New ‘impossible to ignore’ climate data spin initiative announced by the White House

From the White House, courtesy of John Podesta and John P. Holdren, comes this announcement of a new initiative to provide repackaged NOAA/NCDC data in a  way that supposedly helps “state and local leaders on the front lines of climate change”. It comes  with an emphasis on the supposed climate link to extreme weather events, that even the IPCC backpedaled on and Nature said in an editorial aren’t real enough to endorse because it is a dead issue.

The initiative was unveiled on Wednesday and claims to be aimed at giving communities data to prepare for the effects of climate change, saying “it is impossible for them to ignore the consequences”. And, what if they do? Will these communities be dubbed “denier communities” and perhaps sealed off from the rest of the world to prevent their thinking from leaking out to infect other communities?

under-the-dome21[1]

A possible treatment for communities that choose to ignore the new White House initiative on climate change effects Source: CBS miniseries “Under the Dome”

It seems this was part of the coordinated effort Wednesday also that saw the AAAS announcement yesterday on “what we know” which has been thoroughly shredded as nothing more than a climate alarmism agit prop and listed by a prominent climatologist as ‘an embarrassment to the scientific community’. IPCC author and economist Dr. Richard Tol saidAAAS reasons from authority and naturalist fallacy, and mangles the economics and statistics too“.

So, with that in mind, here is the press release from the White House:

Climate Data Initiative Launches with Strong Public and Private Sector Commitments

Across the country, state and local leaders are on the front lines of climate change—and it is impossible for them to ignore the consequences.  In 2012 alone, extreme weather events caused more than $110 billion in damages and claimed more than 300 lives.

While no single weather event can be attributed to climate change, we know that our changing climate is making many kinds of extreme events more frequent and more severe. Rising seas threaten our coastlines. Dry regions are at higher risk of destructive wildfires. Heat waves impact health and agriculture. Heavier downpours can lead to damaging floods.

Even as we work to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and expand renewable energy generation, we need to take steps to make our communities more resilient to the climate-change impacts we can’t avoid—some of which are already well underway.

That’s why today, delivering on a commitment in the President’s Climate Action Plan, we are launching the Climate Data Initiative, an ambitious new effort bringing together extensive open government data and design competitions with commitments from the private and philanthropic sectors to develop data-driven planning and resilience tools for local communities. This effort will help give communities across America the information and tools they need to plan for current and future climate impacts.

The Climate Data Initiative builds on the success of the Obama Administration’s ongoing efforts to unleash the power of open government data. Since data.gov, the central site to find U.S. government data resources, launched in 2009, the Federal government has released troves of valuable data that were previously hard to access in areas such as health, energy, education, public safety, and global development. Today these data are being used by entrepreneurs, researchers, tech innovators, and others to create countless new applications, tools, services, and businesses.

Data from NOAA, NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Department of Defense, and other Federal agencies will be featured on climate.data.gov, a new section within data.gov that opens for business today. The first batch of climate data being made available will focus on coastal flooding and sea level rise. NOAA and NASA will also be announcing an innovation challenge calling on researchers and developers to create data-driven simulations to help plan for the future and to educate the public about the vulnerability of their own communities to sea level rise and flood events.

These and other Federal efforts will be amplified by a number of ambitious private commitments. For example, Esri, the company that produces the ArcGIS software used by thousands of city and regional planning experts, will be partnering with 12 cities across the country to create free and open “maps and apps” to help state and local governments plan for climate change impacts. Google will donate one petabyte—that’s 1,000 terabytes—of cloud storage for climate data, as well as 50 million hours of high-performance computing with the Google Earth Engine platform. The company is challenging the global innovation community to build a high-resolution global terrain model to help communities build resilience to anticipated climate impacts in decades to come. And the World Bank will release a new field guide for the Open Data for Resilience Initiative, which is working in more than 20 countries to map millions of buildings and urban infrastructure.

Every citizen will be affected by climate change—and all of us must work together to make our communities stronger and more resilient to its impacts. By taking the enormous data sets regularly collected by NASA, NOAA, and other agencies and applying the ingenuity, creativity, and expertise of technologists and entrepreneurs, the Climate Data Initiative will help create easy-to-use tools for regional planners, farmers, hospitals, and businesses across the country—and empower America’s communities to prepare themselves for the future.

John Podesta is a Counselor to the President. John P. Holdren is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/03/19/climate-data-initiative-launches-strong-public-and-private-sector-commitments

=============================================================

To this WH initiative claiming a warmer climate is making weather more severe and that all we need is a Google Earth visualization to help state and local leaders see this, I say this graph is also “impossible to ignore”:

models-vs-datasets

Dr. Roger A. Pielke Sr. says in a WUWT comment:

I recommend readers look at the minority AGU Statement I prepared and contrast that with the AAAS report’s statements in http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAAS-What-We-Know.pdf. My statement is

Pielke Sr., R.A. 2013: Humanity Has A Significant Effect on Climate – The AGU Community Has The Responsibility To Accurately Communicate The Current Understanding Of What is Certain And What Remains Uncertain [May 10 2013]. Minority Statement in response to AGU Position Statement on Climate Change entitled: “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action” released on 8/5/13. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/rpt-851.pdf

The AAAS report is even worse than the AGU and AMS Statements (and I thought that would be hard to do). I know several of the authors of the AAAC report, and respect their science within their immediate area of expertise. However, the blatant advocacy and absurd statements such as

“The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking
smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases.”

show that this report is just political theater.

There are no health benefits from smoking, only health risks. CO2 is required for life on Earth including plant growth and function.

Added CO2 is a significant climate forcing (both radiatively and geochemically, the latter of which I feel is of more concern), but to directly contact to the health risks of tobacco demeans the scientific stature of this who make such wild claims.

Another example (and their are many in this report) is

“decades of human-generated greenhouse gases are now the major force driving the direction of climate change, currently overwhelming the effects of these other factors.”

is counter to established research which shows, for example, the first order importance of other human climate forcings; e.g. see

Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/r-354.pdf

and

National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/

They also ignore the recent recognition of the heightened importance of natural climate forcings and feedbacks.

This AAAS report is an embarrassment to the scientific community.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism. Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to New ‘impossible to ignore’ climate data spin initiative announced by the White House

  1. TomRude says:

    If this whole affair was only about science, it would have been done a long time ago. This is about submitting people into slavery, restricting freedom.

  2. hunter says:

    Th time and effort this Adminsitration wastes on what is the equivalent of superstitious colap trap is an insult to the American people.
    The opportunity costs of pushing garbage policies and faux initiatives like this is going to cause real issues to be neglected and hurt us.
    Holdren’s behavior is difficult to distinguish from that of a con-artist.
    He has been associated with life long failures, like Paul Ehrlich and is now seeking to impose this madness on us all.
    That the President has chosen to waste more of his limited time on this says a lot about how out of touch he is with the real world.
    That he tolerates proven failures advising him on cliamte expalins a lot why we are in trouble on real issues worldwide.

  3. Kenny says:

    Is there room in the Dome for a family of four?

  4. TinyCO2 says:

    You’ve got to wonder how many rebranding excercises they have to go through to realise that CAGW scientivism is a product the public don’t want to buy? Hollywood has pushed the alarmism far further and with far more impressive graphics and they haven’t managed to recruit a CO2 reduction army. Do they really think the ‘cos the scientists say so’ is more persuasive? Lab coats might sell anti aging cream but only because people want to believe the claims.

    Don’t they grow weary of failure?

  5. mpcraig says:

    How is climate change making weather more severe? Global surface temperatures are relatively flat.

    Apparently, the heat has been going into the ocean depths. Can it spawn tornadoes and floods and droughts from down there?

  6. Surface temperatures have leveled off. So what other aspect of climate change is causing more extreme weather?

  7. Why mid-tropospheric temperatures in your model-observation graph instead of TLT or surface temps? Seems like the latter are more relevant to where we live, but perhaps don’t result in quite as wide a difference between models and observations.

  8. Jeff says:

    This is all about propaganda.

  9. Realist says:

    I think all this really means is that we will now see a much more coordinated effort with a much higher level of centralized “message dicipline” imposed from on-high, emminating from the AGW libcult “saviors” who have been placed in positions of power within the federal government by this libcult administration. It really makes perfect sense from the libcult perspective to do this too, because it is a purely political effort aimed at enforcing a purely political, non-scientific doctrine.

    One thing the libcult knows all to well: When science, logic and reason become impediments to their pseudo-religious objectives, shift the “debate” to brute force and use the power of government to step on the necks of the opposition.

  10. Robin says:

    The Open Data Initiative is such a high priority for the Obama Administration that it was his first Executive Order on his first day in office. It is premised on the idea that Big Data can now be used to plan the economy and that it will be used for that.

    It also ties into the FuturICT global project I explained here http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/science-fiction-made-real-were-we-ever-to-know-in-time/ . As the cited documents admit, these plans are not trying to model actual reality. Instead the existence of the model is to change reality by forcing changes in human behavior.

    FuturICT also ties into the very same UN-affiliated entity, ITU, that is about to get jurisdiction over the Internet per last Friday’s White House news dump. You can bet Podesta and Holdren know all this. We need to as well.

  11. philjourdan says:

    The performance graph is a great rebuttal. As is the ACE and Tornadic Activity charts. We are entering the 3rd year of near record low activity in North America alone.

  12. Holdren has pushed the extreme weather/climate change link from science and into fringe science:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/18/knappenberger-out-on-the-fringe-with-john-holdren/?page=all

  13. Animal Farm from page 22 and on and on…..

  14. johnofenfield says:

    It seems to me from the statistics being bandid around, that “extreme weather events” are causing no where near the damage that implementation of the ACA is causing. I trust that the American people will see through this “extreme propaganda” & come to the conclusion that your President has lost his mind. It is now time for the VP to step up & have Obama sent to the looney bin. If Biden also proves to be insane who takes over? Is it Reid or Cantor? Sorry to be so rude about your esteemed leadership. I admit we have even more green insanity in the UK, burning your wood pellets to generate electricity to mention only one.

  15. JimS says:

    The White House seems to want to combat what the effect of a record-breaking cold and snowy winter has on the American public. It seems rather transparent to me. If Don Easterbrook is right, this is just the beginning of a downward spiral into a major cooling trend.

  16. Gary says:

    Kind of ironic they’re promoting data when their position is mostly opinion-based.

  17. Neo says:

    EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was right about the wrong subject.
    It isn’t the can of moose meat that should invoke “It could gag a maggot,” it’s this Global Warming thing.

  18. Billy Liar says:

    Should the dome be over DC?

  19. Lance Wallace says:

    Didn’t see any Federal money appropriated or set aside to support this. So that’s all right then.

  20. Frank K. says:

    Zeke Hausfather says:
    March 19, 2014 at 9:22 am

    Climate models can not resolve surface temperatures accurately due to their extremely coarse mesh resolution. The best they can do is provide gross time-averaged estimates of regional anomalies.

  21. JJ says:

    Anthony says:

    It seems this was part of the coordinated effort Wednesday also that saw the AAAS announcement yesterday on “what we know” which has been thoroughly shredded as nothing more than a climate alarmism agit prop and listed by a prominent climatologist as ‘an embarrassment to the scientific community’.

    Not coordinated for Wednesday, per se. More like coordinated for 2014. Big Government, Bid Data, Big Media, and Big money Politics have a plan. These are among the opening actions. Big Data is coming out with its first piece later today. It is going to be a long year for Big Lies.

    http://www.un.org/climatechange/blog/2013/12/11/big-idea-2014-the-year-for-climate-action/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reid-detchon/a-year-for-change-from-climate-talk-to-climate-action_b_4855820.html

    http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/01/23/davos-world-bank-president-carbon-pricing

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/19/obama-climate-change-tool-google/6568951/

    http://tcktcktck.org/2014/03/senators-urge-climate-action/60890

    http://www.sho.com/sho/years-of-living-dangerously/home

  22. Jaycen says:

    @TinyCO2

    You asked if the government grows weary of failure, and if they can realize AGW is something the public won’t buy.

    Have you heard of this thing called “Obamacare”?

  23. Stephen Richards says:

    Zeke Hausfather says:

    March 19, 2014 at 9:22 am

    You know full well why. Take your AGW agenda elsewhere unless you want to contribute some real, honest science. That’s if you can, of course.

  24. Robert W Turner says:

    Anthropogenic climate change science is like the science that linked peptic ulcers to stress.

  25. Walt The Physicist says:

    Related issue: Yesterday in the responses to thread “Modern Magic – Clean Energy by Wire” I posted info on NASA supported research conducted by Research Associate, PhD student at UMD, Safa Motesharrei and I gave the link to this work at the UMD website: http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay/pubs/handy-paper-for-submission-2.pdf

    This is website of Dr. Eugenia Kalnay, Professor at UMD.
    Intriguingly, today this link does not work. In Google Scholar the reference to this deleted article is below:
    [PDF] A Minimal Model for Human and Nature Interaction
    S Motesharrei, J Rivas, E Kalnay – 2012 – atmos.umd.edu
    Abstract There are widespread concerns that current trends in population and resource-use
    are unsustainable, but the possibilities of an overshoot and collapse remain unclear and
    controversial. Collapses have occurred frequently in the past five thousand years, and are …
    Related articles All 7 versions Cite Save More

    This reference was deleted possibly because of publication of new work announced very recently- “Human and Nature Dynamics (HANDY): Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the Collapse or Sustainability of Societies”.

    This work was supported by NASA as follows from Acknowledgments:
    We are grateful to Profs. Matthias Ruth, Victor Yakovenko, Herman Daly, Takemasa Miyoshi, JimCarton, Fernando Miralles-Wilhelm, Ning Zeng, and Drs. Robert Cahalan and Steve Penny for many useful discussions. Study of the \Equitable Society” scenarios (i.e., with Workers and Non-Workers), the scenario presented in section 5.2.5, in particular, was suggested by V. Yakovenko. We would also like to thank anonymous reviewer No. 1 for having highlighted to us the importance of the capability of HANDY to naturally produce irreversible collapses, which is not found in earlier models. We would especially like to thank the editors of this journal for alerting us to the model and work done by Brander and Taylor, of which we were unaware, and allowing us to revise our article to account for this new information.
    This work was partially funded through NASA/GSFC grant NNX12AD03A.

    Are we ok with the government agencies funding political activists instead of scientists?

  26. Don Gleason says:

    Where do I go for my grant ap?

  27. elmer says:

    How do we know that NOAA and NASA aren’t fudging the data?

  28. So the meatheads are going to give us data that is already
    Available on the web. Brilliant! Of course thier data
    will be what they
    Want us to believe ,not the truth. Total propaganda from
    Potus . He can’t hide his lying eyes…..

  29. Chip Knappenberger,

    Surface temps are certainly lower than models, though the divergence is no where near as severe as in the mid troposphere: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/0214_Fig3_ZH.jpg

    I can’t help but think that the mid-tropospheric comparison was chosen specifically because that is an area where models perform the worst. Its just somewhat odd because, as far as I can remember, I’ve rarely if ever even seen a mid-tropospheric temperature series displayed before. TLS, TLT, and surface are all far more commonly used.

    REPLY:
    I can’t help but think, that NASA GISS, who as a space agency has access to all sorts of satellite data, chooses the highly irregular, biased, and over-corrected surface temperature record specifically because that is an area where their alarming claims perform the best. – Anthony

  30. Walt says are we ok with funding political
    Activists?…..
    The feds ARE political activists!

  31. RMF says:

    There are some interesting datasets on the site. NOAA has a “severe weather data inventory” tool. Check it out at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/swdi/#TileSearch

    This data spans 1995-2013 and includes

    –storm cells from nexrad
    –hail signatures form nexrad
    –mesocyclone signatures
    –tornado signatures
    –preliminary local storm reports
    –lightning strikes

    To get to “extreme weather is increasing” they would have to track all of these, I guess, for many different locations and do a comparison.

  32. Anthony,

    If you don’t like surface data, compare models to lower tropospheric observations. This has been done before, and the models don’t look particularly good. No need to invoke an obscure dataset (mid-tropospheric temperatures) to maximize the divergence between models and observations.

    REPLY: I didn’t invoke it, but the fact stands, there’s still a divergence to surface data and GISS ignores satellite data. Go put your BEST spin on that however you like – Anthony

  33. dbstealey says:

    Stephen Richards says:

    Zeke Hausfather says: [" ... "]

    You know full well why. Take your AGW agenda elsewhere unless you want to contribute some real, honest science. That’s if you can, of course.

    Zeke can’t. Not without losing his financial backing.

    Zeke is part of Yale’s Media propaganda arm [note other swivel-eyed lunatics on the board, like David Appell]. It is financed by Jeremy Grantham, a “carbon” scare believer who follows a long list of folks who have the Midas touch in stocks, but are certifiable crazies when they stray outside their specialty.

    Grantham is the truest of true believers, and he puts a lot of his $billions into promoting the climate scare. ["The Yale Forum is grateful for the generous financial support of the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment..."].

    Zeke benefits, so Zeke will not rock that boat.

  34. Jimbo says:

    It’s funny how they choose when to ignore the IPCC’s position on extreme weather when it suits them. They do tell us to listen to the science. It wasn’t about science after all. LOL.

    We must prepare for extreme weather.

  35. NASA produces the MSU data used by both UAH and RSS.

    I suspect the chart you show might be mislabeled. I think its comparing models to observations ONLY over the tropics in the mid-troposphere. Its remarkably similar to this plot: http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Christy-fig-1.jpg

    A more interesting plot would be models compared to observations for the full lower troposphere (or mid troposphere if you want). Roy had one awhile back: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png

    REPLY: Yes, NASA produces that data, but they don’t use publish it as a climate data set (left to UAH and RSS), or use it to argue that we all need lifestyle changes like Jim Hansen was allowed to do based on his wonky self adjusted, always higher GISS data. Note also the number of models differ in the plots. The graph s from WSJ for the article that Christy and McNider wrote about why John Kerry is wrong. Given your previous comment about “level of name calling” can you put out where you objected to Kerry’s broadly labeling everyone who disagrees as a member of the “Flat Earth Society”? – Anthony

  36. SIGINT EX says:

    Just more propaganda and an “art” contest thrown in to entertain the kiddies.

  37. wbrozek says:

    to provide repackaged NOAA/NCDC data

    Is this irony or the Gore effect? NOAA for February just came out (my bold):

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

    “The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2014 tied with 2001 as the 21st highest for February on record, at 0.41°C (0.74°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F).”

  38. dbstealey,

    Suggesting that I’m in the pay of “big green” is as silly as suggesting that Anthony is a pawn of “big oil”. Lets keep the conversation above the level of name calling.

  39. Philip says:

    Billy Liar says:
    March 19, 2014 at 10:10 am
    Should the dome be over DC?

    Billy – I would prefer to build a 30′ wall around DC, and fill it with water.
    Some days, I tend towards replacing water with sulphuric acid.

  40. I think that the WSJ article by McNider and Christy takes values between 20S and 20N for the middle troposphere (where the missing “hot spot” in observations really stands out) and calls them the model and observation results for the whole middle troposphere. It this is the case, how is that any better than what Jones and co. did for the WMO report cover?

  41. Neil Jordan says:

    Today’s American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE SmartBrief carries an article that should win an award for mixed messages – a technology that converts smog to water vapor (a greenhouse gas) and “carbon pollution”.
    [begin quote]
    Cleaning air with smog-eating building surfaces

    http://architizer.com/blog/smog-eating-facades-and-the-future-of-our-air-quality/

    Buildings with smog-eating facades have become a trend in which surfaces such as concrete and metal are treated with a layer of titanium dioxide, for a surface that transforms pollutants into water vapor and carbon dioxide, Matt Shaw writes. The solution was applied to the thermoformed plastic shells on the facade of the Manuel Gea Gonzalez Hospital in Mexico City. Another example is the “Wendy” project, which used the same process on fabric and was able to eliminate smog equivalent to emissions from 260 cars in New York City, Shaw writes. Architizer.com (3/13)
    [end quote]
    A \sarc might be needed for my introductory comment. Here it is: \sarc

  42. Eric Sincere says:

    These people are not stupid, they are not ignorant, they are not ill advised, they are not wasting resources, etc, etc. They are cold-calculating and deliberate people, with a laser-like focus on their goals. There is only one end-game being pursued and climate has nothing to do with it.

  43. RMF says:

    One of the great developments of late is how the Harvard-Smithsonian team produced some confirmation of Guth’s mathematical cosmology. Amazingly, the observations bore out his model. Hence, back slapping all around.

    Climate scientists should hold off on back slapping for awhile. Their models have been the primary vehicles for advancing global warming concepts and policies. But, the models do not sync up with the real world. So, instead of dumping the models, which are not independent of each other in the way people think of the word independent, there has been more time and money, spent on finding new reasons, for why what is being observed, is in fact consistent with what has been predicted. This has all led to very tortuous and convoluted explanations and papers and studies and to a push to really “step up!” global warming communications to simplify the message.

    The global warming message is very simple, and people do understand it: the earth is warming, a lot, and it’s catastrophic.

    But, the climate models are wrong. The earth isn’t warming a lot. So, people don’t take the message very seriously–except as a sign of the scientific process gone awry.

  44. u.k.(us) says:

    Excerpt from the press release from the White House:

    “While no single weather event can be attributed to climate change, we know that our changing climate is making many kinds of extreme events more frequent and more severe.”
    =============
    Same old story, the bad stuff is “our” fault.
    Good news leaves our saviors out of a/their job.
    They think we can’t see thru the thin veneer.
    Can’t believe the release said “we know”.

  45. hunter says:

    OK, they are too in-your-face to ignroe.
    How about we just laugh at them?
    Ridule their pretentious deceptive arrogance. Make satire about their war on weather.
    Point out that Sec. of State Kerry is reduced to offering climate fear lectures as the strongest response the United now makes Internationally. That the AGW fear mongers have to atack those who disagree as somehow corrupt and ‘anti-science’ for doubting their preposterous idea that the world is in danger from CO2. That they have to use every weahter event as a new *proof!* of climate doom, no matter how typical the weather.
    There is no reasoning with climate kooks. They deserve the ridiucle and loss of status and historic levels of disdain they are accruing.

  46. Cold in Wisconsin says:

    Every citizen is indeed affected by climate change–especially by having their tax dollars high jacked to support dubious “science” that is used to promote political pork.

  47. Cold in Wisconsin says:

    Jumbo–Didn’t the White House try to convince the IPCC to make the Summary for Policymakers more extreme than the actual report itself? Apparently when the IPCC is not extreme enough, they head out over the cliff on their own initiative. That’s called leadership.

  48. rogerthesurf says:

    Here is a photograph showing the most sustainable and least energy using country in the world.
    Is probably the UN and IPCC’s darling!
    We should either all go there or else stay home and retain what we have.
    I can think of a number of people who should stay there though.

    Cheers
    Roger

    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

  49. MikeUK says:

    Does the White House realise the implications of CAGW, every single loss from every weather event being due to man-made CO2, everyone sends their bills to the UN for payment, USA liable for a large percentage? If that starts to happen I suspect govt will have a bit of a re-think.

  50. DirkH says:

    Air Force One already converted to glider?

  51. dbstealey says:

    Zeke Hausfather,

    It’s more than a ‘suggestion': I documented what others wrote. I have more documentation showing that you have an agenda. The fact is that you are supported at least in part by Grantham. So is Bob Ward. I didn’t label you a ‘rat snake’ like Donna Laframboise did of Ward. I would, if that’s what I thought. But I don’t think you sink to Ward’s level.

    But if you don’t like the financial relationship disclosed, then cut your ties to Jeremy Grantham. Whoever filled his head with the “carbon” scare is probably well rewarded. It is complete nonsense, but that scare has led directly to real threats against scientific skeptics, whose only “crime” is to have a different point of view than alarmists’ approve of. So when you complain about name calling, look at the guy in the mirror. That’s the guy who condones name calling – and worse – against skeptics.

    I also called you no names. The only one I called a lunatic was your bud David Appell, and I believe that is correct.

    BTW, how’s your pal Ward doing?

  52. Ralph Kramdon says:

    “impossible to ignore”? I thought we were supposed to “forget the facts”. Maybe the White House meant “ignore the impossible”.

  53. Jim Bo says:

    From comments to the associated LA Times story, an acronym from “friedfish2718″ that should seriously be considered for adoption in lieu of CAGW…

    friedfish2718:

    Global warming. Global cooling. Climate weirding. Blah. Blah. Blah. Soooo confooosing.

    And ‘Catastrophical AGW’ is not the proper term.

    The proper term is CACA (catastrophic anthropogenic climate alteration).

    Some proper uses of the acronym:

    “Some are into antiques. Some are into sports. Albert Gore is into CACA.”
    “NASA’s James Hansen is a CACA expert.”
    A climatologist movie: “All is quiet on the CACA front.”
    “It was a dark and stormy CACA…”
    “CACA happens.”

    Exchange between 2 climatologists:
    – “How’s that CACA study going?”
    – “Please wait until I get out of the latrine.”

    If Charles Dickens were alive today, he would write the Tale of 2 Climates: “It was the best of CACA, it was the worst of CACA…”

  54. JJ says:

    Zeke Hausfather says:

    If you don’t like surface data, compare models to lower tropospheric observations. This has been done before, and the models don’t look particularly good. No need to invoke an obscure dataset (mid-tropospheric temperatures) to maximize the divergence between models and observations.

    There is no need to invoke mid tropospheric temperature predictions vs observations, but there is no harm in it either. They are part and parcel of the climate models’ outputs (and, iteratively, their inputs), and that they are wrong is every bit as determinative of the error of those models as are lower trop temps. Wrong is wrong, and in an interative model that features interdependent parts, wrong in one part demonstrates wrong in all.

    This true in the general case, but even more so when a component of the attributive power of the models is alleged to be their ability to “fingerprint” the pet theory around which they are designed. According to “global warming” theory, the presence of a mid tropospheric hot spot is supposed to not only demonstrate the effect of “global warming” but definitively attribute that effect to the pet cause – anthro CO2 – as well. No mid trop hotspot, no “global warming”, irrespective of how well the LT predictions might match observations. And they don’t.

    The “global warming” scam operates in large part by claiming comprehensive knowledge of the climate system, but by cherry picking individual components for very situational story telling.

    For the first twenty five years of the scare, everything was about globally averaged surface temperature. That was, until GAST topped out and began descending. Then it became “don’t look at surface temp, look at ocean heat content”. Similarly, it was “MT hotspot proves it is ‘global warming'”, until the MT hotspot failed to materialize. Then you’re back to “don’t look at MT, look at surface temp”. No one even bothers to look at regional subsets of any of the temps, let alone other parameters like precip. Perhaps if one of them begins tracking observations reasonably well, it will become port for the next storm.

    The term for this particular fallacy is ad hoc. It isn’t science. It is what happens when people have a faith commitment to a conclusion, rather than a method of concluding.

  55. accordionsrule says:

    “The Administration is proposing to cut over $9 million from the ‘core’ programs of state and local air pollution control agencies, including much-needed monitoring and emissions inventory activities.”
    “The Obama budget includes $1 billion for a Climate Resilience Fund, which invests in research to better understand the projected impacts of a changing climate and help communities plan and prepare.”
    They’re trying to make it sound like it’s for the communities’ own good that money is being taken away from them and bestowed upon the Holdren think-tanks.

  56. Robin says:

    Apparently the WSJ ran an editorial yesterday talking about the INternet handover I mentioned. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303563304579447362610955656?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj

  57. Randy says:

    What I find the weirdest is the data DOES support just one stance given….
    “Dry regions are at higher risk of destructive wildfires.”
    The weirdest part though, is that the single point that is reality based, they STILL seem to ignore the ACTUAL reason. More co2 means more biomass, especially in drier areas. Which means fires in dry areas will be worse. Ive never personally seen someone among the devout point this out, instead they push ideas that the data simply doesn’t back. It isnt “warming” that causes dry areas to have worse fires, but more co2 does lead to more plants, which would mean more fuel for fires. BIZARRE.

    THIS IS TERRIFYING.>> how do we break their hold on “truth”?? Or will I wake up in a prison some day… “what are you in for”… “oh me? I am scientifically literate”

  58. PMHinSC says:

    Can someone confirm that the dome picture is by Gerald Adams and is from the cover of Stephen Kings 2009 book The Dome? If so it seems apropos that they are using an image from a horror story.

  59. ShrNfr says:

    The misallocation of resources to address the non-issue of CAGW has arguably caused much otherwise preventable mortality and morbidity. It is thus arguable that this misallocation is a crime against humanity. Perhaps there should be appropriate action taken against those who foster such misallocation with malice aforethought.

    just in case

  60. Is it possible for climate change to make weather less severe?

  61. Gunga Din says:

    “Climate Data Initiative”
    Here I thought it was the “Smoke and Mirrors Initiative”.

  62. Luke Warmist says:

    Randy says:
    March 19, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    “THIS IS TERRIFYING.>> how do we break their hold on “truth”?? Or will I wake up in a prison some day… “what are you in for”… “oh me? I am scientifically literate”

    ….me? Life without parole. I’m an engineer.

  63. RMF says:

    Hmmm…is Zeke calling the mid tropospheric “obscure” because some years back the models were making this the whole enchilada but now the whole enchilada has disappeared/”been eaten by the ocean” only to be vomited up at some point TBD?

    No fair!

  64. Larry in Texas says:

    The AAAS political theater is, like the Senate Democrat pajama party last week, an attempt to distract from their serious political problems for the 2014 midterm elections by trying to create a groundswell for action where action isn’t justified. But the truth is, nobody really cares about this stuff. See:

    http://www.gallup.com/video/167915/americans-worried-economy-climate-change.aspx

    Democrats, like warmists, just never learn.

  65. rogerknights says:

    Neil Jordan says:
    March 19, 2014 at 11:53 am
    Today’s American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE SmartBrief carries an article that should win an award for mixed messages – a technology that converts smog to water vapor (a greenhouse gas) and “carbon pollution”.
    [begin quote]
    Cleaning air with smog-eating building surfaces

    http://architizer.com/blog/smog-eating-facades-and-the-future-of-our-air-quality/

    Buildings with smog-eating facades have become a trend in which surfaces such as concrete and metal are treated with a layer of titanium dioxide, for a surface that transforms pollutants into water vapor and carbon dioxide, Matt Shaw writes. The solution was applied to the thermoformed plastic shells on the facade of the Manuel Gea Gonzalez Hospital in Mexico City. Another example is the “Wendy” project, which used the same process on fabric and was able to eliminate smog equivalent to emissions from 260 cars in New York City, Shaw writes. Architizer.com (3/13)
    [end quote]
    A \sarc might be needed for my introductory comment. Here it is: \sarc

    China ought to go for this in a big way.

  66. Louis says:

    That dome looks like it might make a good greenhouse after adding a little extra CO2.

  67. john another says:

    Robin,
    Thank you for beating me to the point. The Socialist already have control of the vast majority of Media through their complete control of Education and Government through their control of finance and Unions and institutions dependent on Federal dollars. Think, Crony Capitalism on steroids. The obvious next step on the chess board would be to limit the access of information to their opposition which would be to turn the Internet over to others already in tow and then paint any who disagree as ‘deniers’ and foment anything they define as’hate speech’.
    I grew up in the States when there were three TV stations then PBS came along and if you had any sense of reason, you knew you where being lied to and led by the nose.
    I know Antnee doesn’t care for this tack on the issue and neither do I, but this ceased to be a science issue a very long time ago. Not that constant examination of the science is not in order.
    Until the Internet and its blogs and such came along the media that overwhelmingly voted and donated to a particular political regime more or less controlled us. The only reason any opposition ever won a seat was due entirely to frustration of those who hadn’t bought in, and that number will dwindle radically as the demographics are plainly changing.
    A population that is functionally illiterate and doesn’t know or care that the Earth goes around the Sun is fully at the mercy of any scam artist that rises to the top of the heap of popularity.

  68. Tammy Terrell says:

    is there climate change? Yes, four times a year, every year! Are the seasons becoming more severe, Yes. God controls the wind, the rain, the heat and the cold and he’s not very happy with those who turn their backs on Him. It has NOTHING to do with global warming and everything to do with judgment on America.

  69. Lewis P Buckingham says:

    Randy says:
    March 19, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    What I find the weirdest is the data DOES support just one stance given….
    “Dry regions are at higher risk of destructive wildfires.”
    It would be axiomatic that if the dry regions remained dry then destructive wildfires would increase.
    However in the warming world such areas may also gain higher rainfall making them wetter and less incendiary.

  70. Leigh says:

    Do you in America not think this is nothing more than a smoke screen by your government?
    Simply to take scrutiny away from much larger problems your government has.
    We had a labor/greens government that used global warming as a smoke screen here in Australia as it implemented other policys that have destroyed our country.
    Why is Obama suddenly ramping up his governments commitment to global warming now?

  71. atthemurph says:

    Just marketing. Or in other words propaganda.

  72. Jim Bo says:

    Leigh says: March 20, 2014 at 5:04 am

    Why is Obama suddenly ramping up his governments commitment to global warming now?

    Ans. Presidential term limits and impending loss of both houses of congress. The panic and “Alamo”-esque media orchestrations are evident and expected.

  73. ferdberple says:

    Good to see the White House concentrating on real problems like Climate Change. Problems like unemployment, trade imbalance, national debt, Russian threat to EU, the White Houses knows best. These other problems are not real problems. Climate Change is the real threat because climate has never changed before. For hundreds of millions of years the climate was stable and never changed. It is only in the past 50 years, after we started using coal that the climate started to change.

  74. ferdberple says:

    Why is Obama suddenly ramping up his governments commitment to global warming now?
    =================
    Because every other problem can be measured. So if he says he is going to solve unemployment, people can check on that. But Climate Change is the perfect problem for governments to tackle because you cannot measure the effects of policy until decades after the government is out of office. So, while the government typically fails at almost everything else it does, it can never fail at solving Climate Change, no matter what it does.

  75. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    u.k.(us) says:
    March 19, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    Excerpt from the press release from the White House:

    “While no single weather event can be attributed to climate change, we know that our changing climate is making many kinds of extreme events more frequent and more severe.”

    That’s right up there with “we lose money on every sale, but we make up for it in volume”.

  76. Gunga Din says:

    A possible treatment for communities that choose to ignore the new White House initiative on climate change effects Source: CBS miniseries “Under the Dome”

    ===========================================================================
    A BS deflector?

  77. Gunga Din says:

    “Shovel ready”, of course.

  78. John P. Holdren indicated in April 2009 that they might get desperate enough to use geoengineering. On that topic, I live in Northland, New Zealand and have witnessed vast amounts of aerosol material being put into the sky here and droughts engineered since early-2010. One of the least debated consequences of geoengineering is drought.
    I strongly suspect that one of the reasons for creating extreme weather events is to win support for the elite’s climate change agenda/one world government and Agenda 21, as this article indicates.

Comments are closed.