National Climate Assessment ‘frequently confuses climate with climate change’

National Climate Assessment Report Raises False Alarm

By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger

This article appeared in Washington Times on May 7, 2014.

The Obama Administration’s just-released National Climate Assessment report leaves the impression that if we don’t quickly launch into action to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily by shifting away from using fossil fuels), we will be inundated by an endless flow of misfortune unleashed by the ensuing climate change. The flood has already begun.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, the assessment report frequently confuses climate with climate change. The natural climate of the United States is constantly overflowing with extreme weather hazards of all sorts — hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, blizzards, heat waves, hard freezes and on and on. It’s the norm. The assessment would have you think that every time one of these types of events happens, now or in the future, it is because we are emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Such a conclusion is a stretch and has never been proven. A thorough review of climate science would demonstrate that the impact of human-caused climate change on the behavior of most types of extreme weather is poorly understood. Instead, the vagaries of climate dominate our experiences.

Second, greenhouse gas emissions from the United States have a truly minimal and diminishing effect on the future course of the Earth’s climate. Rather, that course is being set by developing nations such as China and, soon, India. Research has shown that eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions from the United States now and forever only mitigates less than two-tenths of a one degree of warming by the end of the century — but the cost to do so would hurt our economy dearly. Few folks are willing to pay such a price for no measureable return.

Third, a growing body of scientific evidence — which is based in observations rather than climate models — strongly suggests that future climate change is going to be smaller than we are commonly told in reports such as this National Climate Assessment or those from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This means that reducing carbon-dioxide emissions from the United States will have even less of an impact than the tiny number mentioned above.

Finally, suggesting that we will be overwhelmed by negative impacts from climate change ignores our demonstrated human ability to respond to environmental challenges. A changing climate is only filled with negatives if we sit unresponsive and let it sweep over us. However, such an outcome is completely at odds with human civilization. The National Climate Assessment seems to sparingly recognize this fact, but then is quick to dismiss it as a way forward.

A glaring example concerns the death toll from heat waves. The assessment tells us that incidents of extreme heat have become more common and longer-lasting, and that we should expect the trend to continue into the future (until presumably that we stop emitting greenhouse gases). The report recognizes that “[s]ome of the risks of heat-related sickness and death have diminished in recent decades, possibly due to better forecasting, heat-health early warning systems, and/or increased access to air conditioning for the U.S. population.” It ignores those findings, though, to conclude “increasingly frequent and intense heat events lead to more heat-related illnesses and deaths.” This is not only a non sequitur but it is also completely wrong.

Scientific literature is chock full of studies that demonstrate that the population’s sensitivity to extreme heat is decreasing, resulting in lower rates of people dying during heat waves. This is true across the United States and in major cities around the world. A new paper by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health examined trends in heat-related mortality across the United States and concluded “[t]his study provides strong evidence that acute (e.g., same-day) heat-related mortality risk has declined over time in the U.S., even in more recent years.” Another recent look into heat-related mortality published in the prominent science journal Nature Climate Change concluded that “climate change itself leads to adaptation” a finding that “highlights one of the many often overlooked intricacies of the human response to climate change.” Such an observation applies directly to the National Climate Assessment.

Let’s get one thing clear: The National Climate Assessment is a political call to action document meant for the president’s left-leaning constituency. What pretense of scientific support that decorates it quickly falls away under a close and critical inspection.

Perhaps most telling is the letter to the members of Congress that introduces the just-released report, co-signed by White House Science Adviser John Holdren and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Kathryn Sullivan. The letter concludes, “When President Obama launched his Climate Action Plan last year, he made clear that the essential information contained in this report would be used by the Executive Branch to underpin future policies and decisions to better understand and manage the risks of climate change.”

When the president launched his Climate Action Plan last year, the National Climate Assessment was still being revised and reviewed. Yet somehow, the president already knew that it would help his environmental agenda and imminent executive actions on the issue. It seems the message was preordained — the mark of politics trumping science.

About these ads

57 thoughts on “National Climate Assessment ‘frequently confuses climate with climate change’

  1. The media frenzy is mounting to panic levels. This time, the CAGW crowd just might succeed in moving the polity. I think that this target-rich National Climate Assessment deserves a studious and thorough take-down from the best and brightest, as tired as they may by this time of railing against the furies.

  2. When I was in high school I took debate as an elective in English. I was surprised to discover that one highly effective means to score in a debate was to pad your information with fiction. Make up an authority if you lacked one. The most accomplished debaters lied like rugs at need when it came to facts and authorities. When challenged, the opponent was given a glare of offended dignity, and it was suggested that the lack of familiarity with the fictional authority was due to a lack of proper research and insufficient familiarity with “the literature.” This approach seems to have contaminated climate science and created a natural affinity with politics.

  3. It seems Obama is intent, on purpose or by accident, on creating a nation of poor people who would then forever back leftist rule. It would seem he is trying to follow in Venezuela’s example.

  4. The congressional elections in November will tell us the effectiveness (positive or negative) of this political message. If republicans gain control of the Senate, CAGWers have shot themselves in the foot because it will be less likely for the administration to be able to do anything for the “cause”.

  5. dabbio:
    The problem is that the media have painted themselves into the same corner as the politicians and none of them, neither politicians nor journalists, are prepared to hold up their hands and say “We got it wrong.” I live in hope that it will happen some day but I’m not holding my breath; and until it does the bulk of the populace will go on “believing”. They, the populace, may not do anything but they won’t change their minds because there is no-one to tell them that what they have been fed is wrong.

  6. I would point out that the NCA2014 confuses all known weather phenomena as artifacts of “anthropogenic” climate change without specifically defining “anthropogenic”, “climate” and “climate change” and without regard to what, if any, measurement pertains to either of the terms.
    The “evidence” it contains is a parade of presumptions, suppositions and superstitions cherry picked by the “experts” from their favored literary entertainments.

    As such, the NCA2014 is a policy statement for the federal funding cycles FY15 and FY16 and the mid-term Congressional election November 2014 and the Presidential election November 2016.

  7. Those clothes the emperor is wearing are the finest, as only a very intelligent and properly educated person can discern.
    As the scam unwinds, fools and bandits is the only logical conclusion.
    Or does “Chicago Politics” have a side branch of truthiness and pseudo science?

  8. This article is definitely a case for the Climate Inquisition to investigate.

    There must have been huge howls of protest from the scientifically challenged.

  9. No doubt this report is a product of some of the “gold standard” climate science research that we’ve heard so much about – “fool’s gold standard”, that is.

  10. You people need to take your once-great nation back. We in the UK, I fear, are beyond hope (too European, too socialist). At least in the US “socialist” is still a dirty word (hence the fact American socialists substitute the word “Liberal” – which means the exact opposite of “socialist” everywhere else – in its place).

  11. Again, Bill Nye looks like a total tool on the video. I have to give CNN credit in this case, they made the right points (for all the wrong reasons) and he just couldn’t stand it!

    (Sorry mods for the multiple posts, oops)

  12. The international legal implications of this report could be serious for the US, which in effect is admitting complicity in every extreme weather event. Next time I lose a roof tile in a gale can I send the bill to the US Treasury?

  13. The so-called “National Climate Assessment” is political campaign tool, not an honest scientific report. It is not designed to enlighten people about climate. This political report is designed to manipulate people into accepting the President’s misplaced, non-scientific ideas on CO2 tax and enriching his friends who are profiting from tax payers on more unworkable alternative energy investments.

  14. “National Climate Assessment ‘frequently confuses climate with climate change’”

    No.

    The National Climate Assessment deliberately confuses climate with climate change.

    Oh, OK – it frequently deliberately confuses climate with climate change.

    :)

  15. The National Climate Assessment is a political call to action document meant for the president’s left-leaning constituency

    Yes, but more importantly and ruinously it is intended to be the ‘research shows’ to make Climate Change and the need to transform society and the economy front and center of the curriculum being created for the new K-12 Common Core standards and especially the Next Generation Science Standards. Facts are no longer the way in. Concepts are and then ‘illustrating facts.” This report gets cited as the illustrating ‘fact.’ The concepts are known as key disciplinary ideas or Understandings of Consequence and the project oriented nature of the classroom reforms and the digital learning all involve practicing as if CAGW were real.

    It becomes real then in the student’s mind as an image of reality that guides perception. Just like Norbert Weiner’s theory of cybernetics laid out. In education false theories can still be usefully influential in the desired directions to drive transformational changes. The real point beyond funding of both the NCA and the IPCC process. I know as I have the UNESCO curriculum it created as self-confessed Task Manager under Chapter 35 of Agenda 21.

  16. I think US should be more concerned about harsh winters, which may be regular occurrence during at least the next decade or two.
    Role of the NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) is well known and there is not much dispute about that, the composite is shown here:

    The northern leg of the NAO (Reykjavik atmospheric pressure) is currently the dominant component; projection from the data collected (but that is another story) based on the past 130 years behavior of the NAO, suggest that the index will be negative for some years to come.

  17. By reading the reports, one gets the idea that climate change is a cause, rather than an effect. That did not happen with global warming. People tend to believe more when they read “climate change causes” rather than when they read “global warming changes”. Probably because climate change is a very diffuse term. It has not absolute units to measure climate change. You can attempt to measure global warming, but how can you measure climate change when one of the properties of climate is chaotic change?

  18. A glaring example concerns the death toll from heat waves. The assessment tells us that incidents of extreme heat have become more common and longer-lasting, and that we should expect the trend to continue into the future (until presumably that we stop emitting greenhouse gases). The report recognizes that “[s]ome of the risks of heat-related sickness and death have diminished in recent decades, possibly due to better forecasting, heat-health early warning systems, and/or increased access to air conditioning for the U.S. population.” It ignores those findings, though, to conclude “increasingly frequent and intense heat events lead to more heat-related illnesses and deaths.” This is not only a non sequitur but it is also completely wrong.

    That is until they make electricity so prohibitively expensive that only Al Gore & Choom Boy can afford air conditioning. It won’t kill that many people (when you compare it to the deaths caused by high fuel-oil prices), but it will kill more than it used to.

  19. Like my grandfather always said:

    Whether the weather be hot,
    Whether the weather be cold.
    Whatever the weather,
    We’ll weather the weather,
    Whether we like it or not!

    (Take that, Bill nigh unto irrelevance!)

  20. sorry, it should read “global warming causes…” instead of “global warming changes”

  21. Bill Nye the wrong way trade wind guy, got KO’d!! Cool!!! The guy is seriously clueless about weather, weather pattern variations, climate, and climate change. Seriously.

  22. Bill Nye has a BSc in Engineering. He never learned how real scientists behave. He would do well to observe and learn from Anthony Watts.

  23. Get ready for more of the same LIES ahead!

    “National Climate Assessment” and the N.Y. Times’ Freudian slip:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/opinion/climate-disruptions-close-to-home.html

    “ALASKA WILL KEEP MELTING An academic study 12 years ago noted an astonishing 5.4 degree increase in the annual mean temperatures in Alaska, causing melting permafrost and dying forests. More of the same lies ahead: shrinking glaciers and summer sea ice and more global warming as the carbon trapped in the permafrost is released into the atmosphere as methane.”

  24. They lie like dogs in this climate assessment report. When I wrote a comment that pointed that out (among other things) they would not let me post it on Climate Etc. Other stuff that is swept under the rug is the fact that Hansen did not prove the existence of the greenhouse effect in 1988 as he keeps insisting even now. I exposed that too and this really must have made them afraid. “This comment cannot br posted.” is how they expressed themselves. See below.
    **************************************************************************************************
    Now who is going to read 641 pages of propaganda literature? Among other things, it is full of falsified temperature curves as anyone who compares it to satellite data will discover. Not to mention imaginary volcanic coolings. But you don’t have to go beyond page one to find out what their agenda is. There you find the following statement: “…our society and its infrastructure were designed for the climate that we have had, not the rapidly changing climate that we now have…” That is simply a bald-faced lie because we do not have a “rapidly changing climate” now. As professionals they have an obligation to know the basic facts of their subject. It is known to all who work in the field that there is no climate change today and there has been none for the last 17 years according to both Met Office and IPCC temperature records. All those who signed it must take personal responsibility for what the report they signed says and what it says is utter nonsense. This is made worse by the fact that all their predictions are based upon the belief that this imaginary warming is due to the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. Nothing could be further from the truth. They think that it exists because James Hansen said so to the Senate in 1988. Hansen showed a rising temperature curve to the Senate that went from a low in 1880 to a high in 1988. This high point, he said, was the “…warmest point within the last 100 years.” According to him there was only a one percent chance that it could have happened by accident. Hence, there was a 99 percent probability that this warming was greenhouse warming and the greenhouse effect was thereby confirmed. But checking the Congressional Record you find that he includes as part of his 100 year warming a non-greenhouse warming that starts in 1910 and stops in 1940. Radiation laws of physics demand that if you are going to start an enhanced greenhouse warming you must simultaneously increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This did not happen in 1910. Hence, this warming is not greenhouse warming. The same conclusion follows from its sudden cessation because a greenhouse warming cannot be stopped without removing the absorbing molecules from air. It follows from this that the 1910 to 1940 period must be subtracted from his 100 year warming. And doing this lops off everything below 1940. What is left of his original 100 year warming after this amputation is a see-saw temperature curve, 25 years of cooling followed by 23 years of warming. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that no way can this prove the existence of the greenhouse effect. Hansen’s claim that he has observed the greenhouse effect is simply false. But nobody checked his science and he has been able to get away with this fiction for the last 24 years. Despite using supercomputers with up to a million lines of code today’s climate models are no better than Hansen’s were in 1988. This poor performance is not surprising since they use of a non-existent greenhouse effect in their million line code. Another failure is the fact that numerical calculations of temperature predict a non-existent hot spot at 10 to 12 kilometer height in the tropics. It is quite possible that using the non-existent greenhouse warming in that code they get their non-existent hot spot. As for CMIP5 output it is totally unable to simulate the existing twenty-first century temperature regime that is flat because their code is written to create a rising greenhouse warming. As a result, model output is simply atrocious. They have had 24 years to fine-tune their models since Hansen’s first models came out and the output is still worthless. I suggest shutting down the entire climate modeling operation because its contribution to understanding climate has been zero since day one.

  25. I think someone ought to start the ‘Realist Green Warmonger’ movement. Noting that regardless of what we in the U.S. do that China will continue to increase CO2 emissions for the next decade, advocate immediate subjugation of China in order to remove their emissions as a global world climate threat.

    Why don’t I hear anybody calling for that?

  26. It might be a small thing but when ABC News introduced the National Climate Assessment they did say, “a lot of scientists disagree with the president”. At least they acknowledged the fact this is far from a consensus.

  27. Mark Bofill,
    Because the name, ‘Realist Green Warmonger’ makes no snese and makes skeptics soundd like warmongers, if not worse.
    Let’s work on framing this report for what it is:
    A political document that is disconnected from science. A document that is being used to justify policies that hurt Americans. A document that falsely claims the climate is changing in dangerous ways. A document that falsely claims that people are suffering from weather in ways that are historically unprecedented ways.
    A report that claims to be about science but is really about wasting money on political insiders who profit from tax payer subsidies and governemnt contracts.
    For starters.
    This faux report deserves to be exposed for the shameful fraud it is.

  28. vukcevic says:
    “I think US should be more concerned about harsh winters, which may be regular occurrence during at least the next decade or two”

    Winters similar to the 1970’s look more likely during that time frame. The cold Winter of 2009/10 for some, was treated like an isolated weather event. The extreme cold (in the Midwest/Northeast) in the 2013/14 Winter was a reality check for many.

    We used up more natural gas for residential heating from November thru March than ever before.
    We went from close to the full storage and close to the most ever in storage down to precariously low and extreme price spikes at times.

    http://ir.eia.gov/ngs/ngs.html

    People got hit hard when the heating bills came and that’s something that hits home. This is a powerful way to get our point across.

    This administration is fighting global warming and doing it with a full court press, using our money, fraudulent science and lies. He is shutting down coal fired plants, which means even less energy for electricity, not just for air conditioning but for residential heating, at a time when we strained the ability of the natural gas market to keep up.

    This last Winter with extreme cold did some damage to his case I am certain. Another brutally cold Winter and regardless of whether we have an El Nino or not later this year(that increases global temps) and I think people, seeing their sky rocketing heating costs will be in a foul mood and looking for a scape goat.

    The man selling climate change snake oil will be their target.

    I’m not predicting next Winter to be as cold(it could) but feel that in the next decade, there will be several very cold Winters because of the natural cycle.
    Hopefully, this administration hasn’t completely destroyed our energy policies and caused energy prices to double before people reject this insanity.

    We have 250 years worth of power generating coal in the ground,. We cry about being dependent on foreign oil and we are the most energy rich country in the world when it comes to coal. We’re not capitalizing on this because of a beneficial gas?
    We are shutting down coal fired power plants because of an agenda?
    We are doing these things because of global warming that is not happening, while Winters with sustained extreme cold, that cause extreme draws on residential heating sources.have returned.

    Wow!

  29. Michael D says:
    May 8, 2014 at 12:21 pm
    Bill Nye has a BSc in Engineering. He never learned how real scientists behave. He would do well to observe and learn from Anthony Watts.

    Careful, many of us have the same degree but managed somehow to learn how real scientists behave (or rather how they are SUPPOSED to behave…).

  30. The public IQ test continues. We don’t have to keep score, that’s what the Net’s for. Future sociologists and psychologists will study our era, and lots of doctoral theses and masters degrees will be minted, using Internet archives.

    Thank goodness for the phrase “jumped the shark,” a catchy phrase that now counteracts the “denier” meme.

    “And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!” – Al Gore

    Oh, wait, he *did* get away with it, by responsibly taking at face value the word of whole scientific organizations, you know, the ones he threw so much agenda-laden money at.

  31. Perhaps a month long strike by the fossil fuel industry world wide would demonstrate the future as some politicials would wish it. Then we can decide which way to go.

  32. “Second, greenhouse gas emissions from the United States have a truly minimal and diminishing effect on the future course of the Earth’s climate. Rather, that course is being set by developing nations such as China and, soon, India.”

    Knappenberger’s statement accepts as fact that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will have an effect on future climate. This is only a hypothesis, support for which is beginning to crumble as observations diverge from hypothetical predictions. We do not know the future course of the earth’s climate.

  33. “The media frenzy is mounting to panic levels.”

    That’s what happens when reality isn’t matching the message, and when people start losing interest: they step up the hysteria. Eventually when enough people have lost enough interest, they’ll start on some other “disaster” (unless someone starts one in the meantime).

    One need only be a student of history to know this; no scientific expertise required.

  34. while Bill Nye certainly knows a great deal about science and I would definitely call him a respected scientist, he has mainly been an actor, entertainer, guest speaker and is often interviewed or makes appearances in shows/movies as a science expert.

    His biggest attribute is not his understanding of science(which I’m not knocking, since he knows a lot of stuff) but his ability to communicate effectively and entertain. He is gifted in this area and I don’t think there is a skeptic on the planet that could win a televised debate against him……….even though he is completey full of doo doo on this subject.

    Back in my days as a tv meteorologist, I often heard “it’s not what you say, but how you say it”
    and Bill Nye has a unique way saying everything. He captivates the viewer/audience and at the same time disarms his opponent in a debate.

  35. kenw says:
    May 8, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    Michael D says:
    May 8, 2014 at 12:21 pm
    Bill Nye has a BSc in Engineering. He never learned how real scientists behave. He would do well to observe and learn from Anthony Watts.

    Careful, many of us have the same degree but managed somehow to learn how real scientists behave (or rather how they are SUPPOSED to behave…).
    _____________________
    You just beat many of us to the punch.
    Still, laughing at Bill Nye is a reasonable pastime.

  36. Not sure where to put this…

    I went to Melbourne’s Wheeler Centre for the Climate Change fest on Tuesday night – on the panel were Robert Purves (World Wildlife Fund), David Karoly (you know what he does), Michael Williams (Wheeler Centre), Amanda McKenzie (CEO of the Climate Council) & Brendan Sydes (lawyer with Environment Defenders Office & former partner of a national law firm). There were also 5 international authors in the front row of the audience, who are here on sabbatical from their home countries, to gather material for new articles/books about new & exciting aspects of climate change. I’m not so sure about 98% of scientists agreeing with AGW, as David Karoly insisted, but I’m fairly sure about 99% of the audience agreed with it. All in all, not really a cross-section of community views but I always enjoy the chance the Wheeler Centre offers to listen to opinions & to ask questions. I got a chance to comment to David Karoly that in the last year, I had spoken to/corresponded with a number of ‘experts’ at previous climate talks, including him, Tim Flannery & Clive Hamilton, on the ‘warmist’ side & Ian Plimer, Richard Lindzen & Pat Michaels, for the ‘sceptics’. I assured David that even the ‘sceptics’ acknowledge that the climate is changing & that human activity is having an effect, although to a lesser degree than he believes & I asked him if he was prepared to accept that these guys are reputable people, with respected credentials in their fields. David said he knows & has spoken personally with all three & while he was fairly critical of Ian Plimer, including reference – if I recall correctly – to a lack of published, peer-reviewed scientific papers by him (check out the Wheeler Centre video, when posted, for exact words). David went on, with words to the effect that, real scientists publish peer-reviewed papers in journals & release their data, for confirmation. At that point I called out: ‘So should that apply to Michael Mann?’, but, as I’d handed back the audience mic by then, my comment probably won’t be audible on the tape, although David heard it, I think. Anyway, he did agree that Lindzen & Michaels are widely respected, although there’s still the matter of that overwhelming 98% who think otherwise… I also said I had made a couple of notes re some of the panelists’ earlier comments – Amanda had spouted a fair bit of starry-eyed AGW propaganda & had referred to the ‘social change movement’, who are pushing an agenda of divesting fossil fuel investments – I asked her if the ‘social change movement’ included the loudmouth bozos who infested Q&A on Monday night – didn’t get a response from Amanda but did get a bit of a laugh from the audience. (Amanda also rehashed the mantra that ‘the debate is over & the science is settled’ & bashed Rupert Murdoch generally & the Australian newspaper in particular, saying that suggestions that they have a circulation of 200k a day are ludicrous, given the number of copies they give away gratis – I didn’t get a chance to counter that if non-stop AGW barracking was such a great idea, why did the Age have to lay off 80 more staff today? She also bragged that the Climate Council don’t bother much with print articles anymore, because they get much better coverage going on ‘Sunrise’. Seems media moguls are fine, as long as they’re Kerry Stokes.) Michael Williams had made a favourable reference to Tim Flannery – I referred him to comments Tim had made in 2007 that we just aren’t going to get decent rains in future & ‘even the rains that fall aren’t going to fill our dams’ – however, just tonight I had checked the net & found that Melbourne dams are at 72% & Brisbane dams are at 91% full. (I couldn’t find the Sydney level earlier but I’ve since seen it is 86%) There was also his prediction that the ‘Geodynamics’ geothermal technology was fairly straightforward, resulting in the Rudd government coughing up a $90m grant, but its first hole had since essentially gone bust. Amanda rushed to Tim’s defence & said he had NEVER said the dams were never going to fill again & anyway that it was all taken out of context (& he’s just the greatest messiah in the whole world – ever – so there…)

    I briefly chatted with Brendan Sydes after the event & said I often look up advertised speakers’ names before sessions, to see what their backgrounds are & referred to some research I’d undertaken on the ‘Austlii’ website. I had located a court case – ‘Gordon v Norwegian Capricorn Line (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] VSC’ – which apparently involved a law firm called Slater & Gordon acting for the plaintiff in relation to a medical emergency on a cruise. The judge in that case is quoted, in part:

    ‘3. The conduct of the plaintiff’s claim is coloured by delay and ineptitude on the part of his solicitors…’

    Just as well it’s no win, no fee…

    Here’s the link to the cruiseship case report:

    Gordon v Norwegian Capricorn Line (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] VSC 517 (14 December 2007)

    Here’s the link to the Wheeler Centre video section (this session not yet posted):

    http://wheelercentre.com/videos

  37. “Let’s get one thing clear: The National Climate Assessment is a political call to action document meant for the president’s left-leaning constituency. What pretense of scientific support that decorates it quickly falls away under a close and critical inspection.”

    Entirely correct. This ‘Landmark scientific report’ is nothing more than the US equivalent of the UK’s Stern Review. That has since been discredited as a piece of truly politicised activist agenda-setting that was wrong about almost everything. It was wholly a New Labour-driven call to action in order to justify introducing our truly ludicrous Climate Change Act. It is now nothing more than the worlds most expensive door stop.
    America, kick this absurd policy document into touch without further ado.

  38. *”groundbreaking” in their own minds, a total failure in the ratings. doesn’t the MSM realise how their participation only serves to further undermine their credibility?:

    8 May: TVbythenumbers: “Years of Living Dangerously” on Showtime shifts to Monday Night Timeslot
    Network TV Press Releases
    Written By Amanda Kondolojy
    The *groundbreaking SHOWTIME documentary event series YEARS OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY moves to a new time slot on Monday nights beginning this Monday, May 12 at 8 p.m. ET/PT. In this week’s episode, actress Olivia Munn profiles climate-conscious governor Jay Inslee of Washington State, and together they discuss the issues he’s faced since being elected. Meanwhile, New York Times columnist Mark Bittman probes New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on the topic of man-made climate change during the rebuilding of his state’s coastline post-Superstorm Sandy…
    YEARS OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY combines the blockbuster storytelling styles of Hollywood’s top movie makers, including James Cameron and Jerry Weintraub, with 60 Minutes producers Joel Bach and David Gelber’s reporting expertise to reveal critical stories of heartbreak, hope and heroism as the race to save the planet continues.

    http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/05/08/years-of-living-dangerously-on-showtime-shifts-to-monday-night-timeslot/261733/

    Yahoo Answers: How solid is the science in the Years of Living Dangerously series on global warming?
    And what are the best denier deceptions about the series or points highlighted in it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Living_Dangerously

    Answers (1)
    Eric 19 hours ago:
    Years of Living Dangerously, a new multipart tv series that premieres this month on Showtime, puts a human face on a global story, exploring the worldwide impact of our convulsing climate and the ways individuals and communities are responding to it.

    https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140507172253AAgT2N0

    from the Wikipedia link at Yahoo, no “deniers'” reaction at all, only more nonsense from the CAGW-compromised MSM, Yale & SS:

    Wikipedia: Years of Living Dangerously
    Reaction
    The Globe and Mail calls the series “a lavish, gripping production focused on the real effect of climate change in real people’s lives around the world.”
    The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media noted that the series shows what scientists do in the field “and why they’re reaching the conclusion that this problem is such a serious risk to the viability of our civilization and requires urgent action. … [The] actors [get] their ‘hands dirty’. … [The show] may … open new avenues for climate change communications.”…
    Skeptical Science terms the series “terrific and powerful. … The series sets a dramatic, powerful urgent tone.”…
    On The New York Times Dot Earth blog, Andrew C. Revkin wrote that “the Showtime team, at least in episode one, deserves plaudits for taking a compellingly fresh approach to showing the importance of climate hazards to human affairs …
    A reviewer for The Hollywood Reporter thought: “The documentary does an excellent job of being simple and clear without being arrogant, and its convergence of science, politics, religion and industry proves its ultimate point.”…

    Wikipedia also lists the underwhelming segments slated for later episodes, incl Obama interview by Thomas Friedman, & states Electus International has acquired the international rights to the series (on wikipedia, i learned Electus has a company called DumbDumb)…

  39. Warmist slick oil sales persons are playing their last HANDS, but the jig is now drawing to an end. They have lost but won;t concede. Why box a man to death when he is comatose?

    “The Insiders: Five reasons voters don’t believe the White House about global warming”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/05/08/the-insiders-five-reasons-voters-dont-believe-the-white-house-about-global-warming/

    “Dissenting Scientists Label White House Climate Report As ‘Pseudoscience”

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/06/dissenting-scientists-label-white-house-climate-report-as-pseudoscience/

  40. This last winter put the eco-freaks in a panic. They are hoping that the louder they squeal the sooner people will forget – not a chance. Resist these totalitarians at every turn.

  41. Seriously? Bill Nye is a respectable scientist? Now that is the joke of the day. I’ve done science. And published it. Bill Nye is no scientist. Why? Because I hardly think myself to be one!

  42. Pamela Gray says:
    May 8, 2014 at 5:49 pm

    Bill Nye has some ME experience but is not a scientist, respectable or otherwise. To qualify, he would have to practice the scientific method, which he manifestly does not.

  43. Well if you had any doubt that CAGW is an intelligence test…
    Obama’s Boys Club just proved it.

  44. Well we have moved a long way from “Weather is not Climate” to “Weather is climate, but only when we say it is”. Since only certain people are worthy of talking to the Weather Gods, I guess the rest of us will just have to take it as holy writ! (sarc…just in case you didn’t get it).

  45. Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger:

    Research has shown that eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions from the United States now and forever only mitigates less than two-tenths of a one degree of warming by the end of the century. . .

    What research? AFAIK there is no evidence, aside from speculation based on hypothetical effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, that the small percentage of CO2 from burning fossil fuels has any measurable effect on global temperature (assuming such a thing can be measured). It is the Alarmists who claim that it does. Well, let them show it, empirically. They can’t. Game over. No point in arguing about the effect of actual or hypothetical levels of US-generated CO2 when the effect itself cannot be demonstrated to exist aside from calculations on the back of an envelope.

    The Alarmists are accustomed to taking a mile for every inch we give them. Don’t give them the inch.

    /Mr Lynn

  46. They do mix pollution with human made activities. The larger population you have in one area, the more pollution they will create. Anyway, as they say, ‘The truth will out?’ If they believe that green energy will create less warming, let them spend their dollars, and watch the effect on their climate. I’ve just received an email to ask me to put in a submission to keep the clean energy bill going in Australia. Needless to say, I won’t be submitting one, that is not rude.

  47. Chip Knappenberger:

    L. E. Joiner has a point. Why do you cite such garbage as these unsupported AGW hypotheses which you seem to have swallowed as fact?

  48. Three observations at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html demonstrate that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate

    1) In the late Ordovician, the planet plunged into the Andean/Saharan ice age and later emerged from it while the CO2 level was about 10 times the present.
    2) During the last glacial period, warming trends changed to cooling trends while the CO2 level was higher than it had been during the warming trend.
    3) During the 20th century, average global temperature trends went down, up, down, up, flat (soon to be down) while the CO2 level went steadily, progressively up. Lack of correlation demonstrates lack of causation.

    Two drivers of climate change have been discovered that accurately (R^2>0.9) explain average global temperatures since before 1900. The drivers are given at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/ . CO2 is not one of them.

    Of the surface temperature trend change from 1909-2005, 62.2% is due to the time-integral of the difference between the sunspot number each year and the average 1610-1940 (34) (times a proxy factor). The rest, 37.8%, is due to the combined effect of ocean oscillations.

  49. I am no scientist but I am a historian (Ph.D., UC Santa Barbara, 1970) and I can assure everyone that there were hotter periods in the past without benefit of carbon-based industry, all well documented in the historical record. This alone is sufficient to prove to me that AGW is rubbish. The hard science underscores this but isn’t even necessary to prove it.

  50. Does climate change on Earth?
    You betcha all the time.
    Did man do it?
    Nope we’ve only been around for .00002% of Earth’s existence.

    The sun causes Earth’s climate to change and has done so for 4.5 billion years.

    Milankovitch Cycles easily explain why Earth’s climate is always changing:
    1) The shape of Earth’s orbit around the sun (eccentricity) 100,000 year cycle
    2) The tilt of Earth’s axis (Precession) wobbles in a 26,000 year cycle
    3) Obliquity (Earth’s axis relative to the plane of its orbit) cycles lasting 40,000 years

    Mix up the 3 cycles and you get climate change on Earth;
    vacillating sun energy cycles make Earth’s dynamic climate.

    Warmers ALWAYS leave out Milankovitch cycles from ALL of their analysis.
    since man has nothing to do with any of the cycles……

  51. Make no mistake, this is a desperate dash for the controllers to get in front of the climate before it is too late to take credit for the cooling, reduced frequency of storms, slowdown in sea level rise, more moderate droughts, recovering sea ice, growing pop of polar bears… that is taking place naturally….If they manage to put forth a bigger load of regulations, shut down coal, pipelines, hyro-fracking and expand windmills and solar panels, and give heart to the EUSocialist Republics that are about to throw in the towel, then we have allowed cementing of CAGW science for a century, subjugation of all science to become a political tool for any purpose, promulgation of laws to punish dissent, repeal or, as is in process, reinterpretation of the First Amendment, neutering and repurposing of all education, final death of civilization and the beginning of a new, long Dark Age without the monasteries to preserve and study unsanctioned knowledge and ideas.

Comments are closed.