Well who doesn’t? Trouble is there just isn’t a good track record so far. And a GHG accounting system? Oh, that’s gonna hurt.
Date: July 22, 2010 202-334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>
RELIABLE INFORMATION AND BETTER COMMUNICATION NEEDED TO GUIDE U.S. RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
WASHINGTON — A comprehensive national response to climate change should be informed by reliable data coordinated through climate services and a greenhouse gas monitoring and management system to provide timely information tailored to decision makers at all levels, says a report by the National Research Council. The report recommends several mechanisms for improving communication about climate science and responses and calls for a systematic framework for making and evaluating decisions about how to effectively manage the risks posed by climate change.
“Global climate change is a long-term challenge that will require all of us to make many decisions about how to respond,” said Diana Liverman, co-chair of the panel that wrote the report, co-director of the Institute of Environment at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and a senior research fellow at Oxford University. “To make choices that are based on the best available science, government agencies, the private sector, and individuals need clear, accessible information about what is happening to the climate and to emissions. We also need information on the implications of different options — especially to assess whether policies are effective.”
The federal government needs to establish information and reporting systems — such as climate services and a greenhouse-gas accounting system –that provide a range of information on climate change and variability, observed changes and causes, potential impacts, and strategies for limiting emissions or adapting to impacts. Although the report does not specify a particular agency to lead federal efforts, it emphasizes the importance of coordination across the federal government and with state, local and private sector decision makers. Leadership might come through executive orders, existing units such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy, an expanded U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program, or new entities, the report suggests.
The new national system for providing climate services should inform decision makers and assist them in managing climate-related risks, the report says. It would coordinate data among several agencies and incorporate regional expertise. Information should be timely, authoritative, and based on rigorous natural and social science research and tailored to government- and private-sector users at the national, regional, and local levels, the report says. For example, agricultural producers trying to decide which crops to grow need timely seasonal forecasts, data on likely outbreaks of diseases or pests, and advice about long-term strategies for adapting to climate impacts; and forest and park managers need information to control fires and plan for longer-term ecosystem management.
The report identifies several key functions that should be included in climate services, such as enhanced observations and vulnerability analyses on a regional scale, sustained interaction with stakeholders and research to understand their needs, an international information component that provides data on global climate observations and impacts, and a central accessible web portal that encourages sharing of information. These functions might be overlooked if the services are based only on existing federal capabilities, the report says.
The proposed comprehensive greenhouse gas management system for monitoring, reporting, and verifying emissions should include a unified accounting protocol and a registry to track emissions at a detailed level. Monitoring is essential for developing effective emissions policies and verifying claims that emissions have been reduced, the report says. Such a system could build on the existing expertise of agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy.
These systems should also be designed to evaluate and assess state and local government and private-sector responses, many of which already are occurring. For example, more than half of Americans live in states, counties, and cities that have enacted a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and many private companies are taking significant steps to reduce their carbon footprints. Federal policies should not unnecessarily supersede measures already being taken regionally or locally, the report says.
To effectively manage the serious risks posed by climate change, decision makers need to account for many uncertainties about the severity of impacts and options for responding to them and be able to modify their choices based on new information and experience. Therefore, decision makers in the public and private sectors need to implement an iterative risk management strategy that adapts to new information, conditions, or technologies that could affect climate change policies, the report says. To that end, the government could also review and revise programs such as federal crop and flood insurance in the light of the risks of climate change. The study panel endorsed steps already taken by federal financial and insurance regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission to require disclosure requirements for climate change risks.
Although public beliefs and attitudes about climate often shift from year to year, recent opinion polls indicate that many Americans are concerned about climate change and want more information about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions, the report says. It identifies several barriers to communication about climate change and recommends some strategies for overcoming them, such as urging federal agencies to support training for researchers on how to communicate complex climate change information and uncertainties to different audiences. In addition, a national task force of educators, government leaders, policymakers, and business executives should be established to improve climate change communication and education.
Consumers can play an important role in responding to climate change by choosing to reduce their energy use and selecting more energy-efficient products with lower emissions. The federal government should review and promote credible product standards and labels for consumers that provide information about energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions, the report says. The government should also consider establishing an advisory service on these issues targeted at the public and small businesses.
The report is part of a congressionally requested suite of studies known as America’s Climate Choices, which also includes three other recently released reports. An overarching report to be released later this year will build on all four reports and other materials to offer a scientific framework for shaping the policy choices underlying the nation’s efforts to confront climate change. For more information, visit http://americasclimatechoices.org.
The project was requested by Congress and is funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter. Committee and panel members, who serve pro bono, are chosen by for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Research Council’s conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Copies of Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).
# # #
source: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12784
Fantasy and hubris — a deadly combination.
The project was requested by Congress and is funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Let’s get this straight once and for all time: IT IS FUNDED BY U.S. TAX PAYERS!!
Milwaukee Bob says:
July 23, 2010 at 3:00 pm
I agree with Bob here. How can you talk about better communication, when you can’t even communicate who is paying for the charade?
…..to climate change should be informed by reliable data…..
What? If we do NOT have reliable data – how do we KNOW there IS climate change?
Oh, that’s right. We run it through a computer and that turns it into (pay no attention to that man behind the curtain) “reliable” data – – – then what do we need a….
oh, never mind. it’s just another few billion dollars….
This may surprise some, but combined with the recent D of E decision on CRU funding, this actually looks like a desire for reality in data sets and a certain amount of due diligence on part of the Govt. science establishment. Now that the biggest money factor (cap-and-trade) is removed, maybe science can proceed. Under optimal (realistic) conditions, the old figure-heads will maintain position, but lose influence. But it’s the thought that counts….
I guess that this is Global Warming’s united front. This will be the official government position on the issue. All data will be pre-screened to present the governments position. No dissension allowed!
Bruce says:
July 23, 2010 at 3:17 pm
But Bruce;
We know Hansen is working for the government.
We know CRU is working for the government.
We know what they’ve been up to the last 10-20 years……
Are you saying the government wants something else now? Why?
the problem shows up when activists decide what hte reliable data is as opposed to something silly like oh, reading the thermometers
Adapt, adapt, adapt.
There is only 1 thing to do: adapt.
Roll with it.
Do not stand in front of a moving mountain of climate. It will win.
“Global climate change is a long-term challenge that will require all of us to make many decisions about how to respond,” said Diana Liverman, co-chair of the panel that wrote the report, co-director of the Institute of Environment at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and a senior research fellow at Oxford University. “To make choices that are based on the best available science, government agencies, the private sector, and individuals need clear, accessible information about what is happening to the climate and to emissions. We also need information on the implications of different options — especially to assess whether policies are effective.”
It seems to me that they have already made up their minds that climate change is driven by co2 emissions and that the solution is to MANAGE emissions– never mind that NOBODY knows what drives major changes in climate or what the long term effect of any policies they adopt might be. They can barely forecast the weather one week ahead. Such hubris! One thing is sure it will cost plenty and probably bankrupt the economies of any country trying to manage the climate. Good Luck.
Here’s a champion of “communication”.
She’s now the head of NOAA.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5350/491
Science 23 January 1998:
Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science
Jane Lubchenco
[excerpts]
I propose that the scientific community formulate a new Social Contract for science.
This Contract should express a commitment to harness the full power of the scientific enterprise in discovering new knowledge, in communicating existing and new understanding to the public and to policy-makers, and in helping society move toward a more sustainable biosphere.
A sustainable biosphere is one that is ecologically sound, economically feasible, and socially just.
The Contract should also be a strong call for the investigation of complex, interdisciplinary problems that span multiple spatial and temporal scales; to encourage interagency and international cooperation on societal problems; and to construct more effective bridges between policy, management, and science, as well as between the public and private sectors.
The new Contract should extend well beyond research and training activities.
Some of the most pressing needs include communicating the certainties and uncertainties and seriousness of different environmental or social problems, providing alternatives to address them, and educating citizens about the issues.
In parallel to initiating new research, strong efforts should be launched to better communicate scientific information already in hand.
Clearly, the interfaces between the environment, human health, the economy, social justice, and national security are ripe for developing and entraining into the policy arena.
In view of the overarching importance of environmental issues for the future of the human race, all graduates from institutions of higher learning should be environmentally literate.
Powerful tools in communicating knowledge to inform policy and management decisions are scientific assessments from credible groups of scientists. Assessments such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Ozone Assessment, and the Global Biodiversity Assessment have provided excellent guidance to policy-makers, especially when they summarize certainties and uncertainties and specify the likely outcomes of different options.
It is time for the scientific community to take responsibility for the contributions required to address the environmental and social problems before us, problems that, with the best intentions in the world, we have nonetheless helped to create. It is time for a reexamination of the agendas and definitions of the “grand problems” in various scientific disciplines.
We can no longer afford to have the environment be accorded marginal status on our agendas. The environment is not a marginal issue, it is the issue of the future, and the future is here now. On behalf of the Board of AAAS, I invite you to participate vigorously in exploring the relationship between science and society and in considering a new Social Contract for Science as we enter the Century of the Environment.
“We also need information on the implications of different options — especially to assess whether policies are effective.”
So what are the odds that “doing nothing” is on the list of options? My guess is somewhere between zero and absolute zero.
“support training for researchers on how to communicate complex climate change information and uncertainties to different audiences”
Obama can teach that class. Won’t be one word of truth in it, but that’s not the point anyway.
Watch out! The Calamitologists still rule. The non-elected administrators will put in all the infrastructure needed by Cap & Trade, then Congress will pass that in the lame-duck session in November-December.
I trust these people as far as I can throw a wet mattress up an elevator shaft.
“Although public beliefs and attitudes about climate often shift from year to year, recent opinion polls indicate that many Americans are concerned about climate change and want more information about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions, the report says.”
==============
Yes, they want transparency.
The current Administration ran on a platform of transparency.
I don’t think this Administrations definition of “transparency”, means what they think it means.
Sounds like a new EPA.
If Anthropogenic Global Warming is what they are concerned about, then that is what they should declare their efforts to be geared toward.
“Climate Change” means anything to anyone, and is a coward’s way out of responsibility for what they are doing.
“Global climate change is a long-term challenge that will require all of us to make many decisions about how to respond,”
No it isn’t.
It’s a lucrative (for some) make work scheme. In reality, it can be ignored.
That’s not to say it should not be the subject of erudite study, of course. But enough with the end of the world is nigh scenarios. No more ‘might’, ‘could’, ‘may’ press releases.
“.. greenhouse gas monitoring and management system..”
You see, it is not that the forcasted effect of CO2 was in error, the fact is that we have been overstating the amount of CO2 since January. Since the level of CO2 has actually dropped by 26% it would of course be expected that the global temperature anomoly would drop by 26% from 0.6 C to 0.44 C.
The science is setteled, it is just that we need better greenhouse gas monitoring. NASA has recommended that they be sited here in my office so I can watch them carefully and make sure the results are correct.
The new and improved results of the global CO2 levels will be published along with the global temperature anomoly numbers on a monthly basis.
/sarc
“…framework for making and evaluating decisions about how to effectively manage the risks posed by climate change.”
What ‘risks’ are they talking about? Do they mean theories of ‘may,’ ‘possibly,’ ‘could,’ might,’ etc?
Without a definition of ‘climate change’ what value does and of this have?
These people are weaker than truck-stop coffee.
There are plenty raw data that is available to the public. It is the subjectively analyzed and changed data sets that is the communications problem. Setting up another subjective communcations clearing house will only make it worse.
Pay your carbon tax here, extra extra pay more taxes we will decide how much based on Hansen’s manned thermometers. Data set, very transparent so transparent in fact you cannot see the adjustments only how much your new tax is. Corollary when did you stop abusing your carbon footprint and by how much so we can recalculate your new tax. Think of the children!
Boy are they in for a shock!
Has the Met Office last winter not taught these people any lessons. People in the UK prepared for a warmer than normal winter instead they got the worst winter in over 30 year, grit ran out in many countys and there were tens of thousands of exess winter deaths.
When the forces of Green has wrought thier devastation on Western economies, and production & commerce have ground to a halt, that is when the forces aligned against the West will stike. While the Iron is Green. Green Light…Go.
The Green thinks it will bring peace and utopia. It will bring war out of self-imposed impoverishment.
The world is not a nice place, and it hasn’t gotten there yet.
Has the Met Office last winter not taught these people any lessons[?]
Two good outlines on the new tactics to take in steering the propaganda stream into the latest opinion poll results, it looks like a call to arms for the warmistas, circle the wagons this is the latest rendition of the Environmental bible of Carbon social management programs.
Require all graduating collage students to have drank the kool aid, regulate the agricultural sectors to death, stop people from becoming independent off the grid, and write regulations coming out their B*TT, faster than they can be understood.
“The proposed comprehensive greenhouse gas management system for monitoring, reporting, and verifying emissions should include a unified accounting protocol and a registry to track emissions at a detailed level.”
Yikes – “…Detailed Levels…”! I was ‘procto-scoped’ a couple of years back and given the full detailed level emissions system inspection. Will my Procto-doctor have to report their findings to this new Central Scrutinizer system? Lord Almighty – Will I have to install a cataclysmic converter?!!!! I know beans are good for me…but I’m swearing them off and stocking up on BEANO!!! I don’t EVER want to know what a ‘Unified Accounting Proctocol’ is………… };>)
On a more genuine note, it’s time to head for a ‘cool one’ and contemplate the little critters along the shoreline. Here’s some appropriate music and an excellent video, to end the official work week and (hopefully) put a grin of joy on your face… Enjoy!
Time For A Cool Change – Little River Band
This reporting scheme will require extensive filing of expensive reports by business. Large business will be happy to comply because they can spread the costs over more units so this will be another advantage over their smaller competitors. Imported goods will gain another cost advantage. As business and revenue to the government declines, the government will have all the reporting requirements in place for a new CO2 tax to maintain the bureaucrats lifestyle and to buy votes from the soon to be unemployed.
Funny. The term “raw data” never appears in the release.
Regarding the article: Lots of intellectual flatulence, but not a word of substance.
WHERE is the science which incontrovertibly PROVES so-called man-made GLOBAL warming?
Richard Holle says:
July 23, 2010 at 4:43 pm
[–snip for brevity–]… and write regulations coming out their B*TT, faster than they can be understood.
You mean like this:
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it…
.
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
.
“Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.
.
“Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
.
Excerpted from ‘Atlas Shrugged’ 1957
.
By Ayn Rand
Following her confirmation to head NOAA and to serve as Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Lubchenco declared that science would guide the agency and that she expects it to play a role in developing a green economy.[2]
EXECUTIVE PROFILE
Jane Lubchenco Ph.D.
Vice Chairman of Trustee Board, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
She wouldn’t bias would she?
“a greenhouse-gas accounting system”
So, they will assess the influence of water vapor (being the principle GHG) and the fact that we breathe out and transpire water vapor……oh well, perhaps my great-grandchildren will be safe and free….perhaps.
BS. An attempt to project more fallacious, altered data as fact. They no more want the truth than a criminal wants to see the video of his crime that he never knew about at his trial.
We have heard this line of thought a lot recently – climate scientists bemoaning about how poor their communication skills have been.
What they really mean is “if we only communicated this better, everyone would agree with us about the global warming”. What they also mean is “if we only communicated this better, only dumb people would not able to understand how serious global warming is”.
There might be one or two people on the planet who have not heard the tome of global warming so the problem is not “communication”, it is not providing enough factual evidence to back up the tome.
Just gotta love this all-and-zero set encompassing meaningless platitudes.
We want better data. Why? Are you admitting that what you’ve served up so far is questionable? If so, that’s admirably honest but, please, don’t offer up my current admiration as condoning your previous statements.
Do not swear that the mistakes of the past are somehow vindicated by your aspirations, despite clear evidence to the contrary, that the science is unassailable!
At best the Science is questionable, at worst given the abracadabra of acclamation is unquestionable. Unquestionable has been, and may still be, the trickiest barrier to hurdle.
If you don’t question then how are you qualified to answer?
More on Jane Lubchenco
Wastingto Post
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 21, 2009
‘Lubchenco (pronounced LOOB-chin-ko) takes the helm of NOAA at a time when the agency is poised to play a more prominent role as the Obama administration tackles the issue of climate change. The agency’s fiscal 2009 budget stands at nearly $4.4 billion, but under this month’s stimulus allocation, NOAA will receive a nearly 20 percent boost….’
‘In recent years, Lubchenco — who has conducted scientific studies of how global warming has affected the ocean — has made it clear that she sees climate change as a problem and thinks the federal government should do more to curb human-generated greenhouse gases. In October, she questioned the past administration’s approach to the issue, telling the Associated Press, “The Bush administration has not been respectful of the science. But I think that’s not true of Republicans in general. I know it’s not.” ‘
treehugger. com
Jul 10, 2009
Ocean Acidification is Global Warming’s Evil Twin
Lubchenco went out to talk about what she describes as global warming’s “equally evil twin”, ocean acidification. Saying that she thinks for many people the oceans remain “out of sight, out mind” and that that in general many people don’t fully appreciate the importance of oceans in the context of the whole climate system, Lubchenco stressed that increasing ocean acidity is a very genuine threat to much of the life in the oceans. “We’ve only begun to scratch the surface in terms of really understanding the full range of the impacts of ocean acidification,” she added.
You don’t need to wait for the government to protect you because i am introducing a new product onto the markey. Its called the “PPPIP”
The precautionary principle property insurance policy.
Here’s how it works. Suppose that your house is worth £250000. I will provide you with a PPPIP which will cover your property for as long as you own it.
The annual premium will only be 25% of the value and should the value of your property go down. then that reduction will be reflected in the premium. Pretty damn good EH.
Sounds expensive, “I dont think so” we are 95% certain that something bad is going to happen and if (and it could) happen in the next couple of years, you will be quids in.
Any takers
I didn’t think so
But the thing appears on the surface to mean they are going to use CO2 as a proxy for global warming.
Adder:
And what will the policies be aimed at? Temperature reduction? (not possible directly…)
No. She is talking about
That means that directions chosen will
And what does that mean? NASA-GISS and NOAA. Assessing
will be based on the word of the same people who have led them all into the CO2=AGW Chicken Little fantasy world.
CO2 to them is a proxy for AGW. THAT is what policy will be targeting.
GISS’ and NOAA’s fantasy* that the winter of our (and Europe’s and South America’s and Australia’s) discontent is the warmest year ever means they have been massaging the data the same way as before, so with numbers like those to alarm the policymakers, CO2 will stay as Public Enemy #1.
* I swear that when they re-calibrated the UAH process some time ago, they talked Spencer and Christy into over-adjusting the satellite raw numbers, since the satellites used to trail far behind the curve and now are the highest warming indicators as often as not. so now there is NO set of numbers that can be argued. When record cold winters on four continents mean nothing, none of their data – as processed – isn’t worth a thin dime. They took the one sane dataset away from us. I think Spenser and Christy were had. I could be wrong, but that is where I am putting my money.
Jane Lubchenco: Why did you sell your soul?
Frightening flow of garbage verbiage here… superstition, in the root meaning of the word… all built on serially, terminally flawed science. The communication we need is about the basics, raw data, checkable methods, the basic skeptics’ issues, the basics of Scientific Method missing, with a courteous reopening of communication with sceptics.
Funny thing about the warmist track record of communication, I keep on hearing them accusing the skeptics of the very sins of which they are, overall, guilty and of which the skeptics are, overall, NOT guilty, or only guilty in tiny amount by comparison. Like taking money from Exxon. Like unfair representation in the media. Like being unscientific non-experts not knowing what they are talking about.
Fred Haynie, you’ve done a tour de force of analysing carbon dioxide records. I hope Anthony elevates it to its own thread here some time. It deserves recognition IMO, as much as John Costella deserved it.
So, the authors of this….. op-ed, feel “we” (the great unwashed masses) are not doing enough to forestall the inevitable climate catastrophy. Yet, are willing to lead us to our salvation.
Considering the fact that CO2, was never mentioned in said op-ed (although “greenhouse gasses” were not forgotten), what is the basis for any of the suggestions contained in said op-ed.
If NAS wants reliable data, it will have to implement the surfacestation.org fix, and subtract the UHI from the raw data.
Otherwise, with the current state of measurement degradation, “How’s the weather” will have to do.
NOAA, GISS, CRU and HAD are either lost or sliding down a hole.
Who will get whacked by bitter cold come December in the N. Hemisphere?
Who will get buried in snow?
Reasoning with the Warmist Agenda is counter-productive.
We need forecasts that help people prepare, one winter at a time.
old construction worker says:
Your very funny!!!
Whata hoot!!!
…well… communicating with photoshopped pics of flooded houses didn’t work… I guess they have to try something
… not to mention, based on what I’m reading over at ClimateAudit, the message from the Scientists to the Tax-payer is “SCREW YOU!”
The same old climate fraudsters would be pulling the strings here, the same old manipulated/mangled/tortured/ arbitrarily changed would be used. BS is BS, no matter how it is packaged.
The only difference would be some extra layers of bureaucracy – such is the way of governments everywhere.
Re: Milwaukee Bob says:
July 23, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Let’s wait for the tender, and put our own bid in. I’m sure collectively we have the skill and knowledge to DBO a reliable data and metadata repository. Challenge may be to get the climate scientists to define schema for the metadata, because the raw data should be sacrosanct. I’m sure we could do it for less than a billion, and still have money left over to throw some really good parti.. I mean stakeholder & outreach meetings.
Ross McKitrick published the solution years ago. First measure the temperature, then later impose the tax (or refund) in proportion to the temperature change.
But, if you impose a tax, how do you guarantee that the recipients spend it in ways that reduce GHG? Name me a way, other than nuclear electricity (or hydro when sites are appropriate), and I’ll not be so sarcastic.
Lucy Skywalker says:
July 23, 2010 at 7:19 pm
AND Anthony
This is the best paper on atmospheric CO² I have ever read. It is short on detail in part but that does not detract from the logical progression within the paper. It is how all climate papers with public access should read and while the idiots over at RC spend infinite time on discussions of how to communicate and at what level, this guy just does it.
Lets have a thread please ANTHONY. Please, Please.
Kwik, Because the “Govt.”, like academia, is not a uniform mass, there are some good apples, and unfortuntely, too many bad. Maybe, just maybe, the good apples are getting the upper hand. Yes, CRU is (was) working for D of E, perhaps also the source of the Climategate emails also works there still too. You know of course of cases of EPA and NASA scientists (sometimes contractors) being fired for holding contra-AGW views. I bet for every such case there are 100 just trying to hold onto jobs. Just a guess.
Lucy Skywalker: July 23, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Funny thing about the warmist track record of communication, I keep on hearing them accusing the skeptics of the very sins of which they are, overall, guilty and of which the skeptics are, overall, NOT guilty, or only guilty in tiny amount by comparison. Like taking money from Exxon. Like unfair representation in the media. Like being unscientific non-experts not knowing what they are talking about.
Leftists only have two techniques in debate:
1. Lie
2. Tell the other side to shut up.
Here’s all you need to know about the Earth’s climate:
1.) It goes through all sorts of natural cycles.
2.) Humans have no effect whatsoever on these natural cycles, or the climate itself.
3.) No amount of talking will convince me otherwise, only solid proof will suffice.
I can save these dudes a ton of money:
1) Gather accurate data on temperatures and CO2 for 30 years
2) Evaluate the data in 2040
3) Make decisions
In today’s Orwellian world, if you hear the gov talking about “better communication”, it always means “more effective and devious propaganda”.
When conclusions are based on scant inputs, results are wrong.
Example #1: The IPCC’s mission is to quntify the effects of anthropogenic global warming. So, when natural inputs are ignored (which account for more than 95% of the input), why would you expect the answers to be correct?
Example #2: When the NAS looks only to GHG as an input to quantifying climate change, and ignores the titanic effects of the Sun, Moon, Earth, planetary mechanics and their miriad interactions (which are responsible for ALL climate cycles), why would you expect the answers to be correct?
RoyFOMR says:
July 23, 2010 at 5:50 pm
“Just gotta love this all-and-zero set encompassing meaningless platitudes.
We want better data. Why? Are you admitting that what you’ve served up so far is questionable? If so, that’s admirably honest but, please, don’t offer up my current admiration as condoning your previous statements.
Do not swear that the mistakes of the past are somehow vindicated by your aspirations,“ […]
RoyFOMR, that is the BEST 15-word-string I’ve seen in quite some time. And it applies generally; that’s how politicians manage to get reelected the world over.
When will voters learn?
2010: “To make choices that are based on the best available science, government agencies, the private sector, and individuals need clear, accessible information about what is happening to the climate and to emissions. We also need information on the implications of different options — especially to assess whether policies are effective.”
====
This is the concrete implementation of the grand Leninist conspiracy begun by Margaret Mead and the late [snip] Stephen Schneider in 1975. Here’s part of their original proposal:
“Whether they be citizens of a free enterprise state, a socialist state, a dictatorship or a hereditary monarchy, they need inforation to make decisions, either for an intelligent choice among alternatives or for guidance in carrying out decrees by their ruling group. Even in the most arbitrary and authoritarian forms of government, a comprehension on the part of the leadership and an understanding on the part of the people are both essential. Unless the peoples of the world can begin to understand the immense and long-term consequences of what appear to be small immediate choices – to drill a well, open a road, build a large airplane, make a nuclear test, install a liquid fast breeder reactor, release chemicals which diffuse through the atmosphere, or discharge waste in concentrated amounts into the sea – the whole planet may become endangered.”
=====
Same language.
At that time, of course, they hadn’t yet invented the Warming Goblin; they were still looking for a natural phenomenon that could serve to scare the Unwashed Masses into “needing” a total dictatorship.
[reply] The man is not yet laid to rest. Have some sense of decorum please, for the sake of his family. RT-mod
Jane Lubchenco ; Is your Phd in “NewSpeak” ? Looks like it.
Having failed to improve the signal, Mr. Watts could still render a commendable public service by recusing himself from the debate, thus reducing the noise.
Re reliable data: Intelliweather maps on the WUWT sidebar need to do something about their color coding. I have pointed this out on several occasions. Note today, 76F is cool blue in Seattle but 66F in Los Angeles is warm yellow.
Here is a level-headed analysis of what we’re facing.
Prof Richared Lindzen puts it all in perspective:
MEMO
TO: The NATIONAL ACADEMIES
FROM: Joe The Plumber & Co., EDITOR IN CHIEF, PUBLISHER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, etc.
REF: Date: July 22, 2010 202-334-2138; e-mail ; RELIABLE INFORMATION AND BETTER COMMUNICATION…
You write –
WASHINGTON — “A comprehensive national response to climate change should be informed by reliable data… etc., etc.”
____________________________
See my corrections and comments –
WASHINGTON — “A national response to climate”… (Delete all that follows ‘climate’. Your paper and proposals get a Big Fat ZERO!!! WHY do we need a National response to ‘climate’? Don’t we already have a bunch of these? Everything that follows ‘climate’ is redundent, superficial, stupid!!!!!!!!!!!! You’re an idiot! We already have enough departments, agencies, and fools doing the very thing you’re proposing!!!!!!!!!– Pack you bags and get out of here. NOW!!!!)
JTP&Co
_____________________________
[snip – flamebait ~mod]