Does Obama Know ANYTHING About Science?

What, that funny graph you posted? The same one that indicates that 2007 was cooler and wetter than average? Or 2008 was barely hotter than average? Or 2010 was a little warmer, but about average for rainfall? Or that 2006 (and 2009 not far behind) was just about perfect? 2011 was a hot one, but even your graph shows that to be an anomaly, not the pattern of some "global climate change".

Look out, 1929 and 1930 were below average in temperature while 1934 was above average! Go running for the hills, folks! Oh, and those poor people in 1918 had to deal with an above-average temperature of 83.5 degrees! How in the world did they ever survive much less conquer The Kaiser?

You are the one sounding like a sidekick. Al Gore's sidekick, Dumb Bunny.

 

Apparently, they didn't teach you to read graphs in super hero school.

 

There can be no logic behind the science if wet weather is as much proof of global warming as dry weather is or cold weather is the same proof as hot weather.

 

The saddest thing about your statement is that you actually believe that. Logic is not your friend.

 

Facts? A Texas State Climatologist versus Dr. Robert Hoerling (a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research meteorologist, who served as the lead author of the U.S. Climate Change Science Plan Synthesis and Assessment Report). As for your "data", I don't deny it. Hotter weather is the result of less rain of it might even be vice versa. Either way, it is weather and says nothing about the cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

 

Yeah, the foundation of your agurment sounds kinda silly when spelled out in plain English, doesn't it?

 

Indeed?

Your chart indicates an average temperature for June-August to be 83 degrees.
Your chart indicates an average rainfall for June-August to be 7.5 inches.

I stated that 2007 was "cooler and wetter" than average. That year's average temperature was approximately 80 degrees (cooler than average) and its rainfall was approximately 14 inches (wetter than average). According to your graph, that's correct.

I stated that 2008 was "barely hotter" than average. That year's average temperature was approximately 82 degrees. You got me on that one. It was a whopping 1 degree below average.

I stated that 2010 was "a little warmer" than average. That year's average temperature hovered around 83 degrees. About average. I stated that its rainfall was "about average" for rainfall. It's rainfall was approximately 9 inches. Not what I would call a huge deviation from average.

I stated that 2006 was "just about perfect". That year's average temperature was approximately 83 degrees and its rainfall was approximately 7.5 inches. Just about perfect as far as the average goes.

I stated that 2009 was "not far behind" 2006 as far as averages go. That year's average temperature was approximately 83 degrees and its rainfall was approximately 7 inches. Again, just about average.

1929's and 1930's average temperatures were approximately 82 degrees (below average just like I said) and 1934's average temperature was approximately 84 degrees (above average just like I said).

1918's average temperature was approximately 83.5 degrees (so far above average, we MUST be entering a global warming phase!).

 

But you don't find the 2011 temperature average being such an outlier unusual? Why is that?

 

Like I said earlier, it was an anomaly.

 

Here is something that isn't an anomaly. 97-98% of world scientists agree that man is the cause of the climate change that we are currently experiencing. Again, that is 97 to 98 percent agreement. I can't think of anything else that has that much agreement among scientists since gravity. But you guys want to go with the 2-3% that don't agree and the Koch brothers. Hum? I can't challenge that kind in intransience with facts because facts have no place in your world. But keep diggin'.

 

Funny, but less than 10% of meteorologists say man is causing global warming. Humm???? I think I will believe the meteorologist.

 

I don't know where you get that from but you mean these guys?

 

Are you making fun of hard-working meteorologists? I hope it rains you.

 

My guess is that I got my info from about the same place you got your info.

 

You'd be wrong.

From a US Today article citing the National Academy of Sciences. Where is your proof? My guess is non-existent.

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

 

WOW!! 98% of those who support the ACC tenets agree;

Gee, I wonder why the other 2% were included in a group they did not support. And, I would be willing to bet that most are not even meteorologists. It is not even limited to scientists as you stated.

 

Global Warming/Climate Change happens all the time without our influence. Right now though, we are increasing the rate at which it happens. I'm not as concerned about it as most people are, despite my hatred for excessive heat (85 is my limit). I'm pretty sure the hotter climate will crest and reverse towards a cool climate eventually... probably through volcanic eruptions.

 

I was commenting in the context of Obama and Perry per your op. But apparently you'd rather not talk about Obama and Perry and science anymore. You've decided that it might be a good time to move on and talk about someone else and I can't really blame you.

 

We can talk about Obama and Perry if you want to. Or we can discuss Hank "Guam-Will-Tip-Over" Johnson, too. Or anyone else for that matter. It's an open forum and I don't mind if you hijack my thread.

 

I think you hijacked your thread.