Forgive me while I laugh
It would be absurd for me to try to read the whole 800 pages of Obama's recent climate "Report" but I thought I should at least dip into it. I went to the section "Recent U.S. Temperature Trends" and clicked the "supporting evidence" gadget. I found that the evidence was in the form of four workshops. I picked the workshop on heat waves with T.C. Peterson as lead author. The "workshop" was in the form of an academic journal article (“Monitoring and Understanding Changes in Heat Waves, Cold Waves, Floods and Droughts in the United States- State of Knowledge”) published by the American Meteorological Society in June 2013. So I went to the article, didn't I? Academic articles have no terrors for me. I have written plenty of them.
The article was a ball of fun. It started out admitting that the the data was so diverse that it was difficult to draw conclusions from it. So they had the workshop so that participants could discuss the data and come to a consensus. In other words the conclusions were an opinion about the data, not the data itself.
And under the heading HEAT WAVES AND COLD WAVES (Subsection "Observed changes"), the fun really began. We read for instance:
"For heat waves “the highest number of heat waves occurred in the 1930s, with the fewest in the 1960s. The 2001–10 decade was the second highest but well below the 1930s.”
Come again??? That is supposed to prove global warming? I could make a better case for it proving global cooling. You should read the whole thing. It's a riot (unintentionally). They conclude what they want to conclude and evidence be damned.
I am pleased, however, that the scientists were rather frank. The "Report" as a whole however is a heap of corruption. It's authors did not at all reflect the science in their own report -- JR