"I'm not a scientist." Possibly the only factually accurate words in the president's entire speech.

More likely he should say "I'm not a President."

What an IDIOT....he's looking at a wall map like it's the first time....

he saw a map that did not have....tees, sand traps and greens on it.

He's baffled & shocked that he can only count 50 states & he's sure it was 57 the last time he looked!
Eh maybe he'll get a copy of the paper & figure it out.. ;-)

Don't push the lie that President Obama said there were 57 states. What he said was that he had been to 57 states, and that he thought they had one or two to go. The smartest man in the room thinks there are 58 or 59 states.

The push for amnesty proves their Global warming positions are fake.

Pushing tens of millions into a higher carbon footprint will not help warming.

Yes, and if it were so dire, the US would declare war on China and India to stop their release of CO2.

Amen, Brother! The whole GW thing is about cutting America's balls off so that we can't compete.
Just look at that joke Kyoto Accord and who signed it.
Romania.

Had Al Gore been elected that is exactly what would have happened. He even said so during debates with GW

Clinton did sign the Kyoto Accord. But it wasn't ratified by the Senate. Another forward looking check and balance that the Founders foresaw a need for.

And as I recall almost all (maybe all?) Democrat Senators voted against it.

Indeed, and if one sincerely believed that human activity were actually a threat, one would push for population control, so as to reduce the number of humans participating in said activity. Never once has anyone in the Warmer Cartel advocated for effective Population Management policies, which is the standard, accepted, time-tested tool for reducing the destructive effects of a single species on an ecosystem. Witness the Federal population management strategies across the country, including that of Deer, Elk, prairie dogs, gypsy moths, even kudzu (a plant).

He's not from around here.

Looks suspiciously East African to me.

Yep. He actually claimed there were 60 states: “I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it…” LATimes: Barack Obama wants to be president of these 57 United States and youtube: Obama’s 57 state gaffe

Ok but those are only the ones he's willing to discuss in public.

Not exactly. It would be 60 states if you carefully parse what he actually said. "... it is just wonderful to be back in Oregon, and over the last 15 months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in fifty .... seven states? I think one left to go. One left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit but my staff would not justify it."

I so clearly remember that statement. Where was the press at that time? Maybe they also think there are 57-59 states. Scary thought!!!!

i remember the press's reaction; he's tired, it's been a long campaign, slip of the tongue. Imagine if a conservative said the same, they would be flayed for it.

But remember, the media says they aren't biased (even though 80+ percent self identify as Democrats) because they said so.

But he could only name 57!

.... Confusion.... Disarray.....

Obama said that there were three more states to go--making it a total of 60. However, those were safe states and he didn't need to go to those last three.

Not a bad memory of US geography for an affirmative-action president who attended an elementary school in muslim Indonesia...

we were giving him a break

he's confused because when he first started his career as a community organizer, in the 70's, the map was about global cooling/freezing.............

That really is very good. Thank you.

Should have gone to specsavers.

<<<o>>><<<oo>>>

crown
Diogenes of Sinope would pass by Obama. Probably at a dead run.

Here is some of that "fast-growing body of science." Crucial, verifiable facts - with citations - people need to know about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming.

The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here's why:

Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.

But that's only the beginning. We've had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That's one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming - and I suppose we should presume we are, given a 10,000 year trend - it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Yet even that trend-continuation needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.

The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that Anthropomorphic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

[1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition

by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK "http://www.physicalgeograph..." http://www.physicalgeograph...

[2] ibid.

[3] HALOE v2.0 Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton University; et al.. HYPERLINK "http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Con..." http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Con.... See p. 4.The 0 - 4% range is widely accepted among most sources. This source is listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range. An examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range) are far more extensive than the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end). Temperate zone oceans are far more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an average of 2% or more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to err on the side of understatement.

[4 NIST Chemistry Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide. ] HYPERLINK "http://webbook.nist.gov/" http://webbook.nist.gov/

[5] Three quarters of the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including all the atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and 60 times more effective. However, the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems likely to be small if not nil.

[6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. HYPERLINK "http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa..." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa.... The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280 ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm, equates to just under 25% of present concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution to the greenhouse effect.

[7] Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://www.esd.ornl.gov/pro...

[8] New York Nature - The nature and natural history of the New York City region. Betsy McCully http://www.newyorknature.ne...

[9] Global Warming: A Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle HYPERLINK "https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs..." https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs... This article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is drawn from a paper by the author in Environmental Geosciences, 1999, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 HYPERLINK "http://wikileaks.org/wiki/C..." http://wikileaks.org/wiki/C....

See also HYPERLINK "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/..." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/... and

HYPERLINK "http://online.wsj.com/artic..." http://online.wsj.com/artic... and, more diplomatically: HYPERLINK "http://www.nytimes.com/2009..." http://www.nytimes.com/2009.... Et al.

ADDENDUM

What initially troubled me was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which has been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks "Climategate" to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW "cause" has taken on a life of its own.

Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc - after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.

In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.

I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand "Progressive" ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations.

Exactly what I would have said if I didn't have to hunt and peck on this dang keyboard.

Diogenes, thank you for your extensive yet succinct disclosure of the facts. I have a folder on my computer labeled "GLOBAL WARMING HOAX" where I store web articles and comments for future support. I gave your comment a priority "1" level and will refer to it often.

Leftists can not be troubled with empirical fact. They must ride the wave of emotion to make a "better planet." They could start by loving their neighbor as themselves but that is too difficult and requires commitment.

No, their "cause" is better served by lining their own pockets by expanding "government services" to "protect the environment." We would all be better off if they would just shut-up and quit trying to play God.

Thank you for your kind words. Everyone who wants to deal in facts rather than dystopian fantasies is invited to copy and paste the post wherever they think it will do the most good.

I read somewhere that if on one of the admin's own charts that plotted the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere in one color and the rise of temperature in another vs time, that the temperature line changes *preceded* the changes in CO2 indicating that CO2 is an possible *effect* rather than a possible *cause* of warming.

Can you confirm ?

In the "long count" as far back as we can determine the rise and fall of CO2 in the cycle lags rather than precedes the temperature by several hundred years in each instance. In other words, changes in average world temperatures tends to cause, rather than be caused by, CO2 changes.
Of course if you are a "scientist" writing a computer program, financed by a grant to "study" climate change, and your current and any future grants are predicated on the outcome of your "research" supporting AGW theology, then it is very likely your "garbage out" will be the same regardless of the nature of the "garbage in." GIGO rules when the algorithm is a fraud.

Yes, in fact the science does show that CO2 lags temperature changes historically - both a very long term lag of roughly 1200 +/- 400 years (which ironically puts us about right for present day CO2 increases to be from the Medieval Warm Period), and a much shorter one of about 9 months too. What's more, CO2 levels have never even correlated very well with temperature - we've even been in an ice age while CO2 levels were 5 times or more greater than present day (e.g., roughly 2000 ppm or even much much higher).

Short youtube clip showing that CO2 increases lag temperature changes historically: Great Global Warming Swindle Ironically, the average lag of about 1200 years puts us at the right time period for recent CO2 increases to be a result of the Medieval Warm Period.

Even in the short term, CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months: http://icecap.us/images/upl...

CO2 levels have never correlated well with global temperatures: 4,600 million years of temperature and CO2 levels: http://c3headlines.typepad....

Heck, the past 17 years there has been no significant temperature increases, even though 26% of all the CO2 man has ever produced was generated during that timeframe: http://www.woodfortrees.org...

Not to mention, we are 6C below the geological mean temperature of 17C. The planet is much cooler right now than it is *most of the time*, including the last 200M years which is the era of Mammalian life.

True that is one of the challenges Al Gore has to explain as in his movie he told a flat out lie.

CO2 increases indeed after temperatures rise and therefor has always been an effect, as least so far.

Warming "releases" CO2 from the Oceans. Kind of an egg chicken or chicken egg thing.

Water vapor is much more important than CO2 in any greenhouse effect. Why isn't there more discussion of the amount of water being diverted and sprayed into the air for agriculture and other purposes? I think I know the answer, but couldn't irrigation also have an effect on droughts?

Don't forget golf courses. Their maintenance requires huge amounts of water, and California, with its drought, is having a particularly large problem with the many golf courses using so much water to keep their greens and fairways in pristine condition. Simultaneously the farmers in the Simi Valley are being denied water in order to save a tiny smelt. And - that's where Mr. Obama golfed this past weekend and last month - California....on very posh and exclusive private courses owned by billionaires.

Diogenes, your footnote 9 link isn't working, it gives a 404 page not found. I am interested in seeing it, but don't see anything obviously wrong with the URL that I could fix. So, would you check the link please and try reposting it? (Fwiw, I haven't checked the other links).

Thanks for alerting me. The article cited in footnote 9 has been moved to http://www.azgs.az.gov/ariz...

Let's hope it stays there.

Don't know if you typed all this out or copied and pasted. But this line stands out as a glaring error:
"Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit."
33 degrees C is about 91 degrees F. I think you are off by an order of magnitude.

He see obama, put his lamp out, and go home defeated.

and add, "...but I played one on TV."

He's flunked being President, too!!

Or "I'm not an American."

or "I'm not an American."

CO2 levels were higher than today in 85% of the past 600 million years and has never been observed to be a driver of the climate. CO2 levels were 12 times higher than today in the Dinosaur Period, there were even three ice ages with more CO2 than today, one had fifteen times more.

Natural forces rule the climate and not CO2. Watch this one hour UK documentary to see it all.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

One of the problems with people who 'are not scientists' is that they are unable to evaluate the quality of findings - they aren't all valid and lots of what is promoted as science isn't - AND so-called scientists - there are way more inept scientists and charlatans than there are bona fide, rigorous scientists. Scientifically illiterate people simply endorse the 'science' & 'scientists' that support their ideological preconceptions/agendas or emotions and reject the science and scientists they don't like.