An important call for public comment on the NASA Climate Change Science Program

Foreword: For all of my readers, I can’t stress enough how important Dr. Herman’s message is. Please consider his requests for public comments. Something that most people don’t know is that you do not need to be a citizen of the USA to submit a comment. Time is of the essence, as comments close on August 14th, and there will not be another opportunity. For other bloggers and website operators, this post can be duplicated verbatim, and I encourage you to do so. Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony

A guest Post by Dr. Ben Herman

I recently received a NASA Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) preliminary report that I imagine many of you have also received,  For those who may not have received it, I’ve included a link at the end of this comment. NASA is asking for responses to this report for those who have comments, suggestions, etc that they would like to pass on to the CCSP committee. I have read through the report personally and feel there is much in the report that requires additional clarification.

On pages 6 and 7 of the report there are several “bullets” which summarize the issues and findings. More detail on each of these points may be found in the report. It is my feeling that these bullets and the additional detail discussions contain much information that requires further input due to it being still controversial, incomplete, and in some instances very misleading.

This report will undoubtedly play an important role in future climate related research programs supported by both NASA and NOAA, and therefore it is very important that all issues identified as important in the report be clearly and completely explained, and where controversial, both sides of the issue be included. This is important to ensure all important aspects of future research are given equal opportunity for funding, which is the basic reason I am requesting your input.  Instructions for submitting comments to the CCSP are in the link below.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Ben Herman

Instructions for submitting comments can be found in the following link:

The complete CCSP report may be found in the following link.

Dr. Herman is past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona. See his list of publications here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike Bryant
August 6, 2008 4:11 pm

I’m not sure that the comments of a plumber would carry much weight.
Mike Bryant
Master Plumber
REPLY: To quote Seinfeld’s George Costanza: ‘its all pipes!’

jc stout
August 6, 2008 4:34 pm

AW, would it be OK to use this thread to help people sort out thoughts for the comments to be sent to CCSP?
If people could drop in a sentence or a paragraph of their best ideas, the rest of us might be able to generate more intelligent and complete comments much more efficiently. It would be most helpful if people cited a specific place in the report (page number, paragraph number, line number, caption, etc.) along with their comment so we could cross reference as we consider their input.
I ask for this kind of help in drafting a response because I want my comments to be as direct, informed, and clearly stated as I can make them. I don’t want to give the CCSP the opportunity to just brush off anyone’s comments because they are not crafted well enough.
REPLY: I discourage posting specific ideas for comments here, except in a very broad brush, because it would then be easy to argue that any verbiage found here was part of a “comment mill” and thus it becomes easy to rationalize disposing of a comment received that had such verbiage. This is why nationwide Letter to the Editor campaigns usually fail, because the editors know these aren’t original letters and simply discard them.
I encourage original thought on the issues and the submissions. For things you are unclear on, there are many topics on this blog you can search for here and on the net.

August 6, 2008 4:44 pm

@Mike Bryant:
In the average pol’s office, an intern reads the incoming letters and just tallies one “for” or “against” on whatever issue it’s about. NASA may do better, indeed may even read the comments — but this report is so flagrantly biassed — it actually trots out the “hockey stick” with no hint that it’s known to be seriously flawed — that it would be valuable for the pols to realize that there is a substantial chunk of the population who understand someone is trying to hoodwink them.
see (“Chucky” is the “hockey stick”)

August 6, 2008 6:33 pm

I agree that posting specifics is a bad idea. But the “broad brush” idea is a good one. eg :
1) global temps falling since 1998
2) global sea ice increasing
3) polar bear numbers up
4) solar cycle link
5) hockey stick debunked
6) GISS caught out with dogdy data and procedures many times
7) famous names like Lindzen, Christy etc.
8) sea level falling now
9) potential future legal actions against those who knowingly mislead
People on this forum should be smart enough to write up well reasearched reponses to these.

Tom in Texas
August 6, 2008 6:46 pm

Shouldn’t the title be “Possible Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States”?

August 6, 2008 6:59 pm

Dr. Herman says:

On pages 6 and 7 of the report there are several “bullets” which summarize the issues and findings. More detail on each of these points may be found in the report. It is my feeling that these bullets and the additional detail discussions contain much information that requires further input due to it being still controversial, incomplete, and in some instances very misleading.

I will submit my input, but to assist anyone who would like suggestions, there are numerous items that are flagrantly wrong. They should be challenged.
The following examples can serve as a starting point; use only one, or two, that you feel you are knowledgeable in refuting, and confident to comment on. Pick any of the following very arguable assertions, or use another that you know something about.
And it wouldn’t hurt to mention that as a heavily taxed citizen, you know what’s going on here. In your own words, of course.
Some examples of opinion by NASA over fact:
It is stated as a fact that “the sea level will continue to rise” [even though the sea level has been falling].
It is stated as a fact that the planet’s temperature is rising.
It is stated that the planet’s temperature has risen 1.5 degrees [C or F? They don’t say, so it must be degrees F, which gives a bigger number] above “pre-industrial levels”, without saying how far they go back in pre-industrial times.
They state that if we stay on the current emissions course, the planet is heading for even larger warming than the highest projections from the UN/IPCC [which ‘projections’? They don’t say].
They state that “extreme events will become more common”. But no citations.
They refer to “changing precipitation patterns” — which always occur, and which have occurred continuously throughout geological history; they fail to admit that current changes are well within normal patterns.
They fail to acknowledge that no computer climate model has ever been able to replicate today’s climate, even after inputting all available past climate data.
They state that “Arctic sea ice is declining,” along with a scary hockey stick-style graph, without acknowledging that arctic sea ice is 1.05 million square kilometers above last summer’s coverage.
They state that “Warming is causing the sea level to rise as land-based ice melts and the oceans expand.” But this is refuted by empirical measurements.
They use propagandistic pictures of windmills, industrial smokestacks and traffic to subliminally convey their agenda.
Under the “warming influences” chart, CO2 is shown to be, by far, the largest cause of global warming — with no hint that water vapor, or the oceans, play any part at all.
They replicate the completely discredited “hockey stick” chart. If the original hockey stick was falsified, why is this chart any different? What data, algorithms and methodologies were uses to construct it? Was it peer reviewed?
They show methane skyrocketing straight up by using a chart that terminates in 2005; but since then, atmospheric methane has moderated considerably. Why don’t they mention that important fact?
They state flatly that human activities are responsible for “most” of the heating observed over the past 50 years, without any citations.
They use a flagrantly dishonest chart showing CO2 remaining below 300 ppmv over the past 800,000 years — then going in a straight up vertical line to 900 ppmv [this peer reviewed page shows that CO2 has routinely exceeded 2,000 ppmv during that time]. [click on the image to expand it]. Why are they deliberately misrepresenting factual geologic history?
I know what subjects I’m going to address. And I’m going to demand to know why this presentation is so one-sided, so obviously deceptive, and why no well-known skeptical climate scientists [Seitz, Ball, Lindzen, Coleman, Spencer, etc.], were apparently not invited to have any part in this production.
As Anthony says, pick something, and submit it in your own words. It’s a target-rich opportunity.
Also, it wouldn’t hurt to copy in your Senators and Congress: click [be polite].

August 6, 2008 7:22 pm

Mr. Watts and Dr. Herman,
I understand where you’re coming from in motivating your readers to take action with regards to this paper, but I don’t think this action is appropriate. Let’s look at the facts:
The CCSP authors are inviting specific commentary pertaining to the language and clarity of the paper. No where do they suggest that this is an “open forum” for ideas on the state of climate science; no where do they suggest they they are looking for rebuttals to the claims stated in the paper. This is evidenced by the fact that they are asking that “comments should include the page number and page location of the text being addressed.” This request implies that they are asking for feedback on improving the language of the paper – not for guidance as to whether certain elements deemed as factual should be left out.
That the authors want contact information and specifically state that they may attempt to contact commenters to seek clarification further implies that what is going on here is more akin to an “open source” form of peer review; they are inviting review of the language of the paper from any interested party. I can’t stress this enough: the CCSP is very likely not looking for comments attempting to debunk the Mann reconstruction nor are they looking for feedback which are going to cite articles penned by well-knowned skeptics. That’s simply not what this process is for.
That the authors go further than contact information and request the affiliation of commenters also implies that it is not appropriate for “average joe skeptic” to attempt to refute the paper when they comment. The CCSP seems to be looking for legitimate criticism as to the language and clarity of the USP.
I really do understand where you all are coming from in urging your readers to take action. However, this is not an appropriate action to take. Let’s be realistic; many people will be motivated to write comments which ignore the suggested format, and will distract form the larger issue, which is attempting to create a clearly worded, unambiguous official document. I fear that your suggestion will prompt many superfluous, unnecessary, and inappropriate responses which will distract the authors from dealing with legitimate, important criticism about the product at hand.
Dr. Sherman’s sentiments clearly express what I’m saying: “I have read through the report personally and feel there is much in the report that requires additional clarification.” Please leave it at this; it would be highly appropriate to add a disclaimer that clarifies that this is the purpose of this open commenting process. If a deluge of comments attempting to refute AGW pour in to these authors, then I highly doubt you’ll get the chance to participate in a process such as this any time in the near future. However, if you instruct your readers to specifically stay within the guidelines provided by the CCSP, then perhaps the uncertainties intrinsic in the paper will be brought out more.
I don’t bring this up as an insult to your readers; I trust many of them will stay within the guidelines provided by the CCSP. But if the actions of the readers at many other blogs across the internet give any hint to what will happen, these poor authors will likely be buried under a mountain of superfluous and unnecessary comment.
REPLY: Thank you, I do see your points. But telling us we shouldn’t comment because some people may not follow the guidelines and generate ‘superfluous and unnecessary comment” is simply offbase, and in my opinion, wrongheaded. Much of the early comment period has slipped under the radar, with few in the public knowing that they could comment. We should not let this chance slip by simply because they may not like the kind of commentary.
The authors have solicited public comment, and they know well what pitfalls that may bring from people that don’t follow the guidelines. Democracy is a messy business. You should sit on a school board as I have or a city council and try telling citizens that they must adhere to specific format when commenting. You’ll get those who don’t, but do we dare throw them out for format? Never.
My concern is not for the editors, my concern is that the people of this country get a fair opportunity to comment. Often reports such as this get no significant public airing at all. This is one of them. So far it seems to be only known within the climate science community. This report will be cited in all sorts of public policy decisions, yet few in the public will have ever known about this and prior comment opprotunity.
And even the websites that ARE in the climate science community aren’t saying much about it. For example, the lead authors Karl and Peterson, at NCDC. Go to the NCDC page and try to find any mention of this report or of the public comment opportunity anywhere. It isn’t there.
Let’s do a check of a few websites that have an interest in AGW climate science to see how many are making this comment period known: – YES (originator) – NO (main page) -NO -NO – link only, no mention of public comment opportunity -NO – two tiered link, no mention of public comment opportunity – NO – NO – NO – NO – NO – NO – NO -NO – NO – NO – NO – NO – NO – NO (Gore’s site) – NO (NASA GISTEMP) – NO (James Hansen’s personal page) – NO (American Meteorological Society)
and 2 anonymous coward climate blogs that don’t deserve mention – NO
Given the silence these major climate sites have exhibted, I’d say that they really aren’t interested in advertising about the comment period at all.
So let’s see who on the skeptic is promoting the opportunity for public comment: – YES – YES (Pielke Sr.) – YES (Pielke Jr.) – YES -YES – YES – YES – NO – YES – NO – YES – NO
READERS- If I’ve missed some, advise
It appears that the people that have the most interest in the outcome being in favor of their world view are the least interested in making sure the public knows about it.
So we’ll just keep on point here. so that the American public gets notice of the right to comment. – Anthony

Tom in Texas
August 6, 2008 7:26 pm

Smokey, nice presentation (I’ll sign it).
I believe the peer reviewed graph you linked to shows 400 million years,
not 800,000 years. (It’s probably a reach if you have to go back more than 800kyr to find a higher CO2).

Tom in Texas
August 6, 2008 7:41 pm

I agree with counters – a mass emailing is probably not the best idea.
A few focused peer reviews be would better. Anthony was taken serious enough to get a prompt and detailed response from Dr. Tan. Dr. Ben Hermans response should be taken seriously. Others? Steve Mc? Pielke?
I disagree with counters that they looking for PhD’s to review their language and clarity.

August 6, 2008 8:45 pm

Tom in Texas (19:26:13) :

Smokey, nice presentation (I’ll sign it).
I believe the peer reviewed graph you linked to shows 400 million years, not 800,000 years.

Tom, you’re right; I misstated the time as 400,000+ years. I hereby sentence myself to a disciplinary session with the ass-kicking machine.

Mike Bryant
August 6, 2008 8:53 pm

When my servants cannot listen to me, “average joe”, there is a huge problem. I, and everyone else who works for a living, pay the salaries of these men and women.
Paying for Climate Nonsense,
Michael Bryant

August 6, 2008 9:28 pm
August 6, 2008 10:50 pm

Here’s some more Anthony if you want to add any more:
There are plenty more, these are just some of my favorites that I have listed or looked at multiple times.

Dodgy Geezer
August 7, 2008 12:33 am

I am not sure how much use comment from abroad may be. This is, after all, an internal US document, and the US (quite reasonably, in my opinion) does not have a strong track record of listening to other countries advising it what to do. You may recall a British newspaper conducting a letter writing campaign from the UK to US citizens encouraging them to vote against Bush in the last Presidential elections?
Perhaps that points to a possible tactic? I wonder how mid-western politicians would react if they had a flurry of letters saying:
“We believe that your manufacturing emissions are causing major climate impact. Please close down all your industry immediately.
Signed, The Chinese”

Jack Simmons
August 7, 2008 2:28 am

I am a strong believer in the dictum of “when in doubt, read the instructions”.
Here are the instructions for making comments:
In making comments:
* Provide complete contact information. The Climate Change Science Program Office (CCSPO) may wish to contact you seeking clarification.
* Provide specific language for suggested deletions, additions, and/or amendments. Do not use terminology such as “ditto” or “see above”.
* Do not use auto-formatting or embedded comments in tables.
* Provide focused comments directly linked, if possible, to specific page, paragraph and line numbers.
* Present comments in sequence from the front of the draft document to the back.
* Insert your name and affiliation after each comment.
Notice they are seeking suggestions for “deletions, additions, and/or amendments”.
It would appear from these instructions NASA is not looking for simple editing suggestions.
If you feel there are portions of the report in error, tell them so. Go to the page and line number and focus on what it is you disagree with.
For example, I strongly disagree with any use of the Mann diagram in any discussion regarding climate change. The chart has been thoroughly discredited. So any references to it in this document should be deleted, in my opinion.
And it is my opinion they are soliciting. The directions clearly indicate these are to be comments from the public. This is, after all, a PUBLIC REVIEW document.
Some in the public are very well educated, particularly in the sciences. Others are not. Both can express their views.
At first I was not going to bother. There are a lot of things demanding my attention at work. But it is always a good exercise to go over another’s thoughts and evaluate one’s reaction to them.
Who knows, perhaps some well reasoned comments may actually introduce at least some expression of dissenting opinions.
So make your views known.

Jack Simmons
August 7, 2008 2:29 am

Sorry, it’s NOAA looking for comments, not NASA.

August 7, 2008 5:14 am

Fair enough, Mr. Watts. I can’t rebut the huge lack of coverage coming from proponent sites. You see, that’s why I, a warmer/alarmist, regularly visit your site as well as other skeptical sites.

August 7, 2008 6:02 am

Global Warming Skeptics forum has answered your call to publicise the request for public comments on the draft report.
I posted your blog post in full as per your request.
Thanks for all that you do here and elsewhere.

August 7, 2008 6:47 am

[…] Climate Change Document August 7, 2008, 9:47 am Filed under: global warming Anthony Watts is hosting a call for the public to review and comment on the Unified Synthesis Product being produced by the NASA […]

Pierre Gosselin
August 7, 2008 6:53 am

I just can’t believe I’m being asked to write a letter asking the government to stop being stupid. I don’t have time for this circus.
Let these Stalinists take the power, screw everything up, and then the masses (us) will rise up and run them out of town.
I took a look at the report – what a depressing mess. The US government has gone looney.

Pierre Gosselin
August 7, 2008 6:54 am

I live in Germany now, and have gotten used to all the bs regulation. Most people here just ignore it.

David Jay
August 7, 2008 6:59 am

I’ll bet they will be glad that they relied so heavily on AR4 when the word of the Ammann&Wahl misconduct gets widely distributed:

Pierre Gosselin
August 7, 2008 6:59 am

You’ll all have to learn to do the same. Your freedom is about to bite the dust.
Unfortunately it’s going to take another 30 years and another Ronald Reagan to get out of the mess Gore has duped you guys into.
I’ve had it. I’ve got better things to do then to try to influence the biggest government in the world.
If someone wants to write me a form letter, then fine. I’ll sign it. But I’m not going to sit here and address this 200 page report point by point. (Unless someone pays me).

August 7, 2008 7:04 am

I have had a quickly look at aforesaid document.
Is it a Scientific document or is it a school text book?
I’ve had a more detailed look at the bullet points and I’m left wondering where is the science, where is the proof and where are the facts. Just statements which we hear every night on the news and as such must be true.
I spotted the photshop picture of the flooded house.

August 7, 2008 7:16 am

I am not a scientist. I work as a software tester and systems analyst. However, I have been following the AGW debate closely for some time now. What is wrong with this paper is not so much in its details but in its very concept. It carries the stench of being a propaganda piece, plain and simple. And for a group of scientists to put out such a piece of marketing garbage is an insult to the very spirit of a reflective science. It is so biased that any skeptic with half a brain could rip it apart with ease. It uses the same cliched AGW pablum we are all used to by now: the sky is falling, let’s panic before its too late by throwing our industrial economy into a tailspin dive. Every unsupported assumption it spews out can be refuted by any good set of data graphs, similar to the ones that Andrew Bolt presented recently. ( Every assertion of what we can look forward to in the future is pure bunk. This work is a blazing example of what is wrong when science and politics meet in the wrong way.
I would just comment to the group: “Hello here is my recommendation: Place this piece of propaganda into the trash bin; do not recycle it. Start over with something approaching a fair picture of the state of the climate science today. How you could present this garbage even as a draft is so disheartening to anyone who keeps up with, yes, the debate. It also demonstrates just how bad government support science can be for science and for the country.”

M. Jeff
August 7, 2008 7:55 am

“Pierre Gosselin (06:54:57) : I live in Germany now, and have gotten used to all the bs regulation. Most people here just ignore it.”
Not everyone is ignoring it.
“MARBURG, Germany — This fairy-tale town is stuck in the middle of a utopian struggle over renewable energy. The town council’s decision to require solar-heating panels has thrown Marburg into a vehement debate over the boundaries of ecological good citizenship and led opponents to charge that their genteel town has turned into a “green dictatorship.” …

David Jay
August 7, 2008 8:20 am

The 35MB sized glossy “brochure” was my first clue. I didn’t even need to download it.
By comparison, MM05-GRL is 113KB

August 7, 2008 8:25 am

The instructions at imply that academic qualifications are required for consideration by the government, even though this is a call for citizen comments: Organization, the sample e-mail address, and Area of Expertise. (Some citizens are more equal than others?)
Aside from this, it will be difficult to respond to a political document disguised as a scientific document.
Suggestion (Many hands make light work.)
Could some of your more academically-qualified correspondents provide us with the following:
The issue: Questionable claim paired with scientific fact (similar to Dr. Ben Herman’s list)
A reference to the CCSP claim per the instruction: As Reads in Document, Chapter, Page, Paragraph, Line
The factual refutation: A summary statement of contrary evidence with a citation or reference to the source.
List the Issues, with Claim and Refutation, on this or some other website.
As Mr. Gosselin points out, for a million people to do the same research will take too long. Collect credible evidence from reliable experts, and each citizen can frame the words him/herself.
The CCSP has sprung this on citizens with little or no lead time. (Speak now or forever hold your peace.) The CCSP is organized and we are not, particularly not organized by the CCSP’s chapter-and-verse.
I have about 1/3 GB of AGW references on my PC. It is but a trace of what is out there, but I could not find and extract even Dr. Ben Herman’s list in the time permitted.

August 7, 2008 8:46 am

[…] from climate policy and massive impact on the third world of high energy prices, Watts highlights a key opportunity for input by August 14th. NASA’s document currently claims climate change is due to anthropogenic causes and strongly […]

Bill P
August 7, 2008 9:49 am

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States…
I’m not an expert like Counters, but… something a little off about the title… can’t quite put my finger on it…

August 7, 2008 9:55 am

One more “modest” proposal: Raise a howl!
– Organize the entire list of Issues, with CCSP Claim and Refutation under one web page.
– Provide a “Printer-Friendly” formatting for that page.
– Everyone send that page (not a link) individually to the President, their congressperson, senator, governor, state legislator(s), the candidates and their newspaper(s). Print and distribute copies for your friends and neighbors.
– Prefix a personal comment to the recipient by name and office and why that person should act in his/her official capacity.
If I read the definition of Spam correctly, this would not be Spam.
– It is unsolicited, but public figures should expect such communications (right to petition)
– It is not bulk.

August 7, 2008 9:56 am

I submitted 5 specific comments. I followed the submission rules verbatum. I picked a few specific items, made a comment for each, included supporting info, and recommended changes. There are literally hundreds of inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims and easily contradicted statements. Pick a few and submit. The submission rules will be used to disregard general comments. One of my minor comments was:
Chapter Regional Climate Change Impacts (South East), Page 124, Line 5:
“The number of freezing days declined by 4 to 7 days for most of the region
since the mid-1970’s.”
1. NOAA disagrees with your statement. For example, NOAA 2001-008 entitled, FROST DAYS DECREASING ACROSS THE UNITED STATES EXCEPT IN SOUTHEAST states, “But the southeastern United States, which is one of the few areas of the world showing cooling over the 20th century…”
Recommend eliminating reference to decreased frost days.

August 7, 2008 10:38 am

“it is very important that all issues identified as important in the report be clearly and completely explained, and where controversial, both sides of the issue be included.” Wow, someone intending to explore both sides of issues. How novel.
Check me out at You can read my commentary on music, pop culture, and teaching.

August 7, 2008 11:16 am

Bill P,
“Global Climate Change” seems to be a catchphrase for global warming and its subsequent varied effects. Keep in mind that it has long been hypothesized that different regions of the world will experience different effects due global warming (hence the better phrase, “climate change”). I also think the title is a bit… poorly worded… perhaps something like “Regional Impacts of Climate Change in the United States” is clearer. However, bear in mind that this is a first draft copy; it’s very possible that the name of the report will change.

Jack Simmons
August 7, 2008 11:38 am

To all:
I just spoke with a contact at the Climate Change Science
Program Office.
I asked if they would welcome comments from the general public.
She said, very graciously, that they were looking forward to comments from any and everyone. The entire point is to obtain the opinions of all.
I explained some on this blog thought only those with professional affiliations could comment.
Again, she emphasized this was a comment period for everyone.

August 7, 2008 11:51 am

Pierre Gosselin (06:53:23) :

I just can’t believe I’m being asked to write a letter asking the government to stop being stupid. I don’t have time for this circus.

Pierre, I usually enjoy reading your posts. But if the starch has gone out of you and you’re not willing to fight, at least keep it to yourself, rather than repeatedly complaining about how hard this is on you.
Frankly, I think that if plenty of people comment as suggested, and if we can also get comments from recognized climate authorities like Spencer, Monckton [yes, he is a recognized climate authority], Pielke, McIntyre, Coleman, McKitrick, Lindzen, Ball, Seitz, etc., etc., it will make a huge difference.
A major question remains: why were no nationally or internationally recognized AGW-skeptical climate authorities invited to provide input?
Now is their chance. It will be much harder for NASA to go ahead and publish this propaganda screed in its draft form if well-respected climatologists ask them, in writing, to make changes.
Any changes NASA is forced to make will highlight what they are attempting to do here. And if they don’t make the changes, and persist in leaving in demonstrably false propaganda, they will be fighting a rearguard action for a long time, trying to defend their mendacity. This isn’t a problem. This is an opportunity.
Oh, and Mr. counters, have you ever considered a career as a censor?

“Mr. Watts and Dr. Herman,
I understand where you’re coming from in motivating your readers to take action with regards to this paper, but I don’t think this action is appropriate.”

It is absolutely appropriate counters. Public input was invited. Through clenched teeth, but invited nonetheless.

August 7, 2008 1:07 pm

My Global Warming Science site: is also promoting submission of comments. I have also posted a link to one of the comments I have submitted to the CCSP.

August 7, 2008 1:37 pm

I just wasted four hours of my life writing a four page word doc on this piece of propaganda. It probably won’t do much good, but if you don’t at least try then nothing will happen.

Ed Scott
August 7, 2008 3:00 pm

Anthony, I have began to read the full report. The intoductory pages are consensus science clap-trap. I can legitimately expect professionals of their status to at least use the scientific method and a modicum of common sense.
Sea level rise? I sure wouldn’t want to be in Miami, Florida, when the sea level rises 100 years from now. I’m 78. Think there is a chance?
I will continue to read the report and try to keep my comments cogent.
Thanks for your website.
Computer models are not reality. Nature is reality.

August 7, 2008 3:27 pm
Herman Dobrowolski
August 7, 2008 3:31 pm

Andrew. Do you really believe that people who so blatantly misuse data will take any notice of a few dissenters?
More likely, they will use it as a trojan horse to say “millions of international reviewers concur with this report”.
Herman Dobrowolski

Ed Scott
August 7, 2008 4:29 pm

Anthony, I believe I have ascertained the secret of global warming/climate change computer models.
From my days in physics lab, I became quite familiar with the Finagle Constant. Things never got so bad that I had to resort to the Bougerre Factor.
Both of these terms are, mathematically, constant variables or variable constants, depending upon your viewpoint.
The Finagle Constant and the Bougerre Factor are complementary. The Finagle Constant changes the Universe to fit the equation and the Bougerre Factor changes the equation to fit the Universe.
The cleverness of global warming/climate change computer models is the combination of the Finagle Constant and the Bougerre Factor into what is called the Diddle Coefficient which, when applied to the computer models, modifies the Universe and the equation in such a manner that they appear to fit without requiring a change in either.
I have violated my promise to remain cogent. Sorry!
Computer models are not reality. Nature is reality.

August 7, 2008 5:23 pm

This is very great drama. Someone thought they could predict the future and it looks like the future has other ideas. It won’t be the first time that intellectuals received a portion of humble pie. I don’t mind intellectuals, only when they attempt to use government (i.e. the muzzle of a gun) to force their ideas on others. That concept has been discredited so many times it amazes that some people still cling to it.

August 7, 2008 5:24 pm


August 7, 2008 5:45 pm

FWIW, here’s my UK offering: on one page, the whole AGW story to refresh your mind and remember what it’s like to change sides. It’s told gently but clearly and with many pictures and hyperlinks that bite. Use anything you like. Just click on my name.
Shows you don’t need hundreds of pages to explain the truth, both the science and the politics.

Colonel Moore
August 7, 2008 6:15 pm

Thank you for making this opportunity available.
I submitted my comment, which discussed the omission in the report of any mention of using carbon sinks such as vegetation. Neither AGW proponents nor skeptics could object to reforesting the tropics.
This was discussed in Freeman Dyson’s article here:

Ed Scott
August 8, 2008 12:04 pm

There has never been a time in the history of the Earth that the global temperature and global climate have not been changing. These cycles are a characteristic of Nature. The Sun supplies the energy for natural changes in the Earth’s environment.
Who has the audacity and arrogance to say that the global environment is in its ideal state now and should remain so and that man can defy Nature and counteract Nature’s normal cycles.
To dismiss the Sun as an inconsequential factor in influencing global warming and climate change is irresponsible from a scientific perspective.
To classify a gas, CO2, without which life could not exist, as an atmospheric “pollutant” is ludicrous.
Where is the factual proof that links anthropogenic production of CO2 to global warming/climate change? Polar Bears drowning (they have been known to swim 60 miles in open sea)? Melting glaciers (the Franz Joseph and Fox glaciers in New Zealand had receded 1,000 feet in 1974 during the global cooling scare)? One can relate anecdotal yarns about the effects of global warming/climate change, but anecdotes do not link anthropogenic CO2 to global warming/climate change.
The link appears to be artificial and inspired by a political agenda initiated by members of the UN.
The average annual percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.0385 percent (Mauna Loa Observatory). Fourteen percent of that amount of CO2, or 0.00539 percent of atmospheric CO2 has anthropogenic origin.
All the futuristic doom and gloom is predicated on computer models which are biased toward and greatly amplify the effect of anthropogenic CO2.
A legitimate test for the computer climate models, would be to use the computer models retrogressively to recreate the past history of the Earth’s global warming/climate.change.
I am from Missouri. Show me. In the mean-time, computer models are not reality. Nature is reality.

Rupert Wyndham
August 9, 2008 6:07 am

AGW protagonists assert that “the science is settled”. As a matter of definition, if something is settled it’s not science. One would have greater respect for so-called AGW climate science, if its adherents were willing to debate the issues openly. On the one or two occasions when they have risen to the challenge, they have been eviscerated. They have taken on board now that rational debate, from their perspective, is damaging. Ergo, their position is fraudulent.
Much significance is attached by AGW protagonists to the importance of peer review. In reality, it is a sham. Peer reviewers are carefully vetted/chosen to ensure that they are of like mind. In extreme cases, such as the Mann, Bradley, Hughes clique, so-called peer review is an exclusively internal and incestuous process. Hansen has been exposed as fraudster or, if not, as grossly incompetent. Only GISS continues to insist on a rising temperature trend – not Hadley, RSS or UAH. In direct defiance of IPCC rules, Hansen will disclose neither his data or his methodology, except when forced to do so under freedom of information legislation. Even NASA, in a separate embodiment, has acknowledged from its Argos buoy network that ocean temperatures are in decline, ie one of the fundamental signatures of the AGW hypothesis does not exist. Neither do tropical tropospheric temperature increases, another critical signature (in fact, a sine qua non), and neither do polar temperature increases, yet another. There is not a single piece of empirical evidence drawn from observation in the real world to support the hypothesis which, anyway, is innately implausible on purely a priori grounds.
The man in the street doesn’t need self-proclaimed experts to tell him that the temperature trend is downwards. His own nervous system provides him with all the evidence he requires – one reason why, in the UK at least, opinion polls have steadily registered scepticism as the dominant aspect of public opinion.
The public are right. AGW is the product of a gross corruption of scientific method and of serial mendacity. It is now driven, and always was, entirely by vested interests for reasons of self-aggrandisement and financial gain. Decent scientists are increasingly sceptical, not to say downright scathing, and are openly dissenting in tens of thousands, as evidenced by pronouncements of the Russian Academy of Sciences as well as signatories to the Oregon Petition 2008.
AGW is a vicious travesty of science and a monstrous fraud on the public. It will do immense damage to the economies of the developed world with no compensating benefits of any kind. The great emerging economies of Russia, India, South East Asia and China will benefit from the West’s adoption of cultist dogma in place of rationality since, quite rightly, they will take absolutely no notice of the West’s self-proclaimed and meretricious environmentalist credentials. In the meantime and in parallel, policies pursued, allegedly to “save the planet”, will condemn the poor and dispossessed indefinitely to squalor, disease and early death, as they are doing already.
Rupert Wyndham.

Ed Scott
August 9, 2008 11:01 am

Dr. Herman references the Key Findings section of the NASA report Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States:
“On pages 6 and 7 of the report there are several “bullets” which summarize the issues and findings. More detail on each of these points may be found in the report. It is my feeling that these bullets and the additional detail discussions contain much information that requires further input due to it being still controversial, incomplete, and in some instances very misleading.”
After reading through portions of the report, I can appreciate Dr. Herman’s restraint when referring to the information as controversial, incomplete and misleading.
In addition to the sociopathic phrases “people are at the heart of this problem, we are causing it,” “human-induced climate change” (true locally in the urbanization sense) and “global warming is unequivocal and is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases and other pollutants” (CO2 is not a pollutant and NASA scientists should know better), the content of the Key Finding is nothing more than statements of the obvious.
Bullet #2, marked as “NEW,” expresses surprise that Nature has not conformed to the projections of their computer models.
The About This Report section, pages 14 and 15, seems to indicate an incestuous bias, judging from the referenced sources of information.
I will not argue against Nature’s natural cycles. I will accept and adapt.
I will not accept the premise that there is global warming/climate change caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions without any scientific factual proof. Anecdotal speculation is not science and it is not proof.
We can be eternally grateful to the Creator and the Creator’s visible and invisible presence, Nature, and that humans do not and cannot control Nature, in view of the disastrous results of human (government) control over other aspects of our life.
Computer models are not reality (they are the biased product of an inadequately informed programmer).
Nature is reality.

August 9, 2008 3:35 pm

As you know, Susan Joy Hossol is one of the editors of the CCSP draft report. I assume that she was invited to be an editor based on her communications skills; I suppose that her background as a climate change advocate may have also been a consideration. For those unfamiliar with her background, you may learn more about her on her website (
You may also be interested in some of her advice: Improving How Scientists Communicate About Climate Change. I perceive her influence on the draft report!!

August 10, 2008 5:23 pm

I was staggered by the report. It is clear that many people actually beleive the content and presentation of the report and are willing to put it in print. I didnt know where to start. Someone could write a comment about every sentence in the report starting at the executive summary.
I didnt think that there was one bit of “fact” in the entire paper.
Would scientific method and error bars and method validations be a good start?

old construction worker
August 10, 2008 6:10 pm

CCSP Draft
On page 19, is that the “Hocket Stick” or Wahl and Ammann’s reconstuction with something added from 1000 to1400?
If it is Wahl and Ammann’s reconstuction with an add on or the “Hockey Stick”.
Either way it not meet the Data Quality Act.

August 14, 2008 7:32 am

[…] Last Chance! Today is the deadline for comments 14 08 2008 See this: An important call for public comment on the NASA Climate Change Science Program […]

August 20, 2008 4:50 pm

[…] Dr. Ben Herman of the University of Arizona was kind enough to offer a guest post outlining the flaws of this document. You can read his essay here. […]

August 21, 2008 9:38 am

I’m smiling…
Just like Stevie Ray Vaughan’s song…
“The wall of denial….must come crumb-lin’ down….down…to the ground!”
A small victory this is. But in order for a war to be won (or settled in our case), battles must be won first.

concerned citizen
August 31, 2008 6:00 am

To the guys putting stock in that list of “scientists” who signed the petition, I hate to burst your bubble.
Without even mentioning the vast number of duplicate names (go check it out for yourself, pick a state), 90% of the “scientists” on there are not even in climatology or any related field. Most of them are in completely unrelated subjects, and do not have experience or recent education in the subject of climate change/global warming. Anybody can be a skeptic, but that doesn’t mean they are credible.
I don’t go to a Mathemetician to try my case in court. I go to an Attorney.
I don’t go to an Economist to remove my tumor. I go to a Surgeon.
I don’t go to an Anthropologist to manage my stock portfolio. I go to a licensed Financial Advisor.
And I don’t go to a Mechanical Engineer who designs air conditioning systems for my house, to educate me about climate change.
There may be some climatologists or related scientists who have signed this bogus petition, but who would know because the list has been so fluffed up with air, to make it look bigger than it is.
If these guys were truly credible, they wouldn’t take just any old person who has a degree. It makes the whole thing look shady.
Not to mention it prominently includes people like Ian Clark, Lindzen, Robinson, Seitz, and Tim Patterson. Anyone who has spent hours and hours reading about this very complicated topic has already come across tons of material that discredits these quacks. Oh yeah, and the “Oregon Institue” that created the petition is a non-profit run by 6 people. SIX. So don’t get all excited thinking the word Institute gives it any weight or credibility. It’s only reason for existence was to create this bogus petition. It has no other function.
PS – meteorologists are weathermen.
REPLY: And “concerned citizen” is another anonymous coward – the opinion value of anonymous cowards is even lower than “quacks”

%d bloggers like this: