well Australia needs to do this because iron ore and coal are its two biggest exports and if demand for coal and ore fails then Australia goes bust.
Its a farce of apocalyptic proportions but I see no real sign of hope this side of the Atlantic.

Reply to  David Wells
January 11, 2017 6:32 am

comment image

Bloke down the pub
January 11, 2017 4:32 am

I saw reference to a part of O’Bama’s speech where he called for the American people to defend their democracy (presumably from Trump). The hypocrisy stinks, as he’s spent the last eight years trying to find ways to bypass the democratic system. 20th January can hardly come soon enough.

Joe Ebeni
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
January 11, 2017 6:47 am

I spent 29 years in the Army. I did not defend any amorphous democracy. I swore to defend the Constitution which created a federated republic.

January 11, 2017 4:34 am

This proofs how cheap and meaningless words can be. Reassuring but totally meaningless. Obama violates his wise words again and again without realizing (= stupidity) . Sad enough, this is the general trend: a good narrative sells better than facts. Post modern reality = fairy tales, deadpan words.

Shawn Marshall
January 11, 2017 4:43 am

People repeatedly claim that OlBlame-0 is smart. One may question that claim; his speech being a prime example. He has no understanding of logical argument from first principles. A student of geometry lerans this lesson in high school. His argument essentially is; “we all need to get along and can do so if you just agree with what I say.” His bias is so ingrained that he fails to appreciate the cognitive dissonance inherent in his speech. This stuff is on the record forever and future historians will be stunned at the obtuseness of it.

Reply to  Shawn Marshall
January 11, 2017 10:04 am

Obama does not seem to suffer cognitive dissonance, which would require he be bothered by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously or be bothered by challenges to his beliefs. He appears to be more into double-think, where both ideas are held to be true and the person is in no way bothered by that. He seems to believe virtually nothing or vitually everything, depending on one’s point of view. Obama says whatever he thinks needs said, with little or no regard for reality. He is the ultimate narcissist that can never ever be wrong, even when logically contridicting himself. There’s no dissonance evident whatsoever.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Sheri
January 11, 2017 12:32 pm

Magical thinking. “This is what I want/believe so, ergo, it must be true.”

Reply to  Shawn Marshall
January 11, 2017 12:28 pm

Funny. For two years after Obama was inaugurated, Bill O’Reilly ALWAYS made a declaration of orthodoxy about how smart Obama is before O’Reilly would say anything critical.
I wondered about O’Reilly’s cognitive dissonance, how could Obama be doing such ridiculous things if he is so smart unless he was being intentionally destructive?

James Francisco
Reply to  Gamecock
January 11, 2017 2:07 pm

Gamecock. I believe he is being intentionally destructive. The cleaver part is causing the destruction in the future when he will be gone and presently without it being apparent to many. The question that should be asked then is why bring destruction. I believe that it is to bring in communism. Not many in the world have thought that communism was a good idea until their country’s economy was in shambles.

Reply to  Gamecock
January 11, 2017 6:10 pm

“The question that should be asked then is why bring destruction. I believe that it is to bring in communism.”
I have no doubt whatsoever that it’s not actually communism . . rather, the rhetoric/promise of communism is being used to justify gathering power, which if successful will result in totalitarian elitism. And I suspect many warning of communism also think it’s not really communism the people attempting to gain global governance powers intend to establish, but haven’t yet realized that they themselves are helping sell the deception, by calling it communism.
Therefor I suggest that If you don’t believe a classless society is the real objective, please stop speaking as though you do believe that it is . .

Reply to  Gamecock
January 11, 2017 8:01 pm

Here is a great video by Dinesh D’Souza who has found what Obama has been up to by carefully reading Obama’s autobiobiography and observing Obama’s actions.

At least it gives consistancy to Obama’s “philosophy” by showing he is an anti colonialist.

Tom in Florida
January 11, 2017 4:47 am

The liberal left wing is just trying to set the agenda for the new administration to their liking. But as Obama himself has said, “elections have consequences”, so bon voyage Barry we’re glad to see you go.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 11, 2017 8:09 pm

And don’t let the door hit you in the ass as you go.

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
January 11, 2017 4:51 am

There was, on UK TV recently, a history program talking about the Olmec people.
They lived around 3,500 years ago in, roughly, Central America.
They organised themselves into a lovely big civilisation with (religious) leaders etc and bureaucrats/organisers etc
The leaders knew they had to keep the people happy (well fed basically) and followed science as they knew it.
Thus, they held grand & lavish ceremonies at regular intervals – Conference of Parties??
Leaders found they could employ large numbers of people to create awe-inspiring pieces of public work/art. They moved 20 ton basalt boulders across 40 miles of swampland, carving beautiful shapes, faces and icons into them as they went. So as to impress the General Public.
Super computers and Climate Models anyone? Plus of course the legions of Climate Scientists to operate said edifices.
They followed the science of the time and gave rare and expensive gifts to The Land and Water to ensure its continued fertility. Intricate carvings of wood and exotic stone were cast into lakes and rivers.
Not at all like casting (what was until cheap energy came along) nitrogenous fertiliser at The Land today?
And just like now, they thought they’d got it all sussed, it all seemed to work and everything was just peachy.
Until one day, they went out to harvest their bountiful crop and it just wasn’t there. All their carefully and scientifically tended land and soil had washed away. In doing so it blocked up all their carefully built irrigation systems. There was no food – wonder what happened then? Not
We can only speculate if the Olmec themselves blamed Climate Change, but sure as he11, modern-day historians (members of and in the pay of the current Ruling Elite) blame Climate Change for the demise of such a much admired and wished for civilisation. After all, humans are faultless, we *never* get *anything* wrong.
Do we?

Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
January 11, 2017 5:14 am

The fall of many civilizations has been due to changes in climate. In general, great civilizations rise during war periods thus the names ‘Roman Warm Period’ and ‘Minoan Warm Period’. Then, the cold cycles are called, nearly uniformly, ‘Dark Ages’.

Roger Knights
Reply to  emsnews
January 11, 2017 6:48 am

It’s been speculated that the eruption of Krakatoa in 535 AD delivered the death blow to the Eastern Roman empire (all that was left of it by then).

Steve T
Reply to  emsnews
January 12, 2017 4:32 am

Roger Knights
January 11, 2017 at 6:48 am
It’s been speculated that the eruption of Krakatoa in 535 AD delivered the death blow to the Eastern Roman empire (all that was left of it by then).

Krakatoa eruption was 1883. Probably some other eruption.

January 11, 2017 4:59 am

“President-elect Trump does listen to people whose viewpoints differ from his own – which is why Trump will be a far better President than Obama was.”
Let’s hope so.

Reply to  Ryan
January 11, 2017 10:07 am

However, Trump will be highly confusing to all liberals, who cannot fathom how having anyone work for you, advise you, etc can be possible if that person does not walk lock-step with your own ideas. This seems to just blow their minds, that someone would have an advisor who thinks differently from the person. The idea of listening to all sides is so very foreign.

January 11, 2017 5:01 am

Sadly, the author is correct. The left only sees “debate” when both agree with them. That is why they lose all debates. They have lost the ability due to non use. Facts are an anathema to them. It is the fake news that they now claim to be real, even when proven wrong.
Not all people are so ignorant as they cannot see that. And more are starting to.

Reply to  philjourdan
January 11, 2017 5:56 am

And they only see “democracy” when there’s a choice of candidates, but not of platforms.

Reply to  philjourdan
January 11, 2017 6:41 am

For years, the definition of bi-partisanship used by the media goes like this: Republicans and Democrats working together to pass the Democrat agenda.

January 11, 2017 5:10 am

He said he would bring Hope and Change eight years ago. Seems he kept his promise. Except Hope is arriving only when the party’s over, after Change has long overstayed its welcome. Details, details…
No doubt Ol’bama was expecting a much more enjoyable lame-duck period, one where he’d be shopping around for a cushy desk job at the UN, while prepping for a vicarious third term through the Clintons (or at least making enough deals with them to keep his major “achievements” intact).
Funny how things turn out.

Reply to  drednicolson
January 11, 2017 6:42 am

Hope and change:
I hope I still have change in my pockets when Obama is done.

January 11, 2017 5:11 am

By massive spending on wind and solar the US has indeed become the first to get more energy from expensive hardware and than from incinerating stuff. Europe still gets much of its renewable greenie points by burning anything that will burn. And if they burn American forests in Britain both countries get the greenie points.
This is all on top of the constant domestic burning of wood, branches and twigs that goes on all over Europe once you leave the cities. Seems the electricity is a bit pricey for them.
While our Green Betters insist that biomass is nothing to be embarrassed about, you never see a graphic about luvvin’ the planet with an incinerator, do you? It’s always the whirlygigs and solar panels with the blue skies, white clouds and birdies, isn’t it?

Reply to  mosomoso
January 11, 2017 5:45 am

None of that is accurate.
for example:
33% of German electricity comes from wind and solar. Biomass, none imported, is a small element and mostly refers to anaerobic digesters. UK green groups oppose imports of foreign (US) biomass.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 5:53 am

Euan Mears has problems with your claim griffy. While it may be true that 30% comes from wind and solar, it is primarily because they stupidly shut down their nuclear power plants and it is taking every single watt those intermittent, unreliable sources can generate http://euanmearns.com/an-update-on-the-energiewende/
btw griffy why are Germany’s CO2 emissions still climbing?

Reply to  ClimateOtter
January 11, 2017 6:39 am

[Germany’s CO2 emissions still Climbing] Germany’s electricity is generated from burning brown coal.
See here: https://www.agora-energiewende.de/de/themen/-agothem-/Produkt/produkt/76/Agorameter/

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 5:57 am

Looks like a lot less, maybe 25% on a good day, 5-15% otherwise.

Richard Case
Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 6:05 am

Hmmm. Looks like only 16% of Germany’s electricity came from wind and solar in 2014. Source: http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-Generation-by-Energy-Source#tspQvChart
But keep spouting numbers and ad hominems mindlessly and without citation.

Reply to  Richard Case
January 12, 2017 5:14 am

Hey! Griff was right, in a left way! You know, the million man math – 1+1=4.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 6:08 am

Other parts of Europe which haven’t splurged as massively on solar etc rely even more on burning and biomass.
The increase in German biomass since 1990 is pretty staggering. Still, beats trying to squeeze power from acres of solar panels at 50+ N.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 6:44 am

I wonder how long Griff will continue to bring up this half truth.
The only reason why Germany’s electric grid is stable is because it’s neighbors are less stupid.
It’s the fact that the Germany grid is tied to France’s mostly nuclear grid that keeps Germany stable.

Reply to  MarkW
January 11, 2017 6:55 am

[grid that keeps Germany stable.] Germany dumps it’s excess windpower to the grids of neighbouhring countries like the Netherlands. The green movement in the Netherlands still regards Germany as a leader in energy transition. But The Netherlands are also building windfarms which means that in the future this energy dumping becomes impossible. Excess power emerges at the same time. It is just a matter of time and Europe’s energy system will become unstable. The leftist activists scream to close fossil power plants while at the other side the demand for electricity is increased by the use of electric cars and the replacement of natural gas. Total madness.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 6:54 am

Skankhunt42, that is fascinating. Then why did the following quote (verbatim) emerge from Germany?
“We should regard the country’s experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits.”
Methinks that the 33% is nameplate capacity and not realized power generation. And we all know that the wind doesn’t always blow, and the sun doesn’t always shine. And yes, Germany are in the process of building new col fired power generation plants – too funny!!!

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 7:28 am

Oops! I truly are an engineer. “Coal” can not “col” …..

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 7:49 am

This statement is again a big lie. Germany’s energy mix does not come to 33% from renewable energies, but in 2015 only 11.1%. And biomass is still the largest component against wind and solar energy. In 2015 gross electricity generation from renewable energies amounted to 30 per cent, but as the word gross says, the power of the backup power plants must be counted as well as the overshooting power production at certain times, which had to be cheaply abroad or immediately given away. As I said, when all the energy comes from, it is only 11.1 percent, which includes hydropower, biomass and, as a much smaller part, wind and solar energy.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 8:32 am

Possibilities are boundless but all come with choices and prices. Planning an emergent order is a contradiction in terms all you can do is screw it up.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 9:06 am

But Griff, how much of that 33% is BASE LOAD?
Answer: NONE!
That means when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine, all of that vaunted 33% goes to ZERO.
Since it goes to zero quite often, backup base load sources have to be ready to go.
So much for renewables.

Reply to  RockyRoad
January 11, 2017 9:36 am

[backup base load sources have to be ready to go] Right. But in the future the reliability (intermittency) issue may be shifted to the user who must install tens of thousands euro’s for equipment to store energy. This is big business and that’s why all hardware installers cry sustainable victory and love global warming scares. I have attended meetings of energy cooperations in the Netherlands where people introduce themselves by name immediately followed by the number of solar panels on their roof.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 9:25 am

Several times now, Griff has made the claim that both wind and solar are perfectly predictable, therefore there is no trouble with ramping up and down, base load power to keep up.
Yes, he really is that delusional.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 9:31 am

“backup base load sources have to be ready to go.”
Which is why German electricity is so very expensive.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 9:41 am

It’s Griff’s tenacity in holding on to , and loudly repeating, lies like that about Germany’s power situation that makes him such a noteworthy climate kook. It’s like he’s had elective surgery on his soul to remove his conscience and the critical thinking parts do he can hold onto his climate obsession at any cost.

Reply to  hunter
January 11, 2017 9:43 am
Reply to  hunter
January 11, 2017 12:13 pm

Most people think they are critical thinkers, when in fact, a very small percentage of the population actually are.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 10:13 am

Griff always provides perfect examples of how to lie with statistics. There are dozens of estimates as to much power is provided by renewables, depending entirely on the parameters used in defining what is renewable, the time frame involved, etc. He is useful in educating people just how ethereal and magical all of these “statistics” are.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 12:01 pm

Link, please. You always state a “fact” without a supporting evidence. I am not really doubting your claim “33% of German electricity comes from wind and solar”, but the sentence should continue “under sunny a windy conditions, about 4 hours in a year”.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 3:52 pm

Correct as usual Griff.

Reply to  Griff
January 11, 2017 10:50 pm

Jim Verney destroyed Griff up thread! He had to hide in his basement for a while in the hope that everybody forgets the stupid crap he was spouting about Arctic ice. Now here he is with more tortured “facts”. Just sticking his jaw out and saying. “Go ahead! Hit me!” Laughable. I really wonder why he is so persistent here. Who pays you, Griff?

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 12:13 pm

January 12, 2017 at 5:14 am
Hey! Griff was right, in a left way! You know, the million man math – 1+1=4.

This is almost identical to Pres. Obama’s jobs creation math … 1 – 1 = 4

Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 3:52 pm

“33% of German electricity comes from wind and solar.”
More lies, Grifter?

January 11, 2017 5:21 am

I mean, it’s not as if Obozo ever strayed from reality elsewhere. ISIS – the org that “is a second string player – will fold and die” – this bit of preposterously stupid BS came straight from Obozo’s mouth. As did a thousand other pieces of fiction. Obozo – dumbest cluck to ever sit in the Oval Office. I mean, behind the desk. This country certainly can produce qualified Blacks as political leaders. Obama was the most completely politicized animal we’ve ever had in the WH – every action
was determined by how it would affect his political party. By the looks of his party’s destruction – the worst ever since the days of Herbert Hoover, he didn’t calculate those political effects very well. The man with the erasable legacy – apparently the blithering idiot didn’t write his illegal executive orders with a pen with permanent ink.

Reply to  arthur4563
January 11, 2017 6:27 am

Compare the accomplishments of the two men and Obama would have to stand on tippy-toes to peek over Hoover’s shoe.

Reply to  arthur4563
January 11, 2017 8:05 am

I don’t see Obama as actually dumb. You have to be pretty smart to get elected to the presidency. But some people seem to make being wrong a lifetime goal. Obama is one of these.

Reply to  Hivemind
January 11, 2017 8:27 am

according to Gardner there are multiple forms of intelligence so…also for stupidity. Some people excell in math but are unable to show social behaviour. Climate alarmism is widespread among the higher (longer?) educated.

Reply to  arthur4563
January 11, 2017 9:41 am


January 11, 2017 5:21 am

without some common baseline of facts … we’ll keep talking past each other

Well Duh! Of course the left will not admit, even to themselves, that they could be part of the problem. Their arrogance drove the working people to Trump. They need to spend a lot of time wandering in the wilderness before can get to the point where a civil conversation is possible.

Reply to  commieBob
January 11, 2017 5:32 am

It’s actually quite funny to read the lefty sites like DailyKos and Buzzfeed. I could write a ‘news piece’ that I have a credible anonymous source that actually saw Trump kill a baby seal and eats its beating heart and they would publish it. They are so convinced that they are right about everything and every philosophy they have that they are going to DOUBLE DOWN on their superior intellect. They might even lose more seats in 2018 if they keep acting like the babies they seem to be. I don’t think they are capable of rational debate or argument so that should come to pass as long as Trump does a decent job the first two years.

Reply to  chilemike
January 11, 2017 5:42 am

And Breitbart would do the same about a ‘leftist’ figure

Reply to  chilemike
January 11, 2017 5:48 am

Considering that leftists in Hollywood recently lauded a pedophile, griff, Breitbart would only be telling the truth.
Btw how are those polar bears doing?

Reply to  chilemike
January 11, 2017 6:46 am

On Drudge this morning, there’s a story about how Buzzfeed and CNN were fed a fake story about Trump, and are currently running it.

Reply to  chilemike
January 11, 2017 6:46 am

Right Griffypoo, just keep telling yourself that.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  chilemike
January 11, 2017 6:59 am

Polar bear numbers are increasing annually. Furthermore licenses are offered annually for the killing of polar bears – average is 600 licenses are given out on an annual basis. If polar bears are endangered, then why are licenses issued?

Reply to  chilemike
January 11, 2017 11:58 am

Griff “And Breitbart would do the same about a ‘leftist’ figure”
I honestly think Breitbart actually filters based on reputable sources, but a lot of the others will also repost anything that fits their stereotypes, many of them were so far out there that it was obvious to me they were just pandering to a liberal stereotype of conservatives rather than coming from a consistent philosophical position.

January 11, 2017 5:35 am

Looks to me like they are engineering a coup with a lot of help from the CIA.

Reply to  emsnews
January 11, 2017 8:07 am

Another example of making up your own facts.

Reply to  Hivemind
January 11, 2017 8:08 am

I don’t mean emsnews, I mean Obama. Sorry for the confusion.

Reply to  emsnews
January 11, 2017 9:32 am

Yes indeed. An American coup, demonstrating that to do a great evil, the democrats and major media first pretend, loudly, to be performing a great good.

January 11, 2017 5:37 am

Truth motivates me. For about 10 years I decided to give everything the liberals had to say a fair hearing on the chance I might missing some truths. It was 10 years of wasted effort, I wasn’t missing any truths. I don’t listen to liberals anymore.
I highly doubt the typical liberal gives the other side the same consideration, because I don’t think they are all that motivated by the truth, they seem more motivated in the half truths that fit their agenda.
The search for truths keeps me going, keeps me feeling young. There may not be a Fountain of Youth but I consider WUWT the next best thing, the Fountain of Truth.

Reply to  Scott
January 11, 2017 5:50 am

Scott, over the past ten years I have very often made a challenge to leftists to just spend ONE week reading at WUWT. They have derided it or chosen not to respond but either way, it has been a 100% waste of time.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
January 11, 2017 6:47 am

For the most part, liberals consider themselves to be the smartest people in any room. Therefore they have no need to listen to lesser beings.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
January 11, 2017 3:49 pm

Come on ClimateOtter, I’m a lefty , proud of it, and been reading and posting on WUWT since the early days! Even before it became a campaign site for Republican politics. I wish more lefties would join me and experience what it is like to argue your case and not live in an echo chamber. Speaking of which Climate Otter, why don’t you show all those lefties how it’s done and post on Skeptical Science for a few years ? Sauce for the Goose and all that.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
January 12, 2017 6:55 am

Most of have tried to post on Skeptical Science. Between the moderators editing your posts to change what you said, and getting banned for not being a true believer, most of us have given up on it.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
January 12, 2017 3:56 pm

“I’m a lefty , proud of it”
More fool you.

Stewart Finess
Reply to  ClimateOtter
January 12, 2017 7:33 pm

60’s type liberals have a solution, or a few solutions, and they wander around in the dark until the bump into the appropriate problem to apply said solution(s).
Progressives on the other hand are actively trying to find a problem for their solutions … they put a lot of effort into finding a problem which is a good fit for their specific solution. A “good fit” meaning that, because of the application of the solution, the problem(s) will morph into many parallel, or peripheral & ongoing, issues. That way they can expand their solution laterally.
Neither type of the those leftists will recognize your challenge as being a problem that is up to the standards for their very important solution; that is why you have had no luck.

Bryan A
Reply to  ClimateOtter
January 13, 2017 11:03 pm

I’m not so sure that Climate Otter could post on Skeptical Science as they heavily moderate out true skeptical posts

January 11, 2017 6:08 am

‘ lack of engagement ‘
Indeed and its odd on two counts , if they were so sure about their facts and the strength of their augments than such an event would be welcome has the ‘win is in the bag ‘ And secondly they only way they can get the type of doom they claim will happen unless averted is by engaging in such events and making their evidenced publicly available. For example, if you knew that a bridge was going to fall down killing many people ,you not just make this claim but strongly support this claim by throwing the evidenced unto peoples faces .
While climate ‘doom ‘ is a but more serious than that , but what we see is a lot of ‘trust me I am climate ‘scientists’ , the approach of ‘why should I show you the data ‘ and industrial scale usage of smoke and mirrors has a means to avoid reviews of the claims . If you did not know better you suggested that this is becasue far from having a strong case they got little to nothing and hence why they avoid critical review and honest discussion.

January 11, 2017 6:31 am

He had his chance when he fully controlled congress and he didnt act. He spent his time on his failed health care program. He was very careful in his wording on his “success” story on climate change. He had three main points. 1) we have reduced our dependence on foreign oil. Did’nt say we reduced our consumption of oil and didnt give credit to the industry that brought us fracking combined with horizontal drilling to do it.
2) We have doubled our use of renewable energy. Ok so really what does that mean since it is still such a small portion of our overall energy use. And what is the cost to all of us for that doubling.
3) We became part of the Paris climate agreement. So a toothless agreement that was not ratified by the Senate that we can pull out of at any time and no other country wil follow thru on except the countries that want money.
There isnt a thing he has done that cant and wont be overturned by the new administration. His only sound advice that he gave to Trump was to do more thru legislation rather than by presidential order. He’s knows his legacy is about to be dismantled.

Reply to  Dobes
January 11, 2017 8:11 am

“His only sound advice that he gave to Trump was to do more thru legislation rather than by presidential order. He’s knows his legacy is about to be dismantled.”
Do as I say, not as I do !

Reply to  Hivemind
January 11, 2017 10:03 am


Reply to  Hivemind
January 11, 2017 1:30 pm

Like a reckless driver turning into a backseat driver in the cop car. Only more sanctimonious and less self-aware.

January 11, 2017 6:33 am

This sciency speech shows up whenever the speaker parrots research published in peer reviewed journals but does not come equipped with a master’s level understanding of research design and statistical methods critique. The general public, with its mixed bag of such knowledge is ripe for “taking” by government entities either using such blindness for personal gain or are themselves blind and easily swayed by slick researchers who disregard the one saving grace of science, that is the null hypothesis and the significance of errors that skirt around it.
A snake oil salesman dressed up as a Ph.D. is still lipstick on a pig.

phil brisley
January 11, 2017 7:13 am

First, it has to be established why “climate change” is a problem. Obama knows this.
To what extent the IR resonance of the CO2 molecule increases mean temperature so as to affect climate change is unknown and not in evidence, although there is range of estimates, the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 has not been determined. Arbitrarily making energy more expensive using the precautionary principle as an argument to do so is debatable. We should address “the challenge of climate change” to the extent practical. Obama knows this.
To say people “simply deny the problem” is uncalled for, as he is unfairly insulting their intelligence. For someone so intellectually gifted (I actually like the guy) I find this difficult to understand.

Reply to  phil brisley
January 11, 2017 10:57 pm

The IPCC says warming up to 1.8C is beneficial for the planet. Why are we hearing desperate pleas from every climate conference to keep warming below 1.5C? If anybody can figure that out, maybe they can tell me why Canada, the second coldest country on the planet, has agreed to carry the torch ( no pun intended) on this issue. Brain much, Justin?

phil brisley
Reply to  john harmsworth
January 12, 2017 4:07 am

I don’t know John. Perhaps Marshall McLuhan was right, when it comes to the Media it appears perception trumps reality. And it’s not just Justin, in Canada it’s all three political parties and the greater majority of the educated class drinking the Kool-Aid.
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised. Other than places like WUWT, in grade 10 level english (that a jury could understand), there is no detached and reasoned explanation of the uncertainties surrounding the issue.

Bruce Cobb
January 11, 2017 7:15 am

“…without some common baseline of facts; without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your opponent is making a fair point, and that science and reason matter, we’ll keep talking past each other, making common ground and compromise impossible.”
Aye, there’s the rub. Just about every other word out of Zero’s mouth is some sort of a lie, distortion, or half-truth. Because that’s what Climatists do – lie. They have lied so much and so often, that they wouldn’t recognize the truth if it spit in their eye. They pretend that what they do is science, and that their policies are based on said “science”. Then they act all puzzled and hurt that skeptics/climate realists refuse to accept what they are spouting, and then try to label them as “anti-science climate d-worders”. Sickening.

January 11, 2017 7:23 am

Swan song? More like the sound a rubber duck makes when you step on it…

Reply to  Aphan
January 11, 2017 8:13 am


January 11, 2017 7:52 am

The second paragraph of his excerpt: “retreat into our own bubbles”. That looks to be exactly what Obama has been doing. Not just retreating into his own bubble, but funding a system to create facts just to suit the needs of that bubble.

Reply to  Hivemind
January 11, 2017 9:25 am

Classic projection. That is why people say, “If you want to know what they are up to, listen to what they accuse others of doing.”

Reply to  Hivemind
January 11, 2017 5:37 pm

SJWs always project. You can tell exactly how they think and what they plan to do by listening to what they claim the other side is thinking and planning.

Reply to  Hivemind
January 11, 2017 10:38 pm

Yup! If Obama was so interested in science, why didn’t he convene a blue ribbon panel or some such body to take an independent evaluation of the evidence? It was a successful approach to the Challenger disaster which was an awful event but piddling compared to the stated consequences of AGW. Because the AGW “crisis” handed tools to the left that they had wanted for years and couldn’t explain why, he jumped all over it while actually studiously AVOIDING SCIENCE. Hypocrite!

David in Texas
January 11, 2017 8:12 am

“climate skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer”
Is Dr. Spencer skeptical about the existance of climate? Or is he skeptical about the existence of catastrophic man made global warming? Yes, I know what you meant, but there are people who will not and people who will intentionally misrepresent what you mean while quoting you.

January 11, 2017 8:13 am

Two examples that reduce Obama’s view to rubble.
1. Debating with Guardian favourite commentator and multiple copy n paste maestro ‘John Samuel’ on the Spectator blog, it becomes clear he will NOT accept that even a single sceptical position has substance. I asked him to name the most tricky sceptic point that he has to overcome and he said ‘none, they’ve all been debunked’. He claimed the hotspot had been found, that models were accurate and of course, there was no pause. His view only allowed as mine wasn’t acceptable in any way.
2. I posted a suggestion that Dana Nuccitelli and David Whitehouse sit down to discuss together; one on the Spectator blog – it’s still there, and one on the Guardian, which was moderated even before it got a chance to be moderated! (ie they refused point blank to even post it) Says it all about that rag. (And they wonder why they’re losing money hand over fist)
Anecdotal stories but both 100% accurate. It’s alarmists who refuse to debate and engage with inconvenient facts, not sceptics. Glad we’re seeing the back of Obama very soon.

George Daddis
January 11, 2017 8:57 am

…..and waves of climate refugees seeking sanctuary

Obama’s trying to go for a “two-fer” here; deflecting from the fact that it was HIS foreign policy failures in the Middle East (e.g. “the red line”) that is causing the refugee migration; and promulgating the Progressive and Alarmist talking point that somehow .8 of a degree over a century would SUDDENLY cause mass migration.
Are those supposed to be examples of the “baseline of facts”?

January 11, 2017 8:57 am

I agree completely with what Obama says about living in bubbles. As president he could have easily had some televised debates or discussions on issues, to let the public hear both sides without being filtered and cut in media editing rooms. So to me he did not walk the walk, he made no attempt to try and create dialog for the public to see.
One such presidential town hall type meeting should be on climate models that have dire predictions for the future. Why aren’t these models correlated to match real data for the last 20 years? My contention is they are not because the economic purpose of these models is not to impress people with their accuracy so they can sell the models to the public, the purpose of the models is to generate fear and support for spending money to study and combat global warming. I’d like to hear the rationale for why these climate models aren’t correlated to real data like other math models. Let the public hear that debate and decide on their own what to think about those model predictions.

January 11, 2017 9:02 am

All this coming from a man who sponsered this contest? Just sayin, queue the song by the Thompson Twins “Lies”.
Please don’t tell me he had nothing to do with this site with his name on it……

William Astley
January 11, 2017 9:25 am

There is no debate as the idiotic, dishonest, liberals would not only lose a debate (on CAGW, on the economy, on regulations, and so on), if the ‘debate’ was a discussion of facts as opposed to calling the opposing ‘side’ Nazis or Deniers, they would be run out of town on a rail.
This is pathetic:

And by the time he leaves office, President Obama will have added more to our national debt that all the other presidents before him combined. When President Obama finally leaves office, the national debt will be almost $20 trillion. Prior to taking office, the man who has tacked on $9.3 trillion to what our children and grandchildren owe once said the then $9 trillion national debt was “unpatriotic.”

…. The estimated cost of regulations under Obama is a staggering $873 billion. That includes a shocking $344 billion cost in Environmental Protection Agency regulations alone. All told, the number of new regulations that been finalized under President Obama checks in at almost 3,000.

… In the past eight years, America has lost more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs and, although the president doesn’t mention it, America had a global trade deficit of over $732 billion last year.


(EPA internally report, suppressed)
“Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”
“I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into the process to these two sources may make EPA’s current task easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they should result in policies that may not be scientifically supportable.
The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view: (See attached for details.)
1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).
2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen (see Section 1.7).
3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis 2009 v
4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.
5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability (Section 2.5), which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO2.
6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand (Section 2.4). This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way (see Section 2.4).
7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data.”

January 11, 2017 9:26 am

As it emerges that in all likelihood the Russian fear was directed right out of the Oval office, I believe most Americans will feel revulsion against the current President and his cynical abuse of the power of the office he has so poorly served.

January 11, 2017 10:17 am

Obama’s speech can be understood either way – who is he addressing exactly. Who are “we”?

Michael Jankowski
January 11, 2017 10:39 am

8 years and never tried to bring people together to find common ground on an issue? That was basically every issue. Didn’t try to meet gun manufacturers or NRA leaders to come up with “common sense” safety or control measures, either. Just preached from the bully pulpit and say it’s not his fault that nothing got done.

David J Wendt
January 11, 2017 11:42 am
January 11, 2017 12:58 pm

“And increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we accept only information, whether true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that’s out there.”
Reading that, I wondered if he was heading for a mea culpa, admitting that his opinion on climate change had been utter drivel after all. How wrong was I? The oaf gives new meaning to the word “bigot”.

Bruce Cobb
January 11, 2017 1:38 pm

Ok, he says we need a “baseline of facts”.
Fact 1: There has been a warmup since the LIA, on the order of .7C.
Fact 2: There have been many other warming periods, notably the MWP just during this interglacial period, with similar and even greater changes in temperature.
Fact 3: Although there was an uptick in the rate of warming in the 80s and 90s, that has slowed to a crawl, with an actual “Pause” of some 18 or 19 years in length on the books.
Fact 4: Under laboratory conditions, increasing CO2 has a warming effect, dubbed the “greenhouse effect”.
Fact 5: In the wild, no such effect can be attributed, due to a host of factors, boiling down to the fact that climate is “noisy”.
Fact 6: CO2 has a definite and proven positive effect on the biosphere.
Fact 7: At this time, no one can state with any credibility that there is a “planetary emergency”, or even a problem with our climate.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 11, 2017 4:56 pm

“Fact 3: Although there was an uptick in the rate of warming in the 80s and 90s,”
Actually, there wasn’t.
There was no warming between 1980 and 1997 in either UAHcomment image
or RSScomment image

January 11, 2017 3:44 pm

Speaking of facts, there is no proof that vaccinations cause Autism, however Mr.Trump has nominated a leading anti vaccination campaigner to lead a team investigating links Vaccinations to Autism etc. The fact is there is no link. None. never has been, a fact which has been confirmed time and time again. If Mr. Trump does not think this is a fact, how much confidence do we have in how he views other ‘facts’
I suspect in a post truth age, facts can be anything you want, or as Mr.Trumps pal, Vlad ( Ras) Putin put it so well. “Nothing is true and everything is possible” Anyone see Mr.Trumps post truth press conference today! What a blinder! He has really taken the post truth ideal to his heart bless him.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
January 11, 2017 5:11 pm

“lead a team investigating”
Do you have an issue with “investigating” ?????
No wonder you are dogmatic about AGW as well.
“Post-truth”, implies you have the truth already.. Seems you are very, very, FAR from any truth.
The ABSOLUTE ARROGANCE of the far-left coining that phrase, says all that needs to be said.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
January 11, 2017 7:39 pm

The best part of the press conference was when Trump referred to CNN as “fake news.”
It is a fake news outlet, isn’t it Gareth?

The “post-truth age” is an apt description of the post-modernist era in which “reality” was socially constructed for the peasants by mainstream media and Hollywood elites.
Those days are over, Gareth.
Get used to it.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
January 12, 2017 6:57 am

I love it when leftists pretend to be able to think.
Look up red herring, then hang your head in shame.

Reply to  MarkW
January 13, 2017 4:45 am

So which part of “There is no link between Autism and inoculations” do you not understand Mark?

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
January 14, 2017 2:07 pm

“So which part of…”
So which part of “red herring” do you not understand, Phillips?

Kiwi Heretic
January 11, 2017 4:21 pm

Obama: “we become so secure in our bubbles that we accept only information, whether true or not, that fits our opinions.”
Pot, kettle, black!

January 11, 2017 4:48 pm

comment image

January 11, 2017 4:50 pm

Try again.. first one disappeared into the ethercomment image

Reply to  AndyG55
January 12, 2017 1:16 am

Would we have had the guts to “throw the bums out?” Thank God for the two-term limit.

Reply to  AndyG55
January 12, 2017 3:46 pm

The ether gave it back!! 🙂

Pop Piasa
January 11, 2017 6:35 pm

Here’s some thoughts on the pre-trump era.
Coming out on climate
Authority figures, foretelling
Hot doom (and our “myths” dispelling),
Cast great dispersions
On skeptical versions
(Which keep carbon credits from selling)!
Now, shriller and louder they’re yelling,
To drown out the doubters’ rebelling!
New taxes are “just”
When you’ve gained public trust,
So “the questioners” (quickly) they’re quelling.
I’ve arrived at this realization;
Our industrial civilization
Can only be sin
If ‘green’ socialists win-
On their platform of demonization!

Stephen Heins
January 11, 2017 7:10 pm

“Isn’t it horrifying when the major media, environmental media, universities, many politicians including the White House, many large environment organizations, environmental studies, national anti-fossil fuel crusades, EPA, DOE, NOAA, even the IPCC and NASA have become so politicized that they aren’t trustworthy.”
Anonymous Heins

Mark from Oz
January 11, 2017 9:14 pm

Haha a typical climate panic merchant. No facts quoted. No strong belief in the theory, they know they would lose every debate. This attitude of “im not going to allow any scrutiny of my work”. Thats not science.

Lance of BC
January 11, 2017 9:47 pm
Patrick MJD
January 12, 2017 1:20 am

It’s clear Griff is paid to do what he does here and elsewhere…and to be so utterly, and provably, wrong time after time, he must be on getting paid a lot.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 12, 2017 1:38 am

Not paid at all… just very interested in this subject. As I guess are you, as you are a frequent poster!
I am not wrong – I just present an alternative, science based set of opinions here: I am not biased in the science I accept by ingrained political belief, like many posters on climate issues.
The state of the arctic sea ice is a clear an obvious indicator of climate change… there is no other explanation for the continued trend and the current state is clearly lower than all evidence from recent history.
(for example, in no part of recorded human history has the NW passage previously allowed free passage to any vessel through an ice free channel for a decade, as is currently the case)

Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 4:34 am

Ice free North west passage? With the aid of ice breakers? Is it only in summer? You might like to do some study. We don’t have a long written history of Arctic travel, but it is a stretch to say never.
Arctic sea ice change is an indicator of climate change. The climate has always changed. How do you propose to stop climate change?

Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 5:47 am

“The state of the arctic sea ice is a clear an obvious indicator of climate change…”
The Arctic was often ice free in summer for most of the first 3/4 of the Holocene.
1979 was actually an EXTREME year for Arctic sea ice.
The FACT that we are only a small molehill out of the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years is more than enough explanation for the FACT that the current level of Arctic sea ice is ANOMOLOUSLY HIGH compared to most of the current interglacial.
If you are STUPID enough to confine your history to just the Little Ice Age and the slight climb out of that COLDEST of periods, then you will continue to keep spouting your child-minded nonsense.

Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 6:59 am

Griff is never wrong, he just changes the subject. Fast.
As to his claim that there has been an ice free NW passage for a decade. Once again, he’s just making it up.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 9:01 am

OMG, Skankhunt42, you just cannot look past the end of your (Arctic sea ice) nose, can you? Focusing on a single item without looking at the whole system. Truly amazing and what is fascinating is that you never acknowledge that there is more to global ice mass than the mere Arctic.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 9:09 am

And one more thing, Skanky, THE CLIMATE HAS BEEN CHANGING FOR THE PAST 4 BILLION YEARS!!! We have been involved in helping the atmosphere to increase the CO2 concentration for the past 50 or so years, AND THAT IS IT!!! The Arctic has been ice-free in the past, and will be ice-free in the future, that is an undeniable truth. And it would have been ice-free in the future even if our species did not exist on this planet, IMHO.
The only thing that is constant about our climate is CHANGE! And as I have said on other WUWT links, I have NEVER seen the analysis of the past 600 million years refuted, ANYWHERE! We live in a time where the CO2 concentration is very low, 90% of the past 600 million years saw CO2 concentrations significantly higher than present, and based on the undeniable FACT that the earth currently has trillions of plant and animal species is direct evidence that historically high CO2 concentrations did NOT sterilize this planet. And I continue to be amazed at those who are so insanely arrogant to think that we are the primary drivers of the changes to the climate.

phil brisley
Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 9:25 am

Darrell, she sounds interesting…who is Skankhunt42?
And Griff, I assume you are aware there is good evidence the Arctic was ice free (or close to it) during the Hypsethermal (Holocene Optimum) and that the tree-line (in some places) ended at the shoreline.
So what is the big deal about the area’s current ice volume?

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 9:35 am

Mr. Brisley, to reveal my source …..
Okay, very low-brow and I do admit it, but not freely. The animated show South Park (I SAID I was low-brow) did a fantastic job of using the 2016 election in their story line – there had to be at least eight episodes where they slammed both candidates (“sh!t for choices” is a direct quote), and one of the key players in the whole story line was a local South Park father whose pastime was trolling web sites to get reactions. Went by the moniker of, you guessed-it, “Skankhunt42”.
Therefore my personal moniker for Griff is Skankhunt42 – seems to fit perfectly but yes, very low-brow.
: )

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 10:59 am

“Science based.” LMFAO!!!
“State of Arctic Ice” is a clear indicator that ice shrinks and expands, based on various things, which “science” lacks a complete understanding of, and which has never been empirically shown to include “human CO2 emissions.” The “no other explanation” canard is an argument based on scientific IGNORANCE, but that’s typical from the Eco-Fascist camp.
As for “RECENT” history, what a convenient cherry-pick. Don’t look back too far, or other times of similar arctic sea ice extent, from periods you couldn’t begin to blame on human CO2 emissions, would rear their ugly head.
Do you have evidence that CO2 levels (much less the minuscule human contribution thereto) are THE CAUSE of changes to arctic sea ice? Didn’t think so.

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 12:45 pm

I really need to ask you this.
Who, in your learned opinion, is a better, more tolerant group of people?
A) Those that speak out against Man Made CO2
—and purge all posts from their sites from contributors that disagree with their viewpoint
—and refuse civil discourse/debate on the science (Michael Mann won’t even sit at a table with Roy Spencer)
—and require adjustments be made to the data to fit the model output (NASA GISS/NCDC / Thomas Karl)
—and claim Settled Science by consensus
B) Those that speak in favor of Man Made CO2
—and allow posts to their websites, even from those that disagree with their viewpoint
—and request civil discourse/debate on the science
—and would prefer to trust the unadjusted data to prove/disprove the model output
—and point out that Consensus isn’t a scientific precept
Although you seem to get very little slack here, and sometimes the discourse is rather uncivil towards you, you are still allowed to post here

Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 3:45 pm

“I am not wrong – I just present an alternative, science based set of opinions here: I am not biased in the science I accept by ingrained political belief, like many posters on climate issues.”
Yeah, sure. I have some real estate you might be interested in, a few perpetual motion machines, and a 300 mpg carburetor. I have very, very good scientific evidence for everything I offer. Really, really scientific evidence free from political influence.
Why must warmists believe that politics determines the reality of science? There’s no evidence this is true whatsoever. No studies show causality. Nothing. However, there is a very real need to believe that politics is the problem, never the reality that the science is the problem. If the science is the problem, they’ve been taken in by “experts” with a political agenda.

Reply to  Griff
January 12, 2017 3:59 pm

Yet more lies, Grifter.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
January 14, 2017 4:24 pm

“Griff January 12, 2017 at 1:38 am
Not paid at all… just very interested in this subject. As I guess are you, as you are a frequent poster!”
Except Griff I post on my own dime from my own systems. You have been discovered to be posting your inaccurate alarmist links and comments from corporate IP addresses and systems, unless you are spoofing a Barclays IP addy (I don’t think you have that info nor skill to use it).

Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 12, 2017 5:48 am

“he must be on getting paid a lot”
No, just a total and absolute INABILITY to learn anything.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 12, 2017 1:10 pm

Well, he’s just posting press releases from warmists.

Reply to  Joel Snider
January 12, 2017 3:47 pm

I think it’s actually a guidebook they all share. The arguments sometimes are posted verbatim from several posters on several blogs. It keeps them on the narrative.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel Snider
January 17, 2017 12:50 pm

Yeah, I’ve seen Grift on other sites too – same lines that get shot down the same way. Nothing penetrates him, of course, but replies are more meant to correct the record for other readers.

Reply to  Joel Snider
January 18, 2017 12:52 pm

“Yeah, I’ve seen Grift on other sites too – same lines that get shot down the same way. Nothing penetrates him, of course”
It is said by those who are able to discover these things that Griff posts during working hours from a server with a corporate IP address.
Hence it appears likely that posting mendacious, misleading entries to sceptic blogs is part of his job description and something he gets paid to do, thus explaining why he posts the same misinformation over and over again, no matter how many times it has been debunked, and maligns professionals who contradict the various alarmist memes such as polar bears are an endangered species, and why he appears to be completely without shame or conscience.

Joel Snider
January 12, 2017 1:08 pm

You can’t really engage when one party is rigidly close-minded.

Killer Marmot
January 12, 2017 3:18 pm

Even accepting the IPCC’s views on global warming, Obama has always been very loose with the facts.

Johann Wundersamer
January 19, 2017 12:24 am

In the EU we’re talking about high Eety.
While the US talks about hatey.
Isn’t ethnics, languages and morals a never ending astounding story.

Johann Wundersamer
January 19, 2017 12:31 am

In the EU we’re talking about high Eety.
While the US talks about hatey.
Isn’t ethnics, languages and morals a never ending astounding story.

Johann Wundersamer
January 19, 2017 12:43 am

Answer to that question:
‘Heiti machen’ in the EU is preloaded with ‘little children go to sleep’.

Johann Wundersamer
January 19, 2017 12:48 am
Johann Wundersamer
January 19, 2017 1:04 am

leave a reply – here it is: