Obama, Global Warming and The Great Flood

Could there be an entry in the White House speech-writing stylebook that reads, "A paragraph anchored by an inference to "Global Warming" can state anything and still be credible with our political base"?

For instance, take Barak Obama's comments last Monday on the Red River flooding.  The president said: 

"If you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?'"

Put aside the fact that at the "consensus" rate of warming (.13 degrees per decade), it will take 150 years to turn the global toaster up two more degrees,  and ask what would be the affect of a warmer climate on Red River flooding?

To understand, one has to actually know something about the Great White North. Up there, rivers flow toward the Arctic, which means the snow melts and ice breaks up from south to north.

Think about it.

As rivers open in the spring, waters build in the south and push a dam of ice all the way to the Arctic. It is very dramatic.

The colder the winter, the bigger the ice dam and the more it snows, the more water....

You get the picture.

The Red River Valley is no exception. This winter, contrary to warming predictions, the temperatures in the valley dropped well below zero for weeks on end which caused exceptionally heavy ice to form on the river - then a couple of blizzards swept in from Canada.

I think we can all get the picture on that too.

Now think about the effect of a drier and warmer climate on the region (hint: less water, less ice).

But then what did Obama not say?

The guy is a class act. While people are being flooded out of their homes, he would never ask aloud what needs to be asked, like "Why do we continue to defy common sense by building houses on a flood plain?" or "Why wasn't a flow channel built around Fargo like the one down-river in Winnipeg?"

Instead he strokes his political base with global warming piety, none of which is anchored in fact or science.

The truth is, global warming predictions rest not on science but on the same kind of computer models whose reliance on corrupt data and faulty assumptions brought the global financial system crashing down on our 401K's.

The really scary thing is - the financial models were built by smarter people who had cleaner data and better assumptions than the folks who built our climate models.

After spending over a trillion to fix a problems caused in large part by computer models, you would think this administration might develop a little healthy skepticism.