NOTE: In the headline, the word “pull” has been replaced with the word “hold” which better represents the process that will now occur. My thought for that word was “pull from the planned schedule”, but that was the wrong word to use. Note the paragraph below that speaks of the plan, based on criticisms received, to publish all parts of the Unified synthesis report first. These must be published before the main report, containing conclusions, can go forward. – Anthony
Regular readers may recall on August 1st a posting where I stated my views on the NCDC report being produced by Dr.’s Karl and Peterson of NCDC (National Climatic Data Center) called Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. They also had a little help from Susan Hassol, writer of the HBO Special Too Hot Not to Handle, produced by none other than Laurie David. That explains the “emotionally based graphics” in a science document.
I wrote then:
To say the least, I’m shocked that NCDC’s leadership has changed from being the nation’s record keeper of weather and climatic data, to being what appears to me now as an advocacy group. The draft document reads more like a news article in many places than it does a scientific document, and unlike a scientific document, it has a number of what I would call “emotionally based graphics” in it that have nothing to do with the science.
About the same time, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. revealed that Ms. Hassol appeared to simply move some of her website’s claims into this self-proclaimed official U.S. government “highly influential scientific assessment.”
In that posting, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr also noted that we had a post outlining how NCDC had used a photoshopped image to illustrate flooding. Something of a no-no in “science” document:
Image above taken directly from the CCSP report. Read more here
And finally you may also recall the posting where I advertised for comments on the NOAA CCSP report, shown below:
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.
Dr. Herman writes:
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.
Readers were invited to submit comments to NCDC about the CCSP Report, and I’m pleased to report that many of you did. The National Chamber of Commerce also got involved, and submitted a very strong rebuttal to this document.
Chris Horner writes on NRO Planet Gore:
…the U.S. Chamber pointed out that a preponderance of the 21 reports that had purportedly been “synthesized” had not actually been produced yet. Sure, that sequence sounds odd in the real world, but is reminiscent of the IPCC, to which the USP appealed as the authority for certain otherwise unsupported claims (though the IPCC openly admits that it, too, performs no scientific research). This is a point we also made in our comments. I’m informed that NOAA has now agreed to publish the underlying documents first and then put out their desired USP. The Chamber should have a release out soon.
…Key absurdities included breakout points in the Executive Summary of “Urgency of Action,” “Irreversible Losses,” “The Future Is in Our Hands” and ‘Tipping Points” (even though nowhere else did the document actually offer a discussion of “Tipping Points” that could be summarized), as well as calls for adoption of a certain policy agenda, all in a supposedly scientific document.
What a concept; publish the basis for the claims first, THEN publish the document that outlines the claims (The CCSP report seen above). But nobody is rushing anything, right? “Tipping points” with no definitions, calls for policy? That’s advocacy, not science.
We’ll keep a watchful eye on this as there remains potential to “synthesize” abuse of the public trust.
My sincere thanks to everyone from this blog who provided comments and insight. And lets give the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a salute for taking point on this. Lots of people contributed to forcing this change; including Pielke Jr and Senior, Joe D’Aleo of Icecap, Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Steve McIntyre, Chris Horner, Marlo Lewis, and dozens of bloggers who helped get the word out, plus thousands of readers.
Warning, strong opinion follows: This report’s contents and the “cart before the horse” way it was produced is the biggest official “crock” perpetrated on the American public I’ve ever been privy to. On a personal note, there are days when I struggle to keep doing this, at times I think I’ll just shut down the blog, turn off the surfacestations website, and return to a normal and hassle free life. Days like this keep me going.
Thanks, Joe S.
Excellent job Anthony, Roger, and everyone else. Well done….
check the moovie. “the day after after tommorow” i think it explains well about the global warming effects.
anywaist. love the post. nature lover.
On the subject of scientific integrity at the NOAA, last year I came across a particularly blatant piece of mis-information on the NOAA site:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
I quote: “When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.” Sound familiar?
Of course, we now know this is false and that CO2 changes occur *after* temperature changes.
I posted about this at Climate Audit in April. Here’s the link to my post at CA:
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=262&p=5652#p5652
Some CA readers did send emails. How about you guys at this site? I think it’s time I sent the NOAA another email….
Best regards,
Chris
This is a good reason why this site is so valuable, keep up the great work!
Good one tina,
We all know that movies are the ultimate font of wisdom and truth. Two other movies known for their veracity: “An Inconvenient Truth” and “Dumb and Dumber”.
Thanks,
EcoMike
Hi Anthony,
Farmers’ Almanac sees a cold winter this year. According to this article:
http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/031815.html
I thought it was interesting that they talk a little bit about their methods. It almost looks sort of reasonable. Instead of studying the weather, they study meta-data which tends to be related to weather.
One of the things they watch are sunspots.
James
tina (03:11:03) :
The science in the movie is so bad that I was surprised the science advisor’s name is not a pseudonym.
Check out my critique of the movie and the science behind sudden climate change in my essay 2016: The [Next] Year without a Summer. Recent data (e.g. global cooling) make that less likely. I picked 2016 solely as a counterpoint to my earlier essay 1816: The Year without a Summer about that year in New England.
OTOH, given the solar activity of late, people in 2016 may well be noting similarities with 1816.
Connecting some dots, CimateDebateDaily (http://climatedebatedaily.com/) put up a link yesterday to an article where another NOAA meteorologist, from their hurricane research division, stated, “Not all scientists agree that the warming we’ve seen is necessarily anthropogenic. It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
For the NOAA scientists involved in real-world hurricane modeling, and research in which human lives and millions of dollars in property are at stake every year, for them to be told how to think by some other research division that has produced nothing verifiable has got to be wearing a bit thin.
Switching gears: pulling the paper to publish the articles that were “synthesized” sounds like face-saving to me. They couldn’t very well acknowledge the uproar from all the scientists who responded to it, could they? That would crack consensus myth. And by “publish” I assume they mean “peer review”? No? More public comments instead? This is science?
On second thought, maybe public comment is a good thing, better than having them peer reviewed by all their buddies, with whom they’ve already co-authored a bunch of like-minded papers.
I want my Science back!!
That Al Gore is a certifiable nut should come as no surprise to anyone. His treachery is limitless.
[…] has been growing for many years, but their methods are dishonest and cannot stand exposure. Now climate skeptics have won an institutional victory. This is heartening, but the battle is not over. I give this post the “politics” tag. […]
Now is not the time to gloat over a small “victory.” Instead, it’s time to build relationships with the folks who wrote the CCSP report. Critics (ie, semi-peer reviewers) ought to be part of the process from the beginning rather than late-to-the-party “obstructionists.” Anthony, you attempted this earlier this summer with your visit to the surface stations administrators. I hope some of the big names can follow up in the same way on this report so that it tells a reasonable story. We need honest assessments – even if inconclusive – and not over-hyped public relations. This ship won’t turn immediately, but steady constructive participation by “our side” is the only thing that will turn it to where it needs to go.
I am proud to be a part of this. Good work people.\!
We should be wary of NOAA resurrecting this piece of propaganda.
Two reasons; 1) Facts (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with religious faith, and 2) The winner of the next US presidential election will support their view (doesn’t matter who wins, as both seem to be drinking the same climate koolaid).
Here is the text of my email to Richard Black at the BBC.
Dear Mr Black,
Further to my email of 26th June, I hope you might be interested in learning that NOAA/NCDC are to pull the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Unified Synthesis Report (USP) due to the fact that only 11 of the 21 reports(last: SAP 3.1 on Jul 31) have been issued; thereby making their requested comments impossible.
You will find the two links below very instructive.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/an-important-call-for-public-comment-on-the-nasa-climate-change-science-program/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/skeptics-win-one-noaa-pulls-the-ccsp-report/
We already know that the BBC is biased favourably towards the AGW scam, but Al Gore and Jim Hansen are both fighting a loosing battle against the scientific reality that climate always has changed and that the planet is probably now headed towards a period of quite severe cooling. As much of the EU philosophy is predicated upon AGW, it will be entertaining to watch the slow disintegration of cooperation between the 27 members as Europe freezes next winter. You should read http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ to garner the real news, but don’t let the BBC catch you doing it.
Yours truly,
Perry
I wonder if I’ll get a reply?
I guess they could just be waiting until the pressure dies down. And as we saw with the Hockey Stick, the warmers never give up in trying to have ther “emotion-based” graphics and studies continue to be published (as opposed to true scientific method studies).
But this is a significant victory. Not the least of which is that global warming scientists have to take note of what happens today to the scientists like Mann and Karl who significant distort and exagerate the science.
A little more objectivity, and they continue to maintain their reputations and lead the field. Continued exageration and their reputations bite the dust. They still get invited to all the great global warming parties, but objective scientists in the field no longer provide the hero worship they use to get.
It will be interesting to hear al-Gore’s speech at the convention. Will he ‘warm’ us or ‘climate change’ us? In either case, massive research grants are needed, as well as huge restrictions on what we can do. Perhaps even what we can say.
O.T.: FoxNews had a story about the ‘catastrophic’ tropical storm pounding Florida. Must be a slow news day.
Anthony, you have done a great job. This site is a catalyst for science and commentary. A good balance.
I also have severe neural hearing loss. No solutions apparent. 🙁
Could this prove one of those ‘tipping points’ against the Gore provoked hysteria?
Well done Anthony. Don’t know how you keep on, but please continue.
Thank you, Anthony. I want to recognise all the work and integrity that you and everyone involved puts forth. Not only on this document, but keeping us afloat in the sea of propaganda as regards climatology. Keep up the good work.
Is there a way of pulling together the comments received by NCDC? Was NCDC going to make them part of the public record in any way? At the moment we are speculating as to the volume and significance of the criticisms – though publishing ahead of the reports on which it is based is probably sufficient to require that this report be pulled.
Thanks Anthony, I look forward to every new entry on your blog. Your research into the accuracy of the US weather sensor network hooked me with the first read. The energy and time you dedicate to this blog is much appreciated.
You have tapped into a pool of reasoned, logical individuals tired of the propaganda perpetuated by the MSM, gov’t, and certain citizens/organizations.
Please keep up the excellent work.
ps Roger Carr – the CAUTION comment, priceless
Thank you Anthony. Don’t even think about shutting down this site. Let’s all put something in the tip jar to help!
“In Region 15, the Pacific Northwest, there were a total of 13 precipitation forecasts. Only 23% of the forecasts were correct, 38% were quantitatively wrong and 38% were not only wrong but had the wrong sign. For the 21 Region 15 temperature forecasts 33% verified as correct, 38% were quantitatively wrong and 29% had the wrong sign. Overall in the Pacific Northwest only 29% of the forecasts verified as being correct.”
How does this compare to the average TV meteorologist? ;*)
Here’s for the underdog!
Yeuh!
Sensibility is the equilibrium. We are the damping force against zealotry.
“I also have severe neural hearing loss” retired engineer
I am sorry about that. If you are willing, I would try a long water fast (with doctor’s approval of course). It has ton’s of mental and physical benefits.