Foreword: As you may recall, I was invited to speak at NCDC (National Climatic Data Center) back in April about the surfacestations project by Climate Reference Network chief scientist Dr. Gary Baker. It was a good visit, and I appreciated Dr. Baker’s good humor, candor and straightforward no-nonsense scientific approach to surface measurements.
While I was there, I met with Dr. Tom Karl, as well as Dr. Peterson. During that meeting with Dr. Karl I had no hint of the type of rhetoric used in this document which is now in preparation, but Peterson was clearly trying to convince me on his position, in fact he had asked to be added to my visit schedule specifically so that he could put on his presentation for me.
To say the least, I’m shocked that NCDC’s leadership has changed from being the nation’s record keeper of weather and climatic data, to being what appears to me now as an advocacy group. The draft document reads more like a news article in many places than it does a scientific document, and unlike a scientific document, it has a number of what I would call “emotionally based graphics” in it that have nothing to do with the science.
Dr. Roger Pielke does a good job of summarizing the issue, and his commentary is below. He also clearly points out a conflict of interest. From my perspective, this is bureaucracy at its very worst.
In the meantime public comments are invited, due by August 14th, and readers of this forums may want to avail themselves of that opportunity. Here is the link for public comments
Comments On The Draft CCSP Report “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States”
A guest post by Dr. Roger Pielke:
The Draft report Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States has been released. There is an announcement of the Public Review Draft of the Unified Synthesis Product Global Climate Change in the United States. Public comments are due by August 14 2008 [Climate Science readers are urged to submit comments].
This US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report is Co-Chaired by Thomas R. Karl, Jerry Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson with the Senior Editor and Synthesis Team Coordinator Susan J. Hassol. These are the same individuals who have led past CCSP reports (e.g. see and see), with Tom Karl and Tom Peterson deliberately excluding scientific perspectives that differ from their viewpoints (i.e. see). Susan Hassol was writer of the HBO Special “To Hot Not to Handle”. This HBO show clearly had a specific perspective on the climate change issue, and lacked a balanced perspective. The HBO Executive Producer was Ms. Laurie David.
A clear real conflict of interest is obvious.
As a result, this report continues the biased narrow perspective of the earlier CCSP reports, as has been reported on a number of times on Climate Science and in other communications (e.g. see and see). As just one example of the bias, the Karl et al report starts with the text
“The Future is in Our Hands
Human-induced climate change is affecting us now. Its impacts on our economy, security, and quality of life will increase in the decades to come. Beyond the next few decades, when warming is “locked in” to the climate system from human activities to date, the future lies largely in our hands. Will we begin reducing heat trapping emissions now, thereby reducing future climate disruption and its impacts? Will we alter our planning and development in ways that reduce our vulnerability to the changes that are already on the way? The choices are ours.”
This statement perpetuates the rejected perspective on the role of humans in the climate system that
the human influence [on the climate system] is dominated by the emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide.
The perspective that is, however, supported by a wide body of scientific evidence (e.g. see) is that
natural variations are more important than recognized in the Karl et al CCSP synthesis report and that the human influence involves a diverse range of first-order climate forcings, including, but not limited to the human input of CO2.
The remainder of the Karl et al CCSP report necessarily miscommunicates climate information since it is built on their incorrect focus on “reducing heat trapping emissions”, rather than also on the role of natural variations as observed in the past, and on the other first order climate forcings such as the role of aerosols in precipitation, nitrogen deposition and land use/land cover change (e.g. see).
For example, their claim that
“Historical climate and weather patterns are no longer an adequate guide to the future”
is not supported by the observational evidence (e.g. see where an example is presented of past data that we should use to plan for the future).
Thus the conclusion is that the US CCSP Program has failed in its mission. These reports have become stale and in-bred, since the same people are repeating their perspective on the climate issue.
The CCSP program, initiated within the Bush Administration, offered the opportunity to provide an independent assessment of the role of humans and natural variability in the climate system, as well as a comprehensive framework for reducing societal and environmental vulnerability to risk from climate variations and change through adaptation and mitigation. The CCSP process, however, has not succeeded in this goal.
As recommended in the Climate Science weblog [see] we need new scientists who are not encumbered by their prior advocacy positions on climate change to lead the preparation of balanced climate assessment reports.
The response of the media when this report is released in its final form will also be enlightening. Those reporters who parrot the synthesis without questioning its obvious bias and conflict of interest should be identified as sycophants. Those who adequately communicate the diversity of scientifically supported disagreements with the report should be lauded for the true journalist that they are.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well at least now they are showing their true colors. They have taken the typical government side of intimidation and lack of concern for equality of debate and ambiguity.
Take for example: war on drugs, war on war, war on climate. If one thing is certain…OUR COUNTRY LOVES WAR.
Disclaimer: I’m not saying that I’m 100% correct, against war, or pro-war. I’m just saying that may be there is a pattern happening. Now, where the hell are other people keeping these power hunger fellows at the NCDC in check from going bonkers over their love-child theory?!
Come on! Sensibility (or lack thereof) please!
Just posted on IceCap. Interesting article.
http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewpoint/In-Science-Ignorance-is-not-Bliss.html
I’ve started reading this, but it is hard. I have to take it in small doses. In fact I haven’t gotten past the first couple of slides that are so full of pseudo-scientific, alarmist nonsense that it is hard to take this seriously.
This is a sad day for science. A sad day for our government. A sad day.
Anthony
May I propose one blog on each section of the report where readers can post their responses or raise particular concerns that need to be collectively addressed. This first blog could address overall issues. e.g., that it is a one sided political advocacy document, not a balanced scientific perspective giving both majority and minority positions.
Another Al gore thing. All hype, little science.
I am taking names!
When this is eventually exposed as the fraud that it is, these people should never be granted another grant again.
I hold people responsible for their actions.
That’s the draft of the report. They’re inviting public comment. Just in case you missed it in the Pielke discussion, the following is a link to the comments instructions page:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/usp/public-review-draft/instructions.php
I unloaded…respectfully…three days ago, addressing their failure to include the impacts of natural variables.
You’ve got less than two weeks to let them know where they’ve failed.
This change is much like the U.K’s MET. Our position is well documented in this article http://www.forbes.com/opinions/forbes/2008/0811/094.html. The world is laughing at our stupidity!
See also just posted:
Climate Models An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.1
Analyses of the effects of global change on human health and welfare and human systems Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.6
OUR CHANGING PLANET The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Year 2009
This AGW movement is so big, I think it’s pointless to try and fight it. Maybe we should focus on trying to change the methods planned to fight AGW such as cap and trade.
HBO
I wonder if they will be showing styrofoam ice sheets breaking up and drowning polar bears?
The real problem is that all those people who wouldn’t believe the government stance on any other issues will believe this crap. I’m getting real tired of trying to tell people who are too young to remember Nixon–or Firesign Theater for that matter–why everything they think they know is wrong. But I shall endeavor to carry on.
cbm
The Norwegian Metrologic institute has on their page on “climate myths”. Among those are the “myth about the hockey stick debunk” and several links to realclimate. SIGH….
Nothing new here…
What is going on with Western science?
It’s as though we now have Stepford scientists – perviously rational men and women have been replaced by AGW androids.
No wonder the Russians, Chinese, Indians etc can’t take any of this seriously.
Get used to it. The Democrats are practically a shoo-in next November and come next January, these folks could be out of work. You didn’t expect differently, did you?
This is like reading a wall street tout saying that the DOW will hit 20,000 this year.
Just scanning the Executive Summary
“Alaskan summers are becoming longer and drier.” — Anchorage may see record low temps this summer.
“Seas are rising” — Sat data shows last two years with falling sea levels
“Another 1°F of warming in the next few decades”– flat and declining for the 21st century
“Global emissions of heat-trapping gases are now increasing even more rapidly than the highest emissions scenario scientists have been analyzing”– As far as I can tell from discussions on CA they’re below Hansen’s values for Scenario A which is the one with increasing rates for CO2
“Crops show mixed responses to lower levels of warming, but higher levels of warming often negatively affect growth and yields” — Sat data shows the earth is greener
It’s a pain when reality keeps interfering with the Truth. Maybe these are all transient, but it gives me a warm feeling to know that these experts are so sure of themselves. Yeah, right.
Anthony,
I worked with a fellow in the telecommunications industry that would judge people on substance and accountability. The person who tried to be politically correct and didn’t have ducks in a row was thrown out of his office (and usually returned to the desk holding a pink slip). You could disagree with him (see rule 1) and live to tell about it. I found him demanding but fair, and even considered him a friend. Too bad more like him don’t exist in government. I like Pielke, who says what he thinks and bedamned the flack. Keep it up!
Sadly, something similar seems to be happening in The Planetary Society (I have been a member for ~20 years).
A few days ago I received their magazine “The Planetary Report” (July/August 2008) which normally is full of interesting space science. Not this time. It has suddenly transformed into an alarmist magazine, praising IPCC on almost every page … Page 12: “To reach 90 percent certainty in any scientific work is remarkable, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reached this unusual state” .
I am disgusted. Did I mention that on page 15 thereis an illustration to the IPCC article that shows satellite images of Burma and the Irawaddy delta April 15 and May 5, 2008. The implication is of course that the Typhoon is blamed on global warming. There is another picture of broken houses and a Buddha on page 19. But is that all? No. On page 20 there are pictures from the Sichuan (China) earthquake disaster May 12. Apparently, global warming caused that as well… ?
On the back page is the mandatory polar bear stretching from one ice-berg to another over open water.
I am not likely to renew my membership.
http://www.planetary.org/about/executive_director/20080709.html
Oh.My.God … what a blatantly inaccurate, and biased report. I just skimmed through it and was flabbergasted at the continued use of model projections even though those same models have been shown to produce highly exaggrated results.
This is nothing more than an attempted coup.
What I like is the temperature graph on Page 1 of the report.
This chart needs to be amended with another line – “temperature warming predicted by the climate models” – which would be a little more than twice the trend, increasing from -1.2F to +1.5F rather than the actual temperature increase of -0.6F to 0.75F.
With CO2 increasing by over 100 ppm since 1880, we should have seen something like half the total increase predicted by a doubling of CO2 or half of the predicted 3.0C (5.4F) – the impact of CO2 increases are exponential.
In fact, we need to start adding that trendline to all historic temperature graphs so that people understand what is really going on rather than just having an emotional reaction to the increase (the temperature-axis is scaled of course to exagerate the trend.)
Very, very disappointing. I expected better from them.
First quick reaction — and I’ll be submitting some kind of response — is that it is an inexcusable failure of the public trust. Isn’t this supposed to be an independent assessment? As anybody noticed how often they are citing IPCC?
It’s even worse than AR4, though. AR4 eschewed the hockey stick, didn’t they? It rears its ugly head here in an unattributed graphic on Page 19.
No way is this, as it presently stands, an independent, scientific, assessment. It is a PR hatchet job. I want my (taxpayer) money back!
All hail the government sponsored stiff arm of “science”(TM).
Is it OK to be depressed?
“Historical climate and weather patterns are no longer an adequate guide to the future”
I have a problem with this statement beyond that noted by Dr. Pielke.
When I see statements like this, what I also see is an underlying assumption that climate and weather patterns are fixed, as though in a closed controlled system. Further, it feels as though another implicit thought is present and that is that the increase in levels of CO2 has thrown a stable, ordered system into wildly chaotic disorder.
The climate is a wide open, chaotic system. It is predictable in only the broadest of brush stroke treatments. Even forecasting the weather is an iffy proposition. You ever plan on a Saturday picnic based on the Friday forecast for sunny & mild, only to have a dreary, misty, chilly day? Whoops – they did it again.
We keep studying and hopefully we keep learning. But if we keep presenting papers such as this then the science of climate will just become a sub-branch of political science.