Obama begins his somewhat off-the-rails comments at around 29:00 in, proclaiming: "...the reason we don't [invest in climate change policies] is because we are still confused, blind, shrouded with hate, anger, racism - mommy issues..."
“I mean, we — we are we are fraught with stuff,” he continued, “And — and so if that’s the case then the single most important thing that we have to invest in is not all — and look I’m a huge supporter of science and technological research and social science and, you know, evidence-based learning and all that good stuff.
Lomborg: "The Paris agreement, by its own organizers, the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) -- the guys that did the Paris agreement -- they estimate that the total impact, if everybody does what they promise to 2030 -- will cut 1% of what it will take us to get to 2 degrees C (temperature goal). So fundamentally, it will leave 99% of the problem still there. And the cost will be in the order of 1 to 2 trillion dollars a year. So it is a very costly treaty to do very little..."
Michaels: 'Do you really expect scientists who have been paid for decades to study the effects of warming and to create models that by the way have too much warming, do you expect them to testify in front of Congress when asked do we need more research? They would say no, it's really a non-problem? They'd get thrown out of their jobs if they did that.'
'Surface temperature of the planet is warmer than it was a hundred years ago about 9/10th of a degree Celsius...It's not a lot. There are two periods of warning, one in the early 20th Century that could not have been caused by human beings because we hadn't put enough CO2 in the air, and one in the later part of the 20th Century that either slows down or ends depending upon whose data you use somewhere in the late 1990s, only to resume with the big El Nino that covered the news the last couple of years.'
'So the theory is right, but the application of it is wrong. It is nowhere near as warm as it's supposed to be.'
'There are 32 families of computer models that are used by the United Nations, each government sponsored. And all of them are predicting far, far too much warming.'
'In "Science" magazine in late 2016, and there was a paper that was published by a French climate modeler called "The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning," and in it, he speaks of parameterizing -- we could say fudging -- the models to give, his words, an anticipated acceptable range of results.'
'The models systematically predict that as you go up in the atmosphere in the tropics which are 40% of the earth that the temperature should rise dramatically as you go further up in the atmosphere. So when you get to the level of the jet stream, the computer models are predicting seven times. I didn't say seven-tenths of a degree, I said seven times more warming than is being observed.'
'It's a fantastic systematic error, and again, that along with the difference between the surface temperatures or rather the lower atmospheric temperatures and what's being observed, that's sufficient to kill the endangerment finding.'
Fracking, that's right. And so we're substituting natural gas which is cheaper for coal for electrical generation, and that produces about half as much CO2 per unit electricity as a coal plant does, and so our emissions are going down,
18-year old climate activist Xiuhtezcatl Martinez on the reason for federal climate lawsuit: "Our constitutional rights to life, liberty and property are being violated because of our government's inability to act" on climate change.
Claim: "When the climate science is brought into the courtroom it will result in the judge finding that the government is committing constitutional violations,” a lawyer said.