The president’s Inaugural Speech contained many references to climate change and how he plans to combat it.

Is that what he really wants to do for his country?

Has he, or you, read this?

• Forget global warming - it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

I didn’t think so. And I am sure the people driving the global warming alarmism train haven’t either. Or if they have, they don’t want you to.

Or how about these headlines:

• Latest Empirical Evidence: The Abysmal Prediction Failure Of Taxpayer Funded CO₂-Based Climate Models

• NASA Warns Earth May Be Entering a Period of “Global Cooling”

No, that did not make the mainstream headlines. Nor did the record Jan. 1 U.S. snow cover. Nor the record draw on natural gas for the week of the New Year because of the cold that had enveloped much of the nation. But if anything is a record (or portrayed as a record) the other way, you can bet it’s mainstream news.

Google “global cooling” sometime and see how much is out there about this potential problem. And yet we are served up a menu of global warming talk and what to do about a problem that is not there.

Mr. President, did anyone show you this chart comparing global temperatures and CO₂?

Or the horrid performance of the models versus reality?

These are facts that should make anyone say, “Wait a minute, this is very different from what I have been told.”

The sun, of course, is the ultimate driver of the whole system. That we simply ignore its ups and downs is arrogance or foolishness. There is no in-between answer on its long-term effects on the planet. Pretending that curbing the amount of a gas that comprises 1/400th of all greenhouse gasses (water vapor is the most prominent) and 395 ppm of the entire atmosphere (that would be like paying $395 on a million-dollar income) challenges common sense. The idea that CO₂ is absorbing enough radiation to then re-radiate it, warm the air and oceans, and change the climate is in even more trouble, for a sleeping sun means there is less incoming radiation. But think about how incredible is the idea that the absorption of radiation by 1/400th of the greenhouse gasses would then control the entire vast climate system. It is a reach well beyond reason. And the facts prove it – CO₂ is going up and the temperatures are not.

But I don’t think the sun is yet a factor, though I am becoming very concerned it soon will be, and the talk of us returning to the temperatures of the Victorian era are not that far-fetched. For my part, simple oceanic climate cycle theory explains perfectly what is going on. The Pacific started its warm cycle at the start of the satellite era in the late 1970s. The earth was colder because the Atlantic and Pacific had been cold. The Atlantic started its warm cycle in the mid-90s. The Pacific flipped into its cool cycle again in 2007. The Atlantic will do so around 2020. The warming that was observed is perfectly consistent with the addition of heat by the warming of the Pacific and the Atlantic. Once the increase in heat from the oceans (which have 1,000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere) was absorbed by the atmosphere, the temperatures leveled off. The recent cooling is because the Pacific has flipped into its cool cycle, and once the Atlantic does, this should return air temperatures to where they were in the late 1970s. This is not rocket science – it is a longstanding theory that is ignored today, and with good reason. If correct, it is a huge threat politically, economically and academically to positions that evolved as the warming started taking place!

Quite frankly, the CO₂ theory of global warming is akin to turning on a hot shower in your bathroom, then claiming what warmed the bathroom was you turning on the light. There is a test in front of us, since we are turning off the hot shower (oceanic warm cycles), and yet the light (CO₂) is still on. So, the forecast from me, which was first issued publicly in 2007, is that we will return to the temperatures of the late 1970s by 2030. The sun is another, and perhaps bigger, problem. A colder planet would lead to untold misery given the current policies geared toward the opposite.

What would I say to the president? “You have been compared to Lincoln and Kennedy, among others. Lincoln had a team of rivals. The only rivalry in your administration on climate change is how to implement draconian ideas, not whether they truly have merit. As for John Kennedy, as a confessed ex-democrat and John Kennedy fan, I am taking to heart the second part of his famous challenge: ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.’”

What can I do for my country? Fight against a fool’s errand that has no value in advancing the high ideals and standards this nation represents. That is what the climate fight is really about. The question for the president in this matter is this: Will you allow true rivals to open your eyes to the mountains of evidence against climate change? It’s only then that he will be able to answer the question: What can you do for YOUR country?

Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.