I laughed when I got this press release last night:
CatoScience.txt – Fake ‘addendum by conservative group tries to undo federal climate report
A soon-to-be-released Cato Institute report, posing as an “addendum” to a 2009 federal summary of climate change impacts, discounts the science in the original. Cato calls it “a user’s manual” for reversing the EPA’s health finding on carbon dioxide. Scientists call it a fraud. 1060 words. By Douglas Fischer
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/10/cato-climate-science-report
Douglas Fischer is editor of DailyClimate.org, an independent, foundation-funded news service covering climate change.
Douglas Fischer
Editor
Daily Climate
My first thought was: “Is this all you’ve got?” It get’s even sillier when you read what they are complaining about. Gosh, they used a graphic of The United States on a report about The United States. The horror!
From TDC:
============================================================
A soon-to-be-released Cato Institute report, posing as an ‘addendum’ to a 2009 federal summary of climate change impacts, discounts the science in the original.
Cato calls it ‘a user’s manual’ for reversing the EPA’s endangerment finding on carbon dioxide.
By Douglas Fischer
The Daily Climate
A new “addendum” to be released as soon as this week purports to update with the latest science a 2009 federal assessment on the impacts to the United States of climate change.
The addendum matches the layout and design of the original, published by the U.S. Global Change Research Program: Cover art, “key message” sections, table of contents are all virtually identical, down to the chapter heads, fonts and footnotes.
But the new report comes from the conservative Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute. And its findings – that science is questionable, the impacts negligible and the potential policy solutions ineffective – are more a rebuke than a revision of the original report and of accepted science both then and today.
It’s not an addendum. It’s a counterfeit.
– John Abraham, University of Saint Thomas
“It’s not an addendum. It’s a counterfeit,” said John Abraham, an associate professor at the University of Saint Thomas in Minnesota who studies clean power sources. “It’s a continued effort to kick the can down the road: A steady drip, drip, drip of fake reports by false scientists to create a false sense of debate.”
===============================================================
Heh. “Counterfeit. False sense of debate.” That’s all you’ve got? No comments as to the substance? Note the fine print at the bottom of the TDC article:
The Cato Institute expects to release its report, Addendum: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, as early as this week. A draft version can be downloaded from its website [pdf].
So the whole objection is over the similarity of the cover and pages in a draft report, and they apparently can’t refute the contents, so resort to poisoning the well by calling the report “fraudulent” and “counterfeit” without actually addressing any of the contents. They apparently can’t refute it so they go directly to smear. Maybe Pat Michaels can hire Mike Mann’s tobacco lawyer for a defamation lawsuit, he’ll probably have a better case than Mikey has with Mark Steyn.
Meanwhile the collection of small animals and wannabe superheros (Stoat, Rabett, Supermandia) are all over this as if their comic opinions make any difference.
You can read the whole thing at this address: http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/10/cato-climate-science-report
Hmm, I’m not sure about this one. The two do look remarkably similar: a passing glance at the cover and you’d easily mistake one for the other; that’s unlikely to be a mistake.
However, it’s not good enough if that is all they can say – especially if people think that’s enough to refute the contents. Let’s see if anyone does go on discuss the content. This is only one article, after all.
I helped fund the CATO report. When one reads the original report it is easy to see why an addendum was called for.
You can’t issue an addendum to someone else’s report. Making it look like it’s their addendum is mischievous at best; dishonest at worst.
From their “Program Overview” page…
“The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. The USGCRP began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606), which called for “a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.”
I’m still waiting for them to start study natural processes, instead of denying them.
My advice to CATO….
Change the cover art and drop the word “Addendum” from the title before releasing the final report.
By giving the critics trivialities to attack, you allow them to divert attention from the content of the report.
Call it what it really is … a correction. Addendum makes it look like something got left out of the original and this fixes it.
Oh, wait….
Never mind.
Douglas Fischer can’t even get his description of the organization putting out the report he is criticizing right.
The CATO institute is a LIBERTARIAN think tank.
While imitation might be sincere flattery, insincere imitation might be regarded as a form of tweaking. This looks like a tweak to me.
Once you understand cover is deliberately misleading why would you expect the contents to honest?
The mischief of the word Addendum gets some required attention. The warmists lack of substance in addressing the content exposes the warmists duplicity to anyone with analytic ability.
Reverse the writers. If the Cato Institute had issued the original, do you really think anyone would question the Global research group writing an addendum? Of course not. The covers are very similar, but objecting to the covers indicates the Global group does not think it’s followers can actually read. The Addendum is clearly marked as coming from a different group. I don’t see a problem unless your audience can only “read” pictures and not content. (Also, if I remember correctly, titles in books, etc cannot be copyrighted. Duplicate titles and even similar pictures abound in literature. The Global group is not being picked on, but is not put in a special class either.)
@Derek Sorensen: Oct. 22, at 9:20 am The two do look remarkably similar: a passing glance at the cover and you’d easily mistake one for the other; that’s unlikely to be a mistake.
The word “Addendum” is a clue that they are supposed to be related and this one comes after the first. Further, the first group does not have a copyright on the use of a picture from space of the United States. Nor do they have a monopoly on the Concept of “US Global Climate Change Research.”
ADDENDUMERRATA ???The cover art and title conveys clearly the relationship of the addendum to the original report.
The Cato publication does look like it is supposed to be from the same source as the other paper. If Cato don’t intend to be misleading, they should probably differentiate it better. Maybe “Cato Institute’s addendum to USGPRC’s paper: Global Climate . . . ” or something like that.
I agree with others above that the report be given a distinct, stand-alone look, lest what happened with the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Global Warming Petition happen again.
As I understand it, the petition’s cover letter closely resembled that of PNAS, so the opposition called fraud.
Please let’s not give them ANYTHING to glom onto this time!
Here is the first sentence of the cover letter for the document:
The Center for the Study of Public Science and Public Policy at the Cato Institute is pleased to transmit to you a major revision of the report, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States”.
“Revision,” like “addendum,” is basically a lie. Unless the Cato Institute considers that any publicity is good publicity, this strikes me as juvenile and stupid. The good work done by Michaels and crew will be lost in the firestorm of media derision.
@Juan Slayton
You have a good point there.
The Cato publication is only mistaken as part of the original if you don’t READ.
They should remove the word “Addendum” as it and the cover design are misleading.
Imitation, in this case, is a form of mockery.
Please note that the version in the linked pdf is a VERY OLD FIRST DRAFT from last June that was included as part of my commentary on EPA’s proposed power plant rulemaking. I haven’t put the final pdf up because the final (nugatory) copy editing will not be complete until next week.
However I will be HAPPY to fed ex anyone the existing proof copy, which is somewhat different than the draft pdf, and much better. Just email me your address and a contact phone for FedEx.
I’m at pmichaels@cato.org
Thanks!
I believe we need to start using a qualifier every time the words “Climate Change” are used, as it is used by crazy people all the time these days with an underlying hidden meaning.
The hidden meaning was exposed on the Did You Know thread;
pat says:
October 21, 2012 at 7:33 am
Did you know:
“In 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) unilaterally decided “Climate Change” was the equivalent of “Man-Made Global Warming”. ever since, anyone who questions any aspect of Man-Made Global Warming is absurdly labelled a “climate change denier”, or even a “climate denier”.”
UNITED NATIONS 1992: UNFCCC: Article 1
DEFINITIONS*
For the purposes of this Convention:
2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
We need to know what meaning is being used in scientific papers and news articles when the words “Climate Change” are used.
“Human Induced Climate Change” or “Natural Climate Change”, or an accepted convention that sane people can understand.
I’m surprised that no one has noted the subtle but climatologically significant difference between the two cover photos. Raise your hand if you see it. The CATO cover is an improvement over the original.
Yep. Too similar. I would have maybe put a picture of the original EPA cover up in the corner, but had different art design for the Cato version.
Richdo says:
October 22, 2012 at 12:33 pm
“I’m surprised that no one has noted the subtle but climatologically significant difference between the two cover photos. Raise your hand if you see it. The CATO cover is an improvement over the original.”
No Clouds Vs Clouds.
I don’t fully trust CATO, as they still play the psychological divide and conquer mind game, using Tavistock Institute and RAND Corporation (Research ANd Development), global policy think tanks.
They should use a qualifier in their title so I know what they are talking about, “Human Induced Climate Change” or “Natural Climate Change”, because I’m still conflicted as to what they are talking about.