Guest essay by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger
Yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a press release announcing the publication of its “State of the Climate 2012” report. The global media, predictably, are all over it, loving the gloomsaying.
None of it is new. The NOAA report is simply a collection of rehashed stories that have already had their 15 minutes of fame, stories that we (and others) have already commented on, put into perspective, or debunked.
Usually, “Year in Review” type of stories are saved up until the end of the year, but when it comes to climate change—an issue for which the president has declared “we need to act”—once a year is apparently not enough. So, NOAA’s “Year in Review” comes out at the end of December and then is rerun like old Seinfeld episodes the next summer.
The NOAA press release contains this manner of introduction from its acting head, Kathryn Sullivan:
“Many of the events that made 2012 such an interesting year are part of the long-term trends we see in a changing and varying climate—carbon levels are climbing, sea levels are rising, Arctic sea ice is melting, and our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place,” said acting NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D. “This annual report is well-researched, well-respected, and well-used; it is a superb example of the timely, actionable climate information that people need from NOAA to help prepare for extremes in our ever-changing environment.”
It is interesting that she terms the information contained in the report as “timely.”
Below is a list of our comments, each made at least several months ago, on the topics highlighted in her statement.
Sullivan: “carbon levels are climbing”
Us: CO2 400ppm and Growing, (May 14, 2013)
Sullivan: “sea levels are rising”
Us: New Research Calls into Question High Rates of Sea Level Rise (December 20, 2012)
Sullivan: “Arctic sea ice is melting”
Us: How Much Sea Ice? (August 28, 2012)
Sullivan: “our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place”
Us: Global Lukewarming: Another Good Intellectual Year (2012 Edition) (February 4, 2013)
And we’ll include this as a bonus:
Sullivan: “it is a superb example of the timely, actionable climate information that people need from NOAA to help prepare for extremes in our ever-changing environment”
Us: Averting Disasters (June 21, 2013)
For this administration, when it comes to global warming, no news is bad news. So in times of no news, just repeat the old news. Two can play at that game!
===================================================
Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
They don’t have any storms or heat waves to exploit, they have to go back to the well and recycle old news. Isn’t this an admission of failure? If their “evidence” was so compelling/overwhelming wouldn’t the hysterical press releases of the past month have been unnecessary?
Eventually the alarmism will just fade into the noise. The longer the predictions continue to fail and were all still here the more folks will ignore it. Which is too bad, some kind of legal action should be taken akin to someone yelling bomb in an airport…….
Is there a traceable memo from the Whitehouse to NOAA urging or suggesting that they re-issue this “State of the Climate 2012” report? Who might be an investigative reporter that isn’t an AGW believer that could do this?
Kathryn, try to keep up…….
2012 GSA Annual Meeting in Charlotte
Paper No. 37-11
Presentation Time: 9:00 AM-6:30 PM
NEW EVIDENCE OF MILLENNIAL-SCALE CLIMATE VARIABILITY DURING
THE PEAK WARM INTERVAL OF MARINE ISOTOPE STAGE (MIS) 9
MOELLING, Leah I., Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, 691 Heritage Center, Salt Lake City, UT 84112
“Melting ice sheets at early MIS 9, also suggest a rise in sea level and the influx of fresh water causing a decrease in salinity and density of the seawater. Benthic δ13C variation during this period suggests changes in the North Atlantic Deep Water current possibly related to changes in salinity and density. The presence of climate variability within MIS 9e comparable to variability well defined within MIS 1 and 5e indicates the possibility that such variability is common to the warmest substage of past interglacials.”
2012 GSA Annual Meeting in Charlotte
Paper No. 14-7
Presentation Time: 10:15 AM-10:30 AM
EVIDENCE AND AMPLITUDE OF SEA-LEVEL OSCILLATIONS DURING THE
LAST INTERGLACIAL HIGHSTAND (MIS 5E) FROM THE BAHAMAS
JACKSON, Kelly L.1, EBERLI, Gregor P.1, REID, Samuel B.1, MCNEILL, Donald F.1, HARRIS, Paul M.2, and KLAUS, James S.1,
(1) CSL-Center for Carbonate Research, University of Miami-RSMAS, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149,
kjackson@rsmas.miami.edu, (2) Chevron Energy Technology Company, 6001 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583-2324
“Sea level was 6-7 m higher than present during the last interglacial highstand 125,000-115,000 years before present (MIS 5e). Evidence from New Providence Platform, Bahamas, indicates that it was not a single rise and fall but instead oscillated a minimum of 12 m over a few thousand years.
“These highstand oscillations recorded in the Bahamas and elsewhere require another, yet unexplained, forcing mechanism of much shorter duration than Milankovitch frequencies but also document rapid climate changes during warm interglacial periods.”
Boettger, et al (Quaternary International 207 [2009] 137–144) abstract it:
“In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Gro¨bern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples).
“The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. Taking into consideration that currently observed ‘‘human-induced’’ global warming coincides with the natural trend to cooling, the study of such transitional stages is important for understanding the underlying processes of the climate changes.”
If people can see that A-Rod is a cheater then it’s possible for the same people to see that the government is wasting tax dollars on a fraud perpetrated by the climate alarmists.
The good people of Virginia should be out in force heckling/denouncing/questioning Mann whenever he pops up on the campaign trail on behalf of the Democrats.
Yep, Paddy and Chip. They really should start being a bit more imaginative; make some stuff up – then we could pick them up on it and get some media attention
Even the MSM must be getting sick of it all by now. The lap-dog reporters wanting to show keen are beginning to look foolish. There is only so much embarrassment anyone can take. Time to call it a day and be done.
Better still, why not call it what it is and get it over and done with swiftly. All this reminds me of someone timidly pulling off a giant sticking plaster, one painful quarter inch at a time.
The truth is coming out regardless – so just RIP it. Everyone will feel better for it.
Anthony, I’d like to read posts on your websites that aren’t full of partisan rhetoric. You’ve sold me but then you and then the comment section degenerate into the usual right wing barbs. Why is that necessary? Do you want your message to go mainstream? There is no liberal conspiracy on global warming. These are concerned citizens with a cause that they believe in with a set of data to support. Just the same as you have a belief with a set of data to support. I would hope your data is correct – for obvious reasons. But the partisan commentary doesn’t serve your cause. I think it hinders it because it makes people who do believe in AGW to feel that you are a shill for right wing causes. And around and around we go in an endless and useless cycle. Environmentalism grew out of the realization that we were pumping carcinogens into our ground water and air and oceans at an alarming rate. Then along came AGW – it wasn’t some socialist plot. It’s people giving a crap. So Anthony – put yourself in someone’s position on the other “side” and realize that they are not evil or stupid. Perhaps blinded by belief – but realize that they are doing this because they believe they have a just cause. Just like you.
And make your blog about the science of the ever changing climate of our planet. That should sell itself.
The CAGW hypothesis is insane….
It’s IPCC’s stated goal to constrain CAGW to 2C of warming by severely restricting the use of fossil fuels and replacing the energy balance with “renewable” alternative energy sources (wind/solar/geothermal/biofuel), which are: expensive, diffuse, intermittent and unreliable.
UN’s 2011 World and Economic Survey puts the cost of implementing these programs at around $1.9 trillion per year over the next 40 years for a total cost of $76 trillion. Moreover, this absurd $76 trillion boondoggle doesn’t even factor in the opportunity cost of wasting $1.9 trillion per year to obtain IPCC’s 2C “goal”, when actual climate sensitivity will naturally be much less than 2C without spending a dime.
Conducting a compound ROI of just 5% per year (very low) on $1.9 trillion/yr kept in the private sector and put to effective economic use, this $76 Trillion balloons to a true cost to the world economy of around $254 trillion.
The true irony is that all governments need to do to lower CO2 emissions and provide the world with cheap, unlimited and safe energy with ZERO CO2 emissions is to spend a few million dollars writing the necessary legislation for the building, running and regulating of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) and the private sector would spend their own money to develop and build them, when the MARKET (not clueless government hacks) decides it makes economic/technological sense to do so.
So rather than spending around $2~3 million writing LFTR legislation, governments would rather waste $254 trillion on a problem that doesn’t really exist.
And so it goes…..until it doesn’t.
Trust in scientists is central to the arguments about cagw. The more opportunities that advocate scientists give to show to the world that they can’t be trusted to tell the truth, the better.
But one of the big problems with the whole CAGW malarkey is that it is damaging to the reputation of science as a whole.
Distrust in science as a whole is a good thing. It will force scientists to do it right for a long time to regain the altitude they used to be used to.
The following is a future forecast
The ‘IPCC’ report is simply a collection of rehashed stories that have already had their 15 minutes of fame, stories that we (and others) have already commented on, put into perspective, or debunked.
If only the weather was so easy to predict .
Frankly NOAA, like others , are all in on this and have no choice but to repeat the approach in the hope that it will get warmer or that people will stop noticing its BS in the first place . Ironically there better hope is for a ‘slow death’ were disinterest means people no longer care what they say on this subject and cannot be bothered to out the effort into making them reasonable for pushing out years of this BS.
Keith says:
August 8, 2013 at 1:16 am
Bloke down the pub says:
August 8, 2013 at 12:45 am
Trust in scientists is central to the arguments about cagw. The more opportunities that advocate scientists give to show to the world that they can’t be trusted to tell the truth, the better.
But one of the big problems with the whole CAGW malarkey is that it is damaging to the reputation of science as a whole.
It’s not just climate science. Medical science and ‘social science’ for example have also been shown to be badly flawed, and until the rest of the science world gets to grips with the poor standards that are being set , all scientists will suffer.
Keith and Brian H:
I write to support Keith in your discussion.
At August 8, 2013 at 1:16 am Keith says
I agree, and for decades I have been warning about that damage in many places including IPCC fringe meetings and on WUWT.
But at August 8, 2013 at 1:40 am Brian H says
I understand the point but disagree for the following reasons.
Merely doing science “right” is not sufficient.
Scientists need to speak out against scientific malpractice and to reclaim their Institutions and journals. That will be more difficult if science is discredited. Failure to do that will permit other false scares to be promulgated in the name of ‘science’ after the demise of the AGW scare.
At present it is in the interests of e.g. Universities to ‘cover up’ malpractice. And colleagues of those who conduct malpractice have a disincentive to report the malpractice. Only scientists can change this. But failure to reveal malpractice by colleagues will be inhibited if all scientists are disrespected because scientists need to show that they are offended by the ‘bad apples’ near them in their ‘barrel’.
Similarly, journals are disinclined to withdraw flawed papers because that damages the reputation on which a journal relies. Scientists need to demand that flawed papers are redacted. All such demands will be ignored if all scientists are painted as being activists.
Science Institutions (i.e. RS, AGU, etc.) have been usurped by activists
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
Scientists need to demand a say in the pronouncements of the Institutions which claim to represent them. But such demands will also be ignored if all scientists are painted as being activists when it is the Executive Committees of the Institutions which activists have usurped.
The reputation of science and scientists as a whole is important. I provide an example of why.
In 1940 my country stood alone when a great evil had captured Europe. Our navy was susceptible to U-boats and magnetic mines and our army had been severely damaged at Dunkirk. Our airforce just managed to control the skies over the UK so we could hold off the might of the Axis powers. And we hung-on until the industrial might of the US and the numerical might of the USSR could be drawn into the conflict.
We relied on science to enable espionage and electronic warfare to give us the ability to hang-on and to assist the engagement of the US and USSR against the Axis forces. Without that trust we had in science most people today would be clicking heals and making straight-arm salutes.
The time may again come when trust in science is needed. That trust needs to be rebuilt by ‘cleaning out the stable’ which has been fouled by AGW.
Richard
david says:
August 7, 2013 at 11:14 pm
” And around and around we go in an endless and useless cycle.”
We wil go around these circles as long as communitarian/socialist/statist movements use CO2AGW to further their goal of creating their one world government (see, for a source, Fabian H.G. Welles “Shape Of Things To Come”, the book and the movie. Just one of millions of examples)
” Environmentalism grew out of the realization that we were pumping carcinogens into our ground water and air and oceans at an alarming rate.”
No; it is much older, starting AT LEAST with the German Wandervogel movement in the 1920ies, of which 70% of the members joined the NSDAP later, a much higher percentage than in the general populace. Know thy history, stupid.
” Then along came AGW – it wasn’t some socialist plot. It’s people giving a crap.”
See Club Of Rome, Limits To growth, and their desire to find a new enemy to unite us – the enemy then is humanity itself.
“Quote by Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.””
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
David, I do think that you really believe what you’re saying. You will, when you examine your thought process, inevitably come to the conclusion that absolute control over the entire population is required by your philosophy. Now you are ready to embrace your true roots: Plato’s “The Republic”.
WELCOME.
David, i am a liberal (and compared with American standards, most Europeans are). The European equivalent of a Republican would fall in the category of the extreme right. However I do believe that the American liberal politicians and climate scientists are dishonest in pushing the CAGW agenda. Obama’s speech was a deliberate form of misinformation. Hence a liberal conspiracy is very plausible. The average liberal citizen is probably just gullible and concerned for the environment and hence is susceptible to the AGW mantra.
I agree many of the comments appear to stem from a right wing mind set but that cannot be controlled by Anthony. The post by Michaels and Knappenberger is not partisan at all and their analysis that the NOAA is deliberately rehashing this non-issue is spot-on.
david says:
August 7, 2013 at 11:14 pm
“And make your blog about the science of the ever changing climate of our planet. That should sell itself.”
David,
‘Watts Up With? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science,…’
Most readers at WUWT understand that the international push for decarbonization is not about the environment – decades ago, a UN official made that clear. Among the “puzzling things” for many of us remains the misunderstanding, of persons such as you, that science has been burdened with advocacy. Richard Courtney makes the argument below. Samurai presents the costs:
SAMURAI says:
August 7, 2013 at 11:53 pm
The CAGW hypothesis”
These comments state the case clearly. What do you not understand?
While you are here, spend a moment with ‘About’ WUWT.
correction:
both Courtney and Samurai “above”
JRT
Actually david, it’s even easier than that.
Everyone I know who leans left believes in the Anthropogenic Climate Change story, usually fervently, and most genuinely fear it. Everyone I know who leans to the right either don’t believe it at all, or see it as something we don’t need to worry about.
There must be a reason for this.
I could go all partisan and suggest that some are smarter than others, but it’s deeper than that. Maybe it’s the left-brain / right-brain thing.
Generally speaking, people I know who consider themselves “conservative” are more pragmatic in their entire approach to life, they don’t believe something just because they’re told it, whereas those toward the left are the opposite. They’re completely fine with having someone tell them what to think about a certain topic. Those I know who listen to Rush or Hannity or whichever right-oriented public figure don’t take marching orders from them, while the other side is pretty much opposite. They’re more than willing to believe and act on something they’re told by their left-leaning people.
EVERYONE I know on the right is passionate about nature and conservation, contrary to what the left thinks. Most of the left simply pay lip service to the idea, and don’t realize the harm being done by the current schemes and failures done in the name of conservation (for example, windmills).
Whenever I meet someone who worries about global warming (or climate change), chances are they’re also going to subscribe to a whole litany of left-leaning beliefs.
Besides, An-tho-ny doesn’t control comments.
david says:
August 7, 2013 at 11:14 pm
Anthony, I’d like to read posts on your websites that aren’t full of partisan rhetoric. You’ve sold me but then you and then the comment section degenerate into the usual right wing barbs. Why is that necessary?…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is not Anthony but the politicians that have made Climate Science a political foot ball. It started with the IPCC mandate:
It was followed up by statements by the World Trade Organization Director General Pascal Lamy:
If you can not follow the dotted line I will make it clearer. CAGW is not about climate, it never was about climate it was about giving “…a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters…a reason to questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty” Pascal Lamy in other articles talks of building a ‘new international order’ based on the European Model.
If you do not know what the “Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty” means, it means the protection of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS by the Constitution. All other models of government are based on group rights and the group with the rights is the elite who control the government and grant or take away what ever ‘rights’ they wish.
As Lamy stated this ‘new international order’ has been in the making since the 1930s and they are now coming out of the closet about it. “Social Justice” the nicely orchestrated ‘Financial Crisis’ and CAGW are the the means to give ‘legitimacy’ for the dismantling of the USA. Make no mistake both the Democrats AND Republicans are on board with that decision and it scares the heck out of me.
I suggest you check out Maurice Strong, Pascal Lamy, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Antony Giddens “Third Way” “Global Governance” and Interdependence.
Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone) on Financial Crisis
How Wall Street Is Using the Bailout to Stage a Revolution:
The global economic crisis isn’t about money – it’s about power
AIG and the Big Takeover: Matt Taibbi on “How Wall Street Insiders Are Using the Bailout to Stage a Revolution”
CodeTech says at August 8, 2013 at 5:28 am
There is clearly a bias that way but it is not absolute. I am a left-winger (my paper is the Guardian) but I do not see any evidence for the cAGW hypothesis. Does a lack of credible scientific method in climate science mean I should subscribe to laissez-faire economics?
That is a non-sequitur.
But I agree it is worth asking why there seems to be a left-right split.
My own thought is that the key determinant is some scientific or engineering training. Left-wingers tend to concentrate in the public sector where arts degrees and caring – people-skills are more valued/applicable. Teachers and social workers are not engineers, moulding their products; they are nurturers.
That alone could be the seed of the split which is magnified by the heated debates that are found on the internet. And the debate is mainly on the internet.
david said “Anthony, I’d like to read posts on your websites that aren’t full of partisan rhetoric.”
And I’d like to read mainstream media reports on CAGW that weren’t full of partisan rhetoric, but there aren’t any, are there? The simple reason is that this STOPPED being a scientific issue long, long ago, and is now purely a political issue. Perhaps it was always a political issue, with a man standing in front of the curtain shouting “SCIENCE!!!” as a way to try and forestall any debate or discussion. It’s sad that people like you continue to be fooled by the entire charade, but there we are. More than enough evidence has been uncovered (Climategate, The Gleick forgery) to show that even the people behind it know that they are consistently and deliberately engaging in an ongoing pattern of fraud – and yet you think we should acknowledge their “good intentions”??? You say they do it because they believe they have a “just cause” – so did every monstrous dicatatorship and totalitarian system that has ever existed. Men who are willing to lie, cheat, and throw all of their supposed morality out the window in the service of a “just cause” (Ahem… PETER GLEICK! ahem) are those I count the most dangerous and reprehensible men in any society.
And also, ask yourself, why has this become so polarized along a “left” and “right” axis? It’s not because the so-called “right” has chosen this, but rather because it is the Political Left that has gone “All-In” in the idea that Global Warming, err Climate Change, err, Global Weirding, errr, Capitalism is Bad! It’s Bad! – has to be believed in unquestionably by all its adherents. Try to breathe even a hint of Doubt about “global warming” at any website or gathering of leftists, and you will be howled out of the venue instantly. To even entertain this idea on the left is a Thought Crime of the highest order.
But I think you know this already. If I may speculate, what I think disturbs you most is the cognitive dissonance in your mind which arises from the huge gap between the scientific ideas which you know to be true, being an honest man, and the distress you feel from knowing that you politically sympathize with a group that rejects all of that for pseudo-religious reasons. That’s not the fault of anyone writing articles or posting comments here, that battle is in your own head.
Only you can decide, do you go with your mind, which tells you what is true, or do you go with your religion (leftism), which your friends tell you is true?
Intellectual honesty is a hard choice, and often a very lonely road to travel. I think it’s worth it – but then I never really did mind if the herd said I wasn’t one of them. Only you can decide if you’re up to the challenge of openly thinking for yourself.
Bloke down the pub says:
August 8, 2013 at 2:49 am
It’s not just climate science. Medical science and ‘social science’ for example have also been shown to be badly flawed
===============
False positives are the plague of science. They are driven by the need to publish. No scientific journal is interested in a paper that says “we looked and found nothing”, even though the result may be very significant.
News media has the same problem. Stories such as “nothing bad happened today” don’t sell, even though they may be very significant. This problem leads to bias in people’s perception of the world.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The noisy scientists get the grants. Even though it is the wheels that don’t squeak that are doing the best job. The squeaky wheel is the one most likely to cause problems.
richardscourtney says: @ur momisugly August 8, 2013 at 2:56 am
…I write to support Keith in your discussion….
“But one of the big problems with the whole CAGW malarkey is that it is damaging to the reputation of science as a whole. “
I agree, and for decades I have been warning about that damage….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I also agree with you Richard. We need science to be apolitical and only about finding facts and truth, not supporting a political agenda.
(BTW, welcome back. You have been missed.)