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:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/usp/public-review-draft/instructions.php
The complete CCSP report may be found in the following link.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/usp/public-review-draft/
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.
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.
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. (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_seven_graphs_to_end_the_warming_hype/). 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.”
“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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/world/europe/07solar.html?partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
“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.” …
mbabbit:
The 35MB sized glossy “brochure” was my first clue. I didn’t even need to download it.
By comparison, MM05-GRL is 113KB
The instructions at climatescience.gov 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.
Organization
List the Issues, with Claim and Refutation, on this or some other website.
Advantage
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.
Why
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.
[…] 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 […]
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States…
Hmmmmm.
I’m not an expert like Counters, but… something a little off about the title… can’t quite put my finger on it…
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.
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.
“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 asad123.wordpress.com. You can read my commentary on music, pop culture, and teaching.
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.
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.
Pierre Gosselin (06:53:23) :
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?
It is absolutely appropriate counters. Public input was invited. Through clenched teeth, but invited nonetheless.
My Global Warming Science site: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming is also promoting submission of comments. I have also posted a link to one of the comments I have submitted to the CCSP.
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.
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.
Skeptics at http://nzclimatescience.net/
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
Australia
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.
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.
AL GORE IS PAPERING HIS WALLS WITH ALL THE ” GREEN ” GREEN THAT HE HAS MADE. THIS CULT THAT HAS SWOOPED DOWN ON THIS SHEEPISH CIVILIZATION IS SPELL LIKE THAT DEFEATED IT`S MEMBERS IN THE MOVIE ” THE EGYPTIAN “. NANCY PELOSI AND HARRY REID MUST HAVE BEEN THREATENED TO DEATH FROM THE GREENIES TO HOLD THIS COUNTRY AT BAY FOR AS LONG AS THEY HAVE HAD. ONLY IN AMERICA COULD THIS HAPPEN NOWADAYS.
WHEN AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEFEAT AN IDEA THAT HAS COST THIS COUNTRY IT`S MANUFACTURING BASE AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO ENRICH OUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS.
AL GORE IS LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK.
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.
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:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
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.
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.