Does Obama Know ANYTHING About Science?

Obama Gets Burned with Crack about Texas Wildfires

COMMENTARY | During a fundraising speech at the Silicon Valley home of John Thompson, chairman of Symantec Corp., President Barack Obama decided to give Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a candidate to replace him as president, a little heat.

Obama referred to Perry as "a governor whose state is on fire, denying climate change," reports The Associated Press. The problem is the Texas wildfires have nothing to do with climate change, according to scientists in the employ of the very federal government Obama is in charge of.

Dr. Robert Hoerling, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research meteorologist, recently explained what has caused the drought that has gripped Texas for the past several months and resulted in a huge number of wild fires.

The culprit for the drought and the wildfires is La Nina, which is characterized by unusually cool temperatures in the equatorial Pacific. La Nina has lingered since the end of last winter. Because of this, storms that ordinarily pass over Texas are deflected to the north, leaving the Lone Star State high and dry. Global warming has nothing to do with it.
Why did President Obama suggest climate change was causing the Texas wildfires? For one thing, it was a great applause line for the Silicon Valley moguls from whom he was attempting to extract campaign funds. Perry, like many people, including some climate scientists, doubt that manmade global warming is a significant phenomenon. Obama was playing to that fact, painting doubt of climate change as denying settled science.

While Obama attempted to paint a potential rival, Perry, as a science-denying yokel from the Texas hill country, it turns out it was the smooth-talking, Harvard-educated president who had blown his science and committed what should be considered a major gaffe. To suggest global warming caused the Texas drought which in turn caused the wildfires is about as sensible as Pat Robertson claiming Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for America's abortion policy.

That Obama has a somewhat casual regard for the truth has been noted by enemies and friends alike. But he undercuts his own stance as leading the party of science when he says things like he did last weekend.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-gets-burned-crack-texas-wildfires-221200669.html

 

Apparently he does....

Killer Texas Summer Shatters Heat, Drought Records | Although Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) believes his state will “be fine,” in reality Texas is undergoing its most extreme drought, heat wave, and wildfire season in history. “The year 2011 continues the recent trend of being much warmer than the historical precipitation-temperature relationship would indicate, although with no previous points so dry it’s hard to say exactly what history would say about a summer such as this one,” Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon writes. “Except that this summer is way beyond the previous envelope of summer temperature and precipitation.”
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/09/08/314734/killer-texas-summer-shatters-heat-drought-records/
View attachment 268

 

IMO, Obama was not altogether wrong, but was somewhat misleading, but so is the La Nina explanation. Together (global warming/climate change and La Nina ) form a more comprehensive understanding of why Texas has these fires.

 

Oh yeah! It was a hot one, believe me! But Obama stated that it was based on climate change, not La Nina on which the government's own scientists laid blame.

 

Why do you believe that La Nina and global warming are mutually exclusive? Why can't they both be happening?

 

I think that would be a better question to ask Obama.

 

Would that be a dodge?

 

No, it's a Ford. Actually, Obama has never been considered one of the great scientific minds of the world or even a fount of knowledge. So, I'll consider the source and chalk it up to his ignorance.

 

New York and I believe the east coast is getting tons of rain. Florida where I live is getting tons of rain. The rain can not fall everywhere you know.

Plus no hurricanes again this year of to speak off coming off the gulf. Those storms always brought tons of rain and if I remember correctly, Texas is a gulf state. Obama is just a mean spirited muslim. Why can't we have one of those progressive muslims who likes the USA as president.

 

I sometimes wonder why you bother posting topics. Then I remember that you are merely eager to post anything and everything that slants reality in favor of the Right regardless of the truth of the matter. I posted an article with actually data and the opinion of a Texas State Climatologist which basically said, “Except that this summer is way beyond the previous envelope of summer temperature and precipitation.” and you completely ignored it. You would think if someone posted something directly contradicting your OP, it might have some interest for you but NO, not a word from you.
So then I asked, "Why do you believe that La Nina and global warming are mutually exclusive? Why can't they both be happening?" You promptly posted a flippant non-answer of any kind. Then, I asked if you were dodging my question to which you gave an ever more flippant non-answer.
Now here is my issue, you seem to want to bring up a topic but at the same time seem to have made up your mind already about the issue and have no interest in entertaining any other opinions. Then why bother even posting a topic? If your mind is already made up, are you just looking for reassurance from others with the same opinion? To me, this seems very intellectually lazy and close minded of you. Do you have a more rational explanation for your behavior?

 

Sometimes, I find it necessary to post articles which contradict your half-truths so that your overzealous attempts to blanket this forum with left-leaning liberal dogma don't stifle it. If I responded to all your misinformation, I would be spending all my time disproving your assertions. I neither have the time nor the inclination to waste on such pursuits. As an admitted leftist who is unwilling to accept anything the conservatives have to offer, speaking to you is like speaking to a blank wall. So, in the future, if I respond to you in a flippant manner, it means that I've read your post and felt that it didn't deserve the time I would waste in typing a lengthy response.

This response is a good example. I've wasted several minutes of my life responding to you. You'll get nothing from it and I CERTAINLY will get nothing from it other than perhaps a laugh or two at your expense. Maybe that's why I goad you on. I like to laugh at you.

 

Anyway, back to the topic at hand:

From THE DALLAS OBSERVER, September 16, 2011
Chatting With a NOAA Meteorologist About This Drought: What It Is and What It Ain't

So, what's our problem? Mostly, it's La Nina, that little trollop. She's been messin' with Texas for a long time. And the relationship between her cool Pacific sea-surface temperatures and dry times here is pretty well established.
......

The good news, Hoerling says, is that this isn't global warming. "This is not the new normal in terms of drought. Texas knows drought. Texas has been toughened on the anvil of droughts that have come and gone. This is not a climate change drought. What we do anticipate from climate change is a situation where temperatures progressively increase."

In other words, this hot damned summer is another story entirely.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2011/09/chatting_with_a_noaa_meteorolo.php

 

.

 

This question coming from a Republican? From the party of Rick Creationism Pray-for-the-Economy Perry? Motes and Beams? Sweep your own floor before handing me a broom.

 

Hahah. Using your logic, I should respond to any of your questions by saying, "This question coming from a Democrat? From the party of Hank "Guam will tip over" Johnson?

Motes and beams, indeed!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

Have you noticed, it doesn't matter happens, it is deemed to be proof of global warming....too hot? Global warming. Too cold? Global warming. Rainy? Global warming. Drought? Yep, global warming. Just another case of the "evidence" being shaped to fit the conclusion.
What happened to the deal where al gore demanded it to be called "global climate change"?
Remember a couple of years ago when that big global warming summit got snowed out? Or when the greenies had to import limos for a conference? Or al gore touring the country in his private jet blasting people for excessive consumption...the same guy whose personal residence used as much energy as the entire town? Wow.

 

Hum? Maybe because as has been explained to you multiple times global warming doesn't just mean it is getting warmer? It means messed up weather patterns, droughts, 20" rain storms, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and on and on.... You need to read past the first sentence sometimes. Keep believing the Koch brothers campaign of disinformation because they have no vested interest in denying climate change. None at all!

 

So in defense of the non-global warming he posted an article by a national meteorologist and you counter that with your usual unsubstantiated insults and other tripe. I guess that is a typical liberal reaction.

 

No I countered it with a Texas State Climatologist and a graph showing just how the temperatures of 2011 were extreme outliers which he found unworthy of responding to. When I pointed his dodge out, he proceeded to insult me. Apparently, insults or tit-for-tat is all he wants to waste his time responding to. Facts? Not so much. In fact, no one here has responded the data I posted so if you’d like to take the opportunity to pick up that challenge, feel free. I think Okie can defend himself without your help. Although, as a super hero, he does need a loyal sidekick. How about you be Rebel Boy!