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