National Climate Assessment report: Alarmists offer untrue, unrelenting doom and gloom

Marlo Lewis writes at Fox News about the National Climate Assessment: (cue funeral dirge music)

Tuesday the U.S. Government’s Global Change Research Program released its latest “National Assessment” report on climate change impacts in the United States.

As with previous editions, the new report is an alarmist document designed to scare people and build political support for unpopular policies such as carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and EPA regulatory mandates.

Also in keeping with past practice, the latest report confuses climate risk with climate change risk.

Droughts, storms, floods, and heat waves are all part of the natural climate. Our risk of exposure to such extremes has much more to do with where we happen to live than with any gradual climate changes associated with the 1.3F – 1.9F increase in average U.S. temperature since the 1880s.

The new report is an alarmist document designed to scare people and build political support for unpopular policies such as carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and EPA regulatory mandates.

Since even immediate and total shutdown of all carbon dioxide-emitting vehicles, power plants, and factories in the U.S. would decrease global warming by only a hypothetical and undetectable two-tenths of a degree Celsius by 2100, it is misleading to imply, as the report does, that the Obama administration’s climate policies can provide any measurable protection from extreme weather events.

The Assessment is flat out wrong that climate change is increasing our vulnerability to heat stress. As hot weather has become more frequent, people and communities have adapted to it, and heat-related mortality in the U.S. has declined.

Cities with the most frequent hot weather such as Tampa, Florida and Phoenix, Arizona have practically zero heat-related mortality. That is the most probable future for most U.S. cities if global warming continues!

The report also foolishly predicts that climate change “intensify air pollution.” As EPA’s own data show, despite allegedly “unprecedented” warming, U.S. air quality has improved decade-by-decade since 1970 as emissions declined.

The report blames climate change for the Midwest drought of 2012. But the government’s own analysis concluded otherwise: “Neither ocean states nor human-induced climate change, factors that can provide long-lead predictability, appeared to play significant roles in causing severe rainfall deficits over the major corn producing regions of central Great Plains.”

Complete story here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/06/national-climate-assessment-report-alarmists-offer-untrue-unrelenting-doom-and/

88 thoughts on “National Climate Assessment report: Alarmists offer untrue, unrelenting doom and gloom

  1. Lies kill.
    Truth is life.
    Seek truth.
    Who does the fake numbers for the lies?
    Who at the AP allows the lies to be repeted over and over?
    Seek out the liars, expose them. Then shun them all. Turn our backs on them forever.

  2. Not surprising at all. It just baffles me that masses can swallow this…. well, they have swallowed worse lies.
    One day the biggest denier, mother nature, will prevail. Climate is local, not global. WE cannot control weather, even indoors (well, only in ver strict environments), much less climate.

  3. true dat.

    The NCA 2014 report actually says this:

    “”when averaging over the entire contiguous U.S., there is no overall trend in flood magnitudes””

    “”lack of any clear trend in landfall frequency along the U.S. eastern and Gulf coasts”” (hurricanes)

    “”Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity & frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain””

    “”There has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900″””

  4. I was just scanning the various articles on this National Climate Assessment report and oh my! I didn’t have to comment on any , the comments were overwhelmingly calling ducks ducks. I was quite impressed at the volume of people refuting with facts the scam. I feel that the public is getting not only a healthy dose of skeptical critical thinking but the people are getting angry that we are being told we are getting warmer while the facts are we are not. WOW….

  5. I know others have said it before, but maybe they figured most people aren’t paying attention, so they can say what they like for the supporters that are listening.

    Then if the ‘pause’ continues they can claim success. The same supporters won’t notice that nothing credit-worthy was actually done, then everybody goes to the square dance.

    Yes, it might defy the logic of sanity in the real world, but that’s often not where politicians are obliged to work.

  6. Perhaps the following is the definition of incredulity but here goes:

    Until they start measuring CO2 in something greater than parts per MILLION I will not accept, without evidence, that atmospheric CO2 is a major driver of climate. My bet is that a 100ppm increase relates to perhaps a 0.1 degree F increase in temp, given that all else stays equal, which it never does.

    Soot melts snow and ice when the ambient temp is below freezing. Literally clean up our act and CO2 becomes a footnote

  7. 5 May: CBS: Sen. Introduces Bill To Test Out Taxing Motorists For Every Mile They Drive
    The California Legislature is looking at a voluntary program that would tax motorists for every mile they drive.
    KCAL9’s Bobby Kaple reports that Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, introduced a bill to test out the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax because the state’s gas tax was no longer bringing in the revenue it used to due to people driving more fuel efficient vehicles.***
    The program is modeled after ones in Oregon and Washington.
    “We want to do as Washington and Oregon have done in a much bigger state with much longer commutes…to make sure that we find out whether it would work, whether the public would like it or not,” DeSaulnier said…
    Southland commuters were not thrilled about the idea of a VMT tax…

    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/05/05/sen-introduces-bill-to-test-out-taxing-motorists-for-every-mile-they-drive/

  8. This is much more sinister than is likely believed by most. They are aware the data says otherwise about increasing droughts, floods, storms, etc, but this is an ideal situation for the regulators. Since they know this, they can promulgate all these save the planet laws and when the incidence of these weather extremes continues to decline, can take credit for it. Make no mistake. They are forced by the short window of the opportunity to act fast, so the strategy will be hype it to the limit, put forth the emergency regulations and take credit for the results that are going to come through natural climate variations. This tactic must be resisted at all costs or the self-congratulations will go on for a century.

  9. At first I was angry at the lies but then I realized how many people saw through the bs and were converted to the science side.

  10. Ancient citystates cultivated algae for fertilizer. Feeding mined plankton to pond, absorbing co2 from air. The deposit is 2 meter deep layer plankton. Tunnel.blooms algae makes fish spectacular. The deposit is maybe 100 miles across.i watch water fleas stimulated by this incredible collection of necessary elements for human and frogs.washing floodplane eons till ground rock and soluables are exausted.the inland sea algae holds all important elements in a roundish cell with fingers(filia). Using this would decentralize civilization, make food production independent. Making world safer from war and plague. Which will be here shortly benefiting the wrong people.the cell is very small, like super fine dust . dangerous to breathe. Dusted onto 3 inch wheat grass, expremed, drank caused strong dreaming night time.these elements are obviously missing in everything else by comparison . individual gardening with this feedstock could free man of church and state. War, junkfood, and medical exploitagion of our bodies. Sorry I guess im wandering.attention to agriculture is now critical now . we’ve been blaming the mexicans too long.

  11. In the Frequently Asked Questions (Appendix 4 of The National Climate Assessment), the authors admit that the climate models make no predictions. A system is controllable if and only if it makes predictions. Thus, for the purpose of controlling the climate, the climate models are logically worthless. A logical conclusion does not, however, emerge from the Assessment.

  12. Like I have said time and time again. People here and on other sites sit smugly writing how we have the truth and how the truth is winning out and that the Warmists are losing ground.
    Congrats to you. I guess the nightly news that MILLIONS of people see has no affect on the general populace or the gov’t.
    Is there no one on this site with letters after his or her name who can get some TV time themselves?
    Why has NO ONE from these sites hit the nightly news??? Are you locked out? I have no credentials unfortunately to get listened to.
    Basically it has come down to I find this and other sited like it are a waste of my reading time. I think you have lost site of what your purpose is. I don’t want to read every damn article about how there is global warming just so folks here can make snide comments. Its about time there is positive action made to get the truth out there before it is too late and we have to pay for generations from stupid useless actions taken now.

    • Geoff Smith:

      Usually, the PBS New Hour presents two sides of an issue. A couple of weeks ago, they presented two experts each of whom presented the same, alarmist view of global warming. Why did the PBS New Hour do this when plenty of people with outstanding credentials were available to present an opposing view? I don’t know the answer but suspect that the folks at PBS New Hour had been deceived by applications of the equivocation fallacy into thinking there was only one intellectually respectable view. I address this phenomenon at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .

      Actually, there is only one intellectually respectable view and it is not the one presented by PBS News Hour. The one intellectually respectable view is that global warming research conducted to date supports no conclusion on possible causes. This line of research has been a misconceived failure.

  13. More people will die of heat related illnesses if they shut down the inexpensive “polluting” power plants and thus raise energy costs so that senior citizens have to choose between inflated food prices and paying their electric bill. Self-fulfilling prophesy or unintended consequences? It depends on their motives.

  14. Geoff, wake up and smell the coffee – everyone on our side IS locked out of the mainstream media, The so-called media are now full-time paid political shills, there is not a single “journalist” among them worthy of the name. If the way this story is being treated doesn’t prove that to you, I don’t know what can.

    And just FYI, “millions of people” do NOT watch the evening news anymore – tens of millions of people have permanently tuned out, having become convinced (and rightly so) that what is called the “news” is just the days dollop of political slop. Ratings are crashing at every MSM news show, and they soon will be dead. But the political forces that control them are still strong enough to block anyone from our side from getting on, so we have to work on this problem the way the French Resistance worked to undermine the Wehrmacht.

    And that is what we do, every day, in every way we can. And sooner, rather than later, This Regime Will Fall.

    • Sorry friend I run a vacation cottages business and I have guests from all over the world and many from Toronto and Ottawa (tells you were I am) and 95 percent of them talk about global warming and the facts they hear on the news.
      It’s fine for you to have your views on how crap the nightly news is and I to feel the same way but you are fooling yourself to think most people feel the same. They don’t. If a TV is not working in a cottage and they miss their news… does not matter if they are from France, Florida or Israel. They watch it, they talk about it and most believe it.
      When you under estimate the opposition you will loose.

  15. Suppose in a few decades it becomes evident to most everyone that the planet is not in a runaway meltdown. Suppose in fact that it is going into another one of its mini ice ages. Do you think these chicken-littles will shut up? Of course not! The ‘reasons’ and discourse will change, but the goal remains the same: Give me MONEY! Give me POWER!

  16. Follow the money. After you think about it, go to Media Matters and read the comments there. They all drank the Koolaid.

  17. ” As hot weather has become more frequent, people and communities have adapted to it”

    Again, where has “hot weather become more frequent”??

  18. They’re just getting us all moving in the same direction, everyone on board, working as a team. United, all one glorious people.
    Workers of the world unite.

  19. The shameless Obama ass-kissers at CBS and NBC both repeated the alarmist hype unquestioningly, except that NBC did mention that someone (not names) called the report alarmist.

    To put it simply, it is of the same cloth as you can keep your health plan, and a video caused the Benghazi massacre. Somehow, the message needs to get out to the same people who are seeing through the Obama administration’s other lies.

    I fear that this kind of official and institutional behavior will only be remedied by a rigorous housecleaning of the government, academia and the media of leftists, in the manner of the de-Nazification of Germany after 1945.

    These people will still be clinging to the alarmist/CAGW meme even as the ice sheets of the next glaciation are advancing on them. The truth is simply not in the left. They can’t even recognize it when it slaps them upside the head. Obviously the worst winter ever recorded in Chicago didn’t get the attention of its most infamous son.

    I personally think Obama knows full well that AGW is false and pursues it only as a device to consolidate totalitarian power.

  20. “michael hart says: May 6, 2014 at 6:08 pm
    ….. if the ‘pause’ continues they can claim success.”

    Unreal or surreal, since there’s been no change at all in the pace of CO2 concentration increase for the past two decades or more.

  21. sadly when you have a fascist/socialist/communist in charge, you will always be told it is so bad out there, the other guys are all the reasons you are not a squillionaire and then implement fascist/socialist/communist policies that take away freedoms, choices, and more than likely many peoples lives (just ask the Jews, Christians, gypsies, etc that have been killed by the above mentioned groups). They usually package it nicely with statements like “it’s for the children”, “its for the future of the planet” and other cute sounding slogans, designed to make you seem like the enemy if you ague against it.

    They are already programing the masses to accept mass murder, for the sake of the planet no less, 80% I believe is their current target (themselves excluded of course). They are already getting the useful idiots riled up ready to perform street lynching’s en mass as soon as they call for it, which is why they have their lists of who is on board, so they can rid gia (of whatever they are calling the earth these days) of the unclean.

    But on a funny note, if they do get rid of the productive unclean, they will die within a few short months themselves from starvation, lack of medicines, lack of well pretty much everything that sustains life as we know it, as they are unable to produce anything of use to the world themselves.

    So fellow travellers, buckle in for an interesting ride, get as off grid as much as possible and sit back with some popcorn and watch them self implode and eat each other as they fail miserably.

  22. “If you like your climate, You can keep your climate, Period”, just do exactly as “we” say…….

    Cheers, Kevin.

  23. reality:

    6 May: Reuters: UPDATE 2-Europe stuck with Russian gas dependence, say G7 ministers
    Germany says no alternative to Russian gas in short term.
    Europe will be saddled with its dependence on Russian gas for years, ministers from the Group of Seven industrial nations said on Tuesday, condemning the use of energy as a weapon of political coercion.
    “I don’t know anyone in the world who could tell us how Europe’s dependency on importing Russian gas can be changed in the short term,” German Economy and Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel told reporters…
    U.S. shale gas was not expected to aid Europe until at least the end of the decade, when it could be imported from tankers as LNG.
    Both Italy and France restated their support for the South Stream pipeline project, which will bring gas from Russia into Europe bypassing Ukraine – while also declaring the need to build up alternative channels.
    A third of the EU’s gas imports is from Russia, with almost half of that passing through Ukraine…

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/06/g7-energy-gabriel-idUKL6N0NS3I220140506

    suicidal?

    5 May: NYT: Peter Baker: Obama Aides Tell Executives to Skip Forum
    The White House has pressured the chief executives of some of America’s largest energy, financial and industrial corporations into canceling plans to attend an international economic forum in Russia to be hosted by President Vladimir V. Putin this month…
    The top executives of such giants as Alcoa, Goldman Sachs, PepsiCo, Morgan Stanley, ConocoPhillips and other multinational companies with business in Russia have either pulled out of the conference or plan to do so after an intensive lobbying campaign by President Obama’s advisers. Corporate officials predicted that nearly every American C.E.O. will now skip the forum in St. Petersburg…
    Among the top administration officials who have been working the telephones are Valerie Jarrett, the president’s senior adviser and liaison to business; Jacob J. Lew, the Treasury secretary; Penny Pritzker, the commerce secretary; and Jeffrey D. Zients, the national economic adviser.
    “They’ve basically been saying, ‘We’re not telling you what to do, but it wouldn’t look good,’ ” said an executive at one of the companies who received such a call, and who, like others, declined to be named to avoid offending either side in the dispute…
    They (some industry officials) said European or Asian competitors may simply fill the void. “Nobody wants to get caught on the wrong side of anybody in this if they can help it,” said one such official. “Some companies are trying to do their best to avoid getting trapped in this minefield.”…
    At a closed meeting in Moscow of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia last week, representatives of United States firms expressed aggravation at being penalized either way. “The understanding is that those that choose to go will be on the Obama administration’s dog list,”*** concluded a participant’s summary of the session…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/world/europe/us-urges-executives-to-skip-russian-forum.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0

    ***aw shucks. that’s preferable to being on Obama’s “kill list”.

  24. Geoff, all we have to worry about here is the political situation in the United States – that is the key to everything. Here is why: if we can take control of both houses of Congress (looking good for November), then we can block all climate related legislation here for years to come. And when it is widely publicized what we are doing, it will become obvious that the Indians and the Chinese will not do anything to hurt their economies if we won’t. And once it is established that the US, the Chinese, and the Indians aren’t going to do anything, it won’t matter what the Euro’s believe or do – they don’t have enough power left to affect anything at all, and at that point all they will be able to do is cry in their beer about it. So the Euro’s will believe we are Bad People – that and 5 bucks will buy you Venti Mocha at Starbucks, and that’s about it.

    And then nothing will happen to the world after all, and it will all be forgotten.

    If we win politically here in the United States, we can cut this snakes head off worldwide.

  25. Nye was all about Sandy being a climate change disaster, but when the CNN reporter pointed out the IPCC and NCA reports saying there was no trend in hurricanes, suddenly he was saying “Hurricanes shmurricanes!”

    Then the host called Nye out on the bullying and shaming that climate scientists do to anyone who merely questions the claims. Win all around.

  26. I am not trying to grand stand but – I could not think of why all this AGW and IPCC nonsense has gone so far. And been supported by so many government officials to follow the AGW and methane & CO2 hypothesis, in order to change the climate! I honestly believe and have maintained that the this planet is an ice planet, and thinking of the 1970s series with Lenard Nimoy and late Stephen Schrieder (spelling sorry) but he was one of Gores scientific advisers with James Hansen, but it seems to have been completely dismissed. For those who are too young to remember it is on YouTube, where they discussed the likelihood of a coming ice age.

    Are there no dissenting scientists, archaeologist, geologists that have proclaimed already the global warming is not happening and there is more likelihood that we are ending the interstadial or interglacial we have enjoyed for over 10,000 years? It would seem that the IPCC and other global alarmists have been trying to distract us from what could be the inevitable, that would prove far more harmful to the Northern Hemisphere particularly. Particularly if our energy use would be increased to keep us warm etc. And of course would affect crop growing.
    In fact, some years ago, a news article in Australia proclaimed the Southern Hemisphere would be inundated with immigrants from the Northern Hemisphere should another ice age start.
    This would be centuries away anyway for the glaciers to encroach as far as the great lakes or in Northern Europe, and UK. But it would mean a global approach and consensus would be required more than it is today. Just a thought.

  27. This makes me physically ill. It makes me want to puke. And makes me very angry.

    I watched some of Holdren’s and Podesta’s carefully stage crafted propaganda, followed by equally well coordinated coverage of that same propaganda by our local TV news stations here in the south Seattle area,making sure the message was reinforced.

    Our country is being sequentially weakened, crippled deliberately, with malice a fore thought through carefully coordinated political attacks. Economically, militarily, monetarily, industrially, ethically, and morally crippled by Our Dear Leader, his administration, and the socialist democrats and spinless ‘moderate’ republicans that support increasing government controls and erosion of individual rights, to advance ‘the collective’.

    In recent months, I have seen numerous posters on these pages postulating how the ‘warmists are on the run’, ‘the myth of AGW is collapsing’, and similar ‘It’s all but over’ confidence in this echo chamber of self assuring commentary……
    DOES IT LOOK LIKE IT’S OVER????
    DOES IT LOOK LIKE THEY ARE RUNNING AWAY????
    They are pressing their crippling agenda aggressively forward and
    They Are Winning.

    Now, what are we going to do about it? Anybody?????

  28. Repeating the message indefinitely is the time honoured solution. We need a one page list of the most salient FACTS with sources cited, and zero rhetoric! Update this list regularly and popularise it by circulation over time…. It needs to have a catchy and self explanatory name – suggestions?

  29. There once was a children’s story The Emperor’s new cloths. Now we don’t need to read stories by the brothers Grimm. We have AWG to spin stories of what’s to belive we see when reality isn’t to be trusted. It only takes a child as in the story shouting: The emperor is naked…..

  30. I am not American but I know that our Australian government is ignoring the global warming hypothesis and is trying to repeal our carbon tax for starters. But until July 1st when new members of the senate take over, they have stalled it, as it is the senate that is stopping it.
    Get on to your Republicans who you may not support but if they have a good presidential nominee next year who speaks against global warming, you might have a chance to reverse this with commonsense. Hilary Clinton will be the Democratic nomination I think, and I don’t think she will win the hearts of many Americans. But you don’t need another Sarah Palin! Who says humans walked with dinosaurs. There must be many Republicans who don’t agree with AGW.
    Search them out, and lobby them.

  31. Graeme says:
    May 6, 2014 at 10:31 pm
    Repeating the message indefinitely is the time honoured solution. <b.We need a one page list of the most salient FACTS with sources cited, and zero rhetoric! Update this list regularly and popularise it by circulation over time…. It needs to have a catchy and self explanatory name – suggestions?

    Graeme,
    Good Start! One page climate fact sheet with links to references.
    Name: The Climate Truth Shall Set You Free!

    Who’s next???? C’mon Americans!!!!!
    What are we going to do about it????
    Mac

  32. anthony has begun a new thread, but posting here is less O/T for what i want to say:

    i just watched Patrick Michaels on australia’s APAC Channel (australian public affairs channel). excellent talk. easy to understand. Dr. Michaels has been touring australia since the end of April, and speaking at mostly sold-out events.

    YET Dr. Michaels has not had a single mention in any australian MSM – no interviews whatsoever on the many taxpayer-funded ABC radio & tv programs that push CAGW non-stop. how can this be when the Australian Govt was partly elected by the public to dismantle CAGW policies? nothing in Fairfax or Murdoch media. boy, does that vindicate everything Dr. Michaels had to say in his talk.

    even so, it is so extraordinary, i can hardly believe it.

    btw APAC Channel doesn’t count. no-one watches it.

  33. I don’t think it’s that they’re winning – they are in control and spewing this crap and doing whatever they please about it provides an illusion that they’re winning. Whoever believes the swill that was dished out today is truly paranoid delusional. And I’ve no doubt they’ve created some in the general population. It’s going to take a while to “recover” if we can stop those that have the reins right now.

  34. So I happen to be in D.C. on business and yesterday I make my way across the the lower side of the Capitol building. There on the lawn are two dozen high schoolers with a long global warming banner and they are chanting some mindless script. Of course, on top of them are camera crews getting tight angle shots to impart the sense that this was a large and notable assembly…

    It struck me that the youth and the ill informed are being preyed upon by activists and their media friends.

  35. If you folks would like to reverse this trend, another tack would be to find some qualified experts to build a truly persuasive, scientifically defensible case that AGW theory is wrong, and then get it published in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal. I am afraid you will have a difficult time doing this, not because the journals are rigged — they’re not — but because no such argument is known.

  36. Rule #1 – Never let a good crises go to waste.
    Rule #2 – If you do not have a good crises, make one up.

    They are following the rules.

  37. And the Weather Channel has already fallen in lock step! What a shame. I know it must really be upsetting to John Coleman to watch his baby implode on itself.

    Other than local on the 8’s, it’s not worth watching anymore.

  38. The good news is that on the climate change issue Americans are Outliers. The bad news is that even though we rate dead last, 40% of Americans still view global climate change as a “major threat” to the U.S. We know that Democrats overwhelmingly buy into the hype and pap dished out by the MSM and will swallow this latest “report” whole, without question, while Republicans generally do not. As usual though, enough people have to care that we are being lied to, and that our democratic form of government is threatened by these lies to bother showing up at the polls. The question then is, are people fed up enough? Is the level of anger high enough? I honestly don’t know.

  39. Patrick Michaels made a joke at his talk in Sydney about how the audience didn’t need Fairfax Media, Fairfax needed them. he was correct. Fairfax churns out CAGW scare stories by the hour – unreadable. if only the Govt would now cut back taxpayer-funded ABC which costs the public over a billion dollars a year. they have multiple TV & radio stations all over Australia, with CAGW inserted into virtually every program. unwatchable, unlistenable.

    the MSM is suicidal. this is the latest round of cuts at Fairfax:

    7 May: ABC: Fairfax journalists strike over loss of 80 jobs at The Age, Sydney Morning Herald
    Fairfax staff have gone on strike for 24 hours in protest after the company announced it was set to cut about 80 full-time positions across newsrooms in Sydney and Melbourne…
    As a result, 35 editorial jobs were on the line, 30 photographers would lose their jobs and 15 positions would be lost from the Life magazine division, the company said, as any “new arrangements will absorb more copy-editing and page layout work”…
    Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) federal secretary Christopher Warren called the cuts “an assault on the quality journalism” that might lead to a decline in the volume and quality of content…
    “It strips a massive loss in skills, experience and knowledge from the group,” he said…

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-07/fairfax-journalists-strike-for-24-hours-over-loss-of-80-jobs/5436232?google_editors_picks=true

  40. Palindrom — I think you mean CAGW. No-one in their right mind denies that humans influence climate — we’ve been doing that since we invented agriculture; the question is, how much, and whether there is any point in wrecking our economies trying to change the scale of that influence. The CAGW conjecture, on the other hand, does not have to be proven ‘wrong’, because its proponents have not as yet adduced any concrete, empirical evidence in its favour. It’s not surprising that no argument exists against it — there is nothing against which to argue.

  41. I have work to do, so one comment and then I’ll be out of here.

    wws: I’m sure I’m viewed as a troll in these parts; but I’m not saying anything that isn’t supported by every major scientific organization in the world, and I’m not trying to be nasty. I’m raising a question which, if pursued, should cause any reader of this site who is not ideologically dug-in to wonder if they’ve got it right. The question is: If AGW really is wrong, why is it that no coherent counter-argument has appeared in the professional literature? The only way to explain this is to invent a conspiracy theory in which thousands of scientists have formed a united front of corruption. Many here are all too happy to believe this, but as one who has lived and breathed physical science for decades, and who knows that community from the inside, I find this explanation to be, well, ridiculous.

    Alan Carlisle: Despite numerous claims to the contrary on this site and others like it, climate models actually do pretty well in explaining the broad response of the climate to changes in insolation, atmospheric composition, and the like. These models are uncertain, but the uncertainties are quantifiable. The models show very clearly that severe disruptions are well within the range of uncertainty; even at the low end of the range, we’re faced with many expensive adaptations (e.g., the near certainty that Miami won’t exist in, say, 2200). It’s become a shibboleth that computer models cannot be trusted, but they certainly work well across a wide range of science; also, one must not lose sight of the fact that they are not expected to predict fluctuations (e.g., El Nino events), but rather to predict ensemble averages. Even if one distrusts the models, the basic radiative transfer physics of CO2 is very well understood, and it clearly shows that CO2 must warm the climate.

    • @palindrom –

      First, you lied. That was more than one comment
      Second, your opinion is worthless. And so far that is all you have given. You can claim the models more accurate than an exacto knife. But the track records show you wrong. They are not even close.

      Stop the trolling. if you want to contribute, do so. But stop lying about what you are doing.

  42. Jeff Alberts says:

    May 6, 2014 at 7:50 pm

    ” As hot weather has become more frequent, people and communities have adapted to it”

    Again, where has “hot weather become more frequent”??

    Hot weather oft times shows up here in northern Michigan in July, August and part of September.
    Other than that not so much.

  43. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/

    Why waste time? I suspect the percentage of climate scientists, certainly “consensus” scientists are even lower than journalists. It’s opinion based culture “science” like economics or “women’s studies” are Berkeley. This is what “skepticism” should focus on. The “science” of climate can always be distorted and cherry picked, it’s the corruption of advocate sources that is obvious.

    Of course the report looks the way it does, it’s fruit of the same poison tree of liberal agenda.

  44. Pallindrome said – “… find some qualified experts to build a truly persuasive, scientifically defensible case that AGW theory is wrong…”

    You are missing the point. The basics of AGW are largely agreed upon. They are not likely to be shown to be wrong, certainly not in a single publication. The problem is the alarming interpretations and extrapolations springing from but going innapropriately well beyond the basics.

    Charle’s Darwin’s theory of evolution has held up pretty well, but it has been used inaapropriately to support eugenics and various crackpot ideas. Attacking mistatements, exagerations, mis-projections, over-extensions, harmful remedies and the like is not an attack on the basic science. Scientists should not be able to protect themselves and their own misapplications of science by hiding inside of the cloak of the founding basic science. Doing so is a terrible mis-service to the scientific process.

  45. Alan Carlisle says:
    May 7, 2014 at 5:49 am

    No-one in their right mind denies that humans influence climate — we’ve been doing that since we invented agriculture;
    Huh? Whatever influence agriculture has on climate, it is localized, and the overall effect on the climate worldwide trivial and of no consequence whatsoever.
    Palindrom has work to do – he’s a busy Alarmist troll.

  46. The cash presently being dangled by a couple of billionaire marxists in front of dems for the next election campaign-coffers is causing a climate of psychosis.

    One might guess the Obama junta/Dems are also trying to deflect attention away from the myriad scandals. If you can’t convince them w/facts, baffle them with bullsh*t….

  47. It got even colder in the 1800s than in the Medieval Chill that drove the Norse from Greenland and multiply decimated Europe, but because of the Industrial Revolution the damage was far less. Regardless of whether it heats or chills, economic growth is the key to survival. Greens believe in subjugation of Man; Man demurs.

  48. Um, is there a chance we could take the authors, and paymasters, of the National Climate Assessment Report to court on charges of voter fraud?

    Ok, I’m kidding.

    Uh, maybe I’m not.

  49. palindrom says:
    May 7, 2014 at 6:13 am

    Even if one distrusts the models, the basic radiative transfer physics of CO2 is very well understood, and it clearly shows that CO2 must warm the climate.

    And when CO2 fails to “warm the climate” for nearly 20 years, then the models are clearly wrong.

    Most would agree that CO2 in a test tube warms as advertised. Happily, neither does Earth reside in a test tube, nor is there any way to duplicate Earth’s atmosphere in one.
    ~
    Remember, the goal posts have been moved. All of the mitigation was deemed appropriate when the threat was catastrophe, as in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, CAGW.

    Skeptics: always frame the debate with the original goal posts. Without impending doom, there’s no reason to give up our light bulbs and coal-fired power plants.

    None.

  50. Climate alarmists’ heads continue to go further up their rear ends, trapping more of the hot air they release. That’s the cause for the pause.

  51. And all for unrelenting donations and leverage in the budget to reward favored congressional districts! Get it?

  52. Well, my post has generated the usual points-refuted-a-thousand-times rebuttals. Terry Oldberg’s post links to an article that argues from philosophical grounds that the case is not proven, but does not present any physical explanation for the warming that has occurred. Steve P. claims that warming has stopped — which it emphatically has not — and that there is therefore no need to consider remediation.

    I will never persuade “the regulars” here of anything — they probably think I’m the Devil incarnate — but perhaps a lurker or two will see a dissenting voice. My point, again, is that the work presented on this site gets no traction at all among people with relevant expertise. Argument from authority is perfectly fine if the authority is properly constituted — and based on my own knowledge and my acquaintance with the scientific community, I am confident colleagues in earth and atmospheric sciences do in fact know their business.

    Best to everyone here, and thank you for letting me raise a dissenting in your forum.

    • @palindrom

      I will never persuade “the regulars” here of anything

      opinions never do. Facts however are a different matter. Until you can learn the difference, your life will be a constant frustration.

      Devil incarnate? Hardly. Just an alarmist. And not even one of the better ones. At least they come armed with facts.

  53. palindrom (May 7 2015 AT 10:19 AM):

    I gather that you have no quarrel with my conclusion that the case is not proven. This conclusion is, however, inconsistent with the confidence that you express in the competency of your colleagues in earth and atmospheric sciences. After the expenditure of an enormous sum of money on research they have: a) provided no basis for making policy and b) done their utmost to convince naive laymen that there is such a basis.

  54. palindrom says:
    May 7, 2014 at 10:19 am
    Argument from authority is perfectly fine if the authority is properly constituted — and based on my own knowledge and my acquaintance with the scientific community, I am confident colleagues in earth and atmospheric sciences do in fact know their business.
    I believe you have just invented a new logical fallacy, a version of the Ignorance Fallacy one might call the Idiot Fallacy. Congratulations.

  55. wws,

    You overlook the EPA, which Congress long ago granted special independent regulatory authority. And a “conservative” SCOTUS recently confirmed EPA’s power to regulate CO2 as a “dangerous pollutant”. It will take more than both houses of congress to stop the EPA – it will also take The White House – and there is no guarantee a Trojan Horse republican from a liberal state like, say, New Jersey will repudiate AGW.

  56. Terry Oldberg —

    I gather that you have no quarrel with my conclusion that the case is not proven.

    I didn’t say that.

  57. palindrom,

    You are brave, still having a fine life in the face of imminent doom and untold suffering which you believe is rushing towards us. Gosh, I admire you.

  58. @werner brozek –

    Yes, the most interesting aspects of the video were (1) Bill Nye the Superstition Guy trying to shout down the Heritage Foundation guy (how characteristic of alarmists!), and (2) the CNN moderator pointing out Nye’s bullying and attempts to silence dissent.

    Let’s hope this is a trend at CNN. Fox has been having to go it alone for far too long..

  59. I am not a philosopher, nor a semanticist. Your article is primarily about semantics. There is no physics in it. All it does is quibble about what it means to confirm a model; it strikes me as a bonfire of the strawmen.

    So, I’m not refuting your argument — I simply think it has nothing to do with the substantive scientific issue.

    • palindrom (May 7 2015 AT 10:19 AM):

      Here’s the relevancy: By logical rule, one cannot draw a conclusion from an “equivocation,” that is, an argument in which a term changes meanings in the midst of this argument. In making arguments about global warming, climatologists routinely do that.

      Alarmists and skeptics are alike in doing that. If stripped of an ability to draw logically illicit conclusions from equivocations, climatologists of all stripes are unable to provide guidance on policy. The body of research over which climatologists have presided for several decades is revealed to have been a complete failure.

      As presently constituted, global warming climatology is a pseudo-science. Wrenching changes must be made in in if it is to join the scienc3es.

  60. palindrom:

    Firstly, I congratulate you on your excellent trolling of this thread. In particular, your encouragement of Terry Oldberg in his promotion of his usual nonsense is superb: a better example of thread deflection is hard to imagine .

    I write to answer trolling you provide in your post at May 7, 2014 at 6:13 am where you write

    I have work to do, so one comment and then I’ll be out of here.

    wws: I’m sure I’m viewed as a troll in these parts; but I’m not saying anything that isn’t supported by every major scientific organization in the world, and I’m not trying to be nasty. I’m raising a question which, if pursued, should cause any reader of this site who is not ideologically dug-in to wonder if they’ve got it right. The question is: If AGW really is wrong, why is it that no coherent counter-argument has appeared in the professional literature? The only way to explain this is to invent a conspiracy theory in which thousands of scientists have formed a united front of corruption. Many here are all too happy to believe this, but as one who has lived and breathed physical science for decades, and who knows that community from the inside, I find this explanation to be, well, ridiculous.

    Clearly, your promise to be “out of here” was a falsehood, and it was below your usual high standard of trolling. In my opinion you would have done better to have omitted it.

    However, your invention of a conspiracy theory is a both a ‘straw man’ and a ‘red herring’. This is much more typical of your high standard of thread disruption.

    And you make that invention as a purported answer to your own question; viz.

    If AGW really is wrong, why is it that no coherent counter-argument has appeared in the professional literature?

    There are many papers in the “professional literature” which provide severe doubt to the hypothesis of anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW). A list of over a thousand is here.

    Importantly, a paper providing “coherent counter-argument” would be reversing the null hypothesis

    The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.

    The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.

    In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.

    Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.

    However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.

    In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.

    Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.

    Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.

    The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.

    Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
    Idso from surface measurements

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf

    and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

    and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

    Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

    To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.

    But, of course, that is science and, therefore, it has no interest to members of the ‘Cult of AGW’ such as yourself.

    Richard

    • richardscourtney:

      Your theory is not scientific but rather is pseudoscientific, as I have proved to you on numerous past occasions. By the way, when one’s theory is truly scientific, one does not have to resort to ad hominem arguments, including labeling one’s opponent as a member of a cult, in defending it.

  61. I’m puzzled. Since when is raising points that may be valid — indeed, are considered valid by the vast majority of expert opinion — “trolling”? I’m sensing the dread epistemic closure.

    richard, the ‘null hypothesis’ as you frame it is long since refuted. There is no serious question that the climate is much warmer than normal trends can account for (see, e.g., the Nature Geosciences pages2k reconstruction); there is no question that CO2 absorption in the outgoing spectrum of the earth has strengthened over time. The warming effect is pretty much on the money. Fluctuations over 20-year timescales are insignificant — that’s not moving the goalposts, it’s a correct statement of what climate science claims to do. The PopTech list you link is full of gross misinterpretations (many authors on the list protested indignantly that their work was being misunderstood). There still is not a single paper that offers a refutation of global warming that experts find persuasive. If there were, surely folks like Judith Curry and Roy Spencer would be citing it triumphantly, rather than nibbling about the edges as they do.

  62. Palindrom
    ”.If you folks would like to reverse this trend, another tack would be to find some qualified experts to build a truly persuasive, scientifically defensible case that AGW theory is wrong, and then get it published in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal. I am afraid you will have a difficult time doing this, not because the journals are rigged — they’re not — but because no such argument is known”

    Not sure how you’ve missed the volumes of Peer reviewed work by so many well respected qualified expert scientists, who absolutely reject the CAGW theory.
    This theory has always been controversial, because of lack of a truly persuasive, scientifically defensible case. It’s long past any possibility of gaining credibility with it’s current assertions. It also parted company with honesty and integrity in favour of a more politically driven agenda.

    I am always interested to hear both sides of the debate, and indeed welcome your opinion here, but your confidence in the Climate models, is naïve. The lack of any significant warming over the past 17+ years is well established and accepted on both sides of the debate. This is why there are so many attempts to explain it away by those who didn’t see it coming.

    All the best to you too, hope we all get to enjoy a nice warm summer. It would be nice to get a bit of warming instead of the cold version of Global warming, for a change.

    Eamon.

    • Eamon Butler:

      Common to the arguments of the “two sides” is the logically illicit practice of drawing a conclusion from an equivocation, an “equivocation fallacy.” Thus, there is an often unrecognized third side which observes that no such conclusion may logically be drawn.

  63. palindrom:

    re your post at May 7, 2014 at 4:00 pm.

    No, I will not bite. In this thread I have already refuted each and every of your points. For example, your assertion of unprecedented warming is a repeat of your untrue assertion that effects of warmer temperatures are greater now than in the MWP.

    You have demonstrated that your trolling can be better than that of Terry Oldberg, and lowering your standards to his reduces your effectiveness.

    Richard

  64. palindrom says:
    May 7, 2014 at 4:00 pm

    The PopTech list you link is full of gross misinterpretations (many authors on the list protested indignantly that their work was being misunderstood).

    Palindrom, why are you lying about the list? Please name these so-called authors, then locate their papers on the list and state the reason for their inclusion.

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Rebuttals

    Criticism: Many authors/scientists have demanded their papers be removed from the list.

    Rebuttal: Only one “co-author” (Russell Dickerson) has ever contacted the editor with any such demands and this paper was removed after it was determined that defending it’s inclusion was a distraction from the quality of the list, even though he was using strawman arguments for why it was included (e.g. “Please remove this article from your list of skeptics”). The lead author Roger Pielke Sr. never made any such demands and stated that the paper argues against the IPCC.

    Any paper that was listed in error has long been removed. All papers are listed because they support skeptic arguments and has nothing to do with the personal position of the authors.

Comments are closed.