Last Chance! Today is the deadline for comments

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

If you have not made a comment on this report, and the many, many flaws it contains. You still have time. Comments are accepted until 5PM EST today


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. Please visit this link for details: See this: An important call for public comment on the NASA Climate Change Science Program

Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pierre Gosselin
August 14, 2008 7:41 am

I would love to make a difference, but I think for myself it’s a waste of time.
This is a job for the heavyweights like: Pielke, McIntyre, Lindzen, Gray, Spence etc. etc. etc.
Everyone knows NASA is running a climate house of fraud.
Lord knows I’ve said it enough times – we need a law firm to sue them for fraud.
Trying to be friends aint going to reform them.

Pierre Gosselin
August 14, 2008 7:43 am

I read page 6 and 7 and practically got ill.

Drew Latta
August 14, 2008 8:36 am

“Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-first-century warming conditions – pp359 – 364
Thomas R. Knutson, Joseph J. Sirutis, Stephen T. Garner, Gabriel A. Vecchi & Isaac M. Held
Using projected boundary conditions for the end of the twenty-first century, the frequency of Atlantic tropical cyclones and hurricanes in a regional climate model of the Atlantic basin is reduced compared with observed boundary conditions at the end of the twentieth century. This is inconsistent with the idea that higher levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases will result in increased Atlantic hurricane activity.”

Knutson et al (2008), Nature Geoscience 1(6) p. 359-364
I wish I could read it and provide a synopsis, but I don’t have access so I’ve provided the abstract.

August 14, 2008 9:46 am

Regrettably, Pierre Gosselin is probably right. They’re likely to use the volume of opposing comments to “prove” their due diligence and then ignore its contents. Unless they publish the commentary with the document who’s to know any different (except the marginalized opposition, of course)?

August 14, 2008 9:55 am

It is entirely possible but very time consuming to pull the complete report apart. It is a sad reflection on the state of affairs today that such a load of speculation and fabricated, unsubstantiated twaddle is presented as a serious document with possible devastating consequences for us ( alien, nasty ) human creature invaders. Please, do they really think that they are going to fool us all – all of the time?

August 14, 2008 10:26 am

I read through the document (Global Climate Change in the United States) hoping to find a place to comment that the NASA climate models should be in compliance with NASA’s newly released NASA-STD-7009: STANDARD FOR MODELS AND SIMULATIONS. Sadly the document is not worthy of comment, it is merely page after page of tired rhetoric. Hard to imagine anyone will take this document seriously.
As for the newly released NASA STANDARD FOR MODELS AND SIMULATIONS, it is an excellent scientific and engineering standard developed by the manned spaceflight program within NASA. It is applicable to all NASA programs unless specifically excluded within the document or unless the NASA program in question obtains a “waiver” against the document which explains why the particular program should not be subject to the requirements in NASA-STD-7009.
It would be nice to see NASA’s climate models brought into compliance with this document, or, if this is not possible, have the climate modeling programs within NASA ask for exception to the document.
Please take some time to read through NASA-STD-7009 a public link can be found here:
Another excellent paper by NASA in regard to models and simulations is: Towards a Credibility Assessment of Models and Simulations Steve R. Blatting

David L. Hagen
August 14, 2008 11:13 am

Pierre Gosselin (07:41:39) :
Re: “I would love to make a difference, but I think for myself it’s a waste of time.”
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797)
You can read and can distinguish right from wrong. May I encourage you to take and give them some specific changes in some sentences that you see could be made more reasonable.
Every bit helps. E.g., add options to the adaptation page.
Recommend some change to an outrageous statement to provide some balance.
They will address some and make some changes. If each reader made a couple of recommendations and even only half were accepted, that would still help improve it.

David L. Hagen
August 14, 2008 11:16 am

therealeriktheviking (10:26:21) :
“I read through the document (Global Climate Change in the United States) hoping to find a place to comment that the NASA climate models should be in compliance with NASA’s newly released NASA-STD-7009: STANDARD FOR MODELS AND SIMULATIONS.”
Please send in your comment to explicitly add that compliance in:
“Pathways to Improved Decision Making”

R John
August 14, 2008 11:45 am

I skimmed it and it is some of the finest propaganda I have ever seen. Kind of like the Chinese commies saying that all Olympic tickets are sold out, yet I saw a field hockey game that had probably had a few thousand at most in the stands.

August 14, 2008 11:46 am

“Climate Change Science”; yup, the buggers certainly have changed science from the activity I was familiar with.

Frank Ravizza
August 14, 2008 1:07 pm

The photo-chopped image from this report showing the classic Middle American home with its front yard under water is a perfect analogy which represents the content of this report—its crisis, created in a computer. In other words it’s hype.

August 14, 2008 1:09 pm

Well, I for one am unwilling to lay down while the government steamrolls me. Thanks for the prod to action, Anthony. My own letter to the editors, which I sent a few hours ago, is posted below.
August 14, 2008
Dear Climate Science Report Authors:
My name is Harold Ambler, and I am non-scientist with a deep interest in the current debate taking place with regard to climate change. Should you care, I have two Ivy League degrees, the first from Dartmouth College and the second from Columbia University.
Although in the minds of some, my degrees in literary studies would appear to disqualify me from informed comment on climatology, I think that just the opposite is quite possible. To wit, I believe that it is a narrative, rather than true science, that is driving Al Gore and the “warmist” side of the debate.
Changes I would propose to your report:
• Your initial temperature graph in the main report, covering the period from 1880 to the present, is an even greater distortion than the fully discredited Mann Hockey Stick graph. The reasons for this are as follows: (1) The time period reflected is too short to be meaningful in terms of climatology, ignoring the Roman Optimum and Medieval Warming Period and other periods of significant warming that predate man-made C02 contributions, (2) It does not reflect the recent cooling! Worldwide temperatures fell by .6 degree Celsius during the most recent La Nina. It is interesting that your graph does not reflect this, to say the least!
• United States temperatures, measured at rural stations are not rising, as indicated in “National Climate Change,” they have been falling since 1998 or, if you prefer, since 1934, the warmest year in the United States on record (despite 70-plus years of increased C02 since then).
• Projections of temperature increases do not equal temperature increases. There are many statistical problems with computer models, as well as significant methodological problems, such as presuming a water-vapor feedback mechanism that has never been shown to exist and the failure to introduce a variety of negative feedback mechanisms that have been shown to exist
• It is possible that your precipitation intensity measurements are accurate, although I doubt it. Even if they are, establishing causality in terms of temperature increase and of anthropogenic causes behind it is a leap of faith. Again: temperatures have increased repeatedly in the geological record, more than the current episode of warming, and at higher rates!
• Atlantic hurricane activity has not been shown to increase – this is a well-known and fully discredited canard and among the reasons that Dr. William Gray, the nation’s foremost authority on hurricane activity, does not subscribe to manmade global warming theories.
• Projections about stronger storms are also based on faulty computer programs that have been rigged to produce “the right kind” of results.
• C02 is a very powerful greenhouse gas for about the first 20 parts per million. After that, its effect diminishes with each increase. The science on this is clear.
In summary, your facts are skewed, and your argumentation is tautological. You ignore the powerful correspondence between solar cycles and climate, despite an abundance of cutting-edge research suggesting that it is the sun that drives climate on Earth by the likes of Henrik Svensmark, among others.
It is not the “global warming skeptics” who are the “flat-earthers,” as Al Gore has referred to them. On the contrary, the Galileos of our era are those standing up to the political muscle currently being flexed in the name of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Even if, and it is a huge if, C02 were raising temperatures (and it’s not), how can you presume to know that this is bad news? How can you presume to know the start date of the next cold phase of the 11,000-year ice-age cycle? Even if we were to successfully raise temperatures on our planet by three or four degrees Fahrenheit, and we haven’t and we won’t, it could be the greatest help in surviving the coming ice age. The climate of the last 11,000 years is unusual, to the extent that the world spends more time in ice ages than it does in benevolent eras like the Holocene Optimum.
Sincerely yours,
Harold Ambler

Pierre Gosselin
August 14, 2008 1:19 pm

Someone ought to simply send them Bihop Hill’s report, and then ask them to put 2 and 2 together.
Writing up such piece of propaganda, and then asking the public for comments sets a new standard for cynicism.

Pieter Folkens
August 14, 2008 2:05 pm

I took a shot based on what I know . . .
“Key Findings,” Page 6, “• Global warming is unequivocal and is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases and other pollutants.”
Comment: In papers published in Nature, one in 2000 and another in 2005, climatologists studying the question of the sources of anthropogenic CO2 concluded that Third World home fires (wood burning) provided well over 50% of anthropogenic CO2. The impact of deforestation is another non-emissions source of residual carbon in the atmosphere. This is doubly problematic because the forest clearing not only adds CO2 to the atmosphere, but also diminishes the forests’ ability to remove carbon from the air. On balance, “human-induced emissions” is not the primary source of “Heat-trapping gases” as stated in the findings.
“Executive Summary,” Page 4, “Some of the impacts of climate change will be irreversible, such as . . . civilizations on islands and coasts lost to rising seas.”
. . . and . . .
“Key Findings,” Page 6, “• Observed changes in the United States include temperature increases, sea-level rise, increased heavy downpours, rapidly retreating glaciers, regional droughts, substantial changes in sensitive wildlife, earlier snowmelt, and altered timing and amount of river flows.”
Comment: The greatest concentration of tidewater glaciers in the United States is in Southeast Alaska. The face of the Grand Pacific Glacier when first seen by the crew of H.M.S. Resloution in 1778 ran from Pt. Carolus to Pt. Gustavus, a span of about 8 km. The glacier retreated about 77 km from the late 1770s until visited by John Muir in 1879. The 19th Century retreat was significantly greater in volume and distance than the retreat since from Muir’s visit until now. The retreat from 1880 to now was only about 21 km and the Grand Pacific face is now only about 3 km wide. The melting in terms of volume rather than distance is orders of magnitude greater in the 19th Century than the 20th Century. Considering that the temperature data record upon which the global warming alarm is sounded begins in 1880, it is important to note that more warming occurred prior to 1880 than since. (Source: Glacier Bay National Park Archives)
In general, the report is lacking the historical perspective and an explanation of the more significant warming prior to the issue of “emissions.” Prior to the beginning of concerns regarding global warming in the late 1980s, the work of R.W. Fairbridge produced a widely accepted reconstruction of the sea level of the Late Holocene Interglacial, essentially the period of human civilization including now. (Science 191 (4225) 353-359 1976). Observed sea level as measured by the TOPEX-Poseidon satellite and other sources show no meaningful sea level since Fairbridge’s publication.
Comparing the worst-case scenario for sea level rise going forward as postulated by the IPCC to the “Fairbridge Curve” one immediately notices that such a rise would attain only the average sea level of the past 6,000 years. Indeed, the worst-case scenario would develop a sea level that would be only slightly higher than the average during the past 2,000 years.
The warming of the past century must be put into the context of historical data. Hyperbolic modifiers suggesting unusual extremes happening now are misleading in the absence of the wider history of climate.

Brendan H
August 14, 2008 3:14 pm

Pierre Gosselin: “Writing up such piece of propaganda, and then asking the public for comments sets a new standard for cynicism.”
That’s a rather harsh judgement. I read the Executive Summary, and my initial impressions from a quick skim were that this is a pleasing document with high production values.
The highway and crossroads metaphors at the beginning were well chosen to illustrate the nature of the choices facing us, while the gradation in colour scheme on the main pages – from light at the top to sombre tones towards the bottom – provided a visual affirmation of the progressively grave nature of the subject matter.
I was particularly taken with the Summary of Impacts on Regions section, with its Guthriesque tour of the American heartland, which tied in neatly with the ‘road’ theme that opened the document. I have also learnt a new fact: the Great Plains is a separate entity from the Midwest.
No document is perfect, though, and I was less impressed with this page 4 heading: Beneficial & Detrimental Impacts. Ampersands are so 18th century. Nor was I pleased with this construction under Midwest on page 7: “…insect- and water-borne diseases…” In my view, the double-hyphen construction should be limited to suffixes.
But those infelicitous matters aside, and any others that may have escaped my initial read-through, any executive would be proud to display this document prominently on his office coffee table.

August 14, 2008 6:55 pm

Brendan H: My view of the draft of the report differs. Any father would be happy to display a report of this caliber on his coffee table if his sixth grader had been involved in its preparation. However, this document was not written by preteens; it was prepared by the scientists who are part of the United States Climate Change Science Program. Note that the word science appears in the name of the organization. Unfortunately, science is missing from the report, a report which is a simplistic recanting of IPCC propaganda about a hypothesis.
The US public deserves more. They deserve to have realistic ranges identified for anthropogenic and natural climate forcing contributions. They deserve to have uncertainties identified truthfully. The list of what the US public deserves is long, but in summary, they deserve a report from which policy decisions can be made. The CCSG draft falls far short of being that document.

Brian D
August 14, 2008 9:50 pm

I know this is OT, but something going on in the Artic Ocean last couple days.
4.5 2008/08/15 03:37:33 83.435 115.534 10.0 NORTH OF SEVERNAYA ZEMLYA
4.9 2008/08/14 10:37:51 83.314 117.575 10.0 NORTH OF SEVERNAYA ZEMLYA
4.5 2008/08/14 09:29:14 83.581 114.926 10.0 NORTH OF SEVERNAYA ZEMLYA
4.6 2008/08/14 07:18:20 79.469 2.978 10.0 GREENLAND SEA
4.4 2008/08/14 05:59:21 83.558 114.438 10.0 NORTH OF SEVERNAYA ZEMLYA
5.7 2008/08/13 18:30:57 83.541 114.430 10.0 NORTH OF SEVERNAYA ZEMLYA
5.4 2008/08/13 08:35:02 83.708 114.752 10.0 NORTH OF SEVERNAYA ZEMLYA
REPLY: I’ve been follwing these earthquakes as well. There is an active volcanic zone under parts of the arctic, so it would be unsurprising to witness earthquakes there. – Anthony

Pierre Gosselin
August 15, 2008 12:15 am

Antarctica is warming (longterm) scientists say:

Roger Carr
August 15, 2008 12:39 am

Brendan H (15:14:39) “…any executive would be proud to display this document prominently on his office coffee table.
But, Brendan, they forgot the (Kramer) legs.
Then it could have stood on its own…

August 15, 2008 5:46 am

Its dumbed down for us the sweating masses, because we are not elite scientists like the guys at NASA Climate Change Science Program.
This statment just about sums it it.
A booklet titled “On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research” [18], published by the National Academy of Science in 1995, provides us with a well-presented set of criteria to guide the conduct of scientists as they navigate their way through the difficult choices they have to make in the way they conduct themselves ethically.
“The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results.”
Here, scepticism is held up as a virtue, in contrast with the hostile treatment afforded to sceptics in the climate sciences. But we also have this cogent warning against dogma and collective bias intruding into a science. This caution is directly applicable to those involved in climate change research as they have demonstrated numerous times a collective bias in their work, a bias that must inevitably contaminate the peer review process itself.
A common failing of scientists, particularly those engaged in research which may have impacts upon the public, is to reject any input from the public in the conduct of their work. The peer review process provides an effective barrier to public scrutiny of a science, as is the tendency to regard the public as people to `be educated’ instead of being learned from. The resulting intellectual arrogance has the effect of making scientists into a sort of medieval priesthood, keepers of secret and exclusive knowledge, and to be kept away from prying public eyes. Such an attitude, common with many scientists, is unpardonable given that most research is paid for by public money. This however, does not prevent such scientists from adopting a proprietorial view of their research results. The NAS booklet cautions –
“In fulfilling these responsibilities scientists must take the time to relate scientific knowledge to society in such a way that members of the public can make an informed decision about the relevance of research. Sometimes researchers reserve this right to themselves, considering non-experts unqualified to make such judgments. But science offers only one window on human experience. While upholding the honor of their profession, scientists must seek to avoid putting scientific knowledge on a pedestal above knowledge obtained through other means.”
This is a direct criticism of `scientism’, a belief held by many scientists that knowledge not acquired by professional scientists is knowledge not worth having. Scientism is an affront to free people everywhere as it denies the right of the public to judge the work of science, even where this work is funded from taxpayer’s money. It is a formula that holds scientists above criticism, and unaccountable to anyone but their own peers. It is an anti-democratic view of the world and is clearly opposed by the National Academy.
Yet in the climate sciences, we have numerous examples of public criticism and concern being dismissed with gratuitous statistics and spurious appeals to academic authority.

August 15, 2008 7:50 am

Pierre: Thanks for the link. Here are three graphs for you.
The Antarctic GHCN data long term. There was data missing in blocks prior to the 1940s, which explains the note on the graph.
The Antarctic GHCN data short term. I don’t see the warming they claim, unless you cherry pick the start date.
The Southern Ocean. SSTs warmed drastically in the 60s and early 70s, but have been dropping like a rock for more than 10 years.
Makes you wonder why they don’t show the data when they discuss these things.

Bill P
August 15, 2008 11:27 am

RE” The title, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States”:
You can discuss climate changes globally. Or you can discuss its effects regionally. The awkward effort to merge the two is just the first of many logical fallacies committed in this work. “If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the quesion… when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove.” Or, in other words, just because warming is global, that doesn’t mean the effect may be assumed locally. (And, anyway, who says it’s warming globally?) I suppose this is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
For logical fallacies, see:
But perhaps I digress.
With its bulletted, unsubstantiated assertions, dogmatically set forth, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” is probably not intended to convert anyone. It’s just a global warmer’s catechism. As I tried to analyzed some of these fallacious arguments, including its circular reasoning and appeals to fear and biased authority, it struck me time and again that you can’t analyze logically someone else’s Credo. Only lacking were the words, “We believe…”
Like Plato’s cavedwellers, these writers may have limited awareness of the sun, and little intention of trying to broaden their views, nor of proving anything that would intimate that their “facts” are anything but theories. They are, in my opinion, laboring at something bigger than proving a mere hypothesis.
I wound up thinking, fine! Forget the acolytes. But somehow we need to get to the children of this crowd before they get too far along in Sunday school.
” … a pleasing document with high production values…” This view seems quite compatible with “…a new standard for cynicism.” One might have expected some science, at least.

August 16, 2008 7:30 am

I can’t believe you guys are helping them write better propaganda.
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
Napoleon Bonaparte.

Alan Chappell
August 16, 2008 9:45 am

It’s all about money, and we the public are loosing it. Grants for the ‘global warming pagent will exceed the Billions of dollars forcast, Companies closing down and shifting to China/India to evade Gores carbon credit scam are an example of just how stupid the human race has become, unbelieves of the ‘flat earth’ were once put to death, I ask are we coming in a full circle ?

%d bloggers like this: