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.
As the great Yogi Berra used to say, “It ain’t over til it’s over.”
He also said “It’s deja vu all over again.”
The same smart, arrogant guys making the same dumb arrogant mistakes over the same sort of issues. Maybe this time they will learn the lesson the Club of Rome SHOULD have taught them? (Naaaaah.)
The cost of idiocy is the necessity of eternal vigilance.
I would beseech everyone to keep a close eye and ear on the rumblings of the “new and improved” Fairness Doctrine that is being talked about in Washington. Supporters of the revival of this blatant attempt to stifle free speech have specifically said they would expand the doctrine to cover the internet and BLOGGERS. I’m sure the “powers that be” are none too happy about the grassroots input that quashed their little plan.
Just visited Susan Hassol’s website. The AGW crowd is filled with enormous egos – Gore, Hansen, Mann, etc. The room must get very crowded when even a handful gather.
Is there an official statement on the withdrawl of the rpeort? I do not seem to see one and the pro-AGW sites are indicating that we may be over-reacting.
In my opinion this is simply a correction of procedure and will this will start all over again when released properly, with many of the problems unchanged.
I agree this is an overreaction.
REPLY: 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 in the post 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
What I love about your blog is that you stick to the science. This is not – and should not be – a political issue. The science, as I read it, does not support the man-made global warming PR campaign.
Climate change is a scientific fact on this planet and always will be. My view is that some chose to mix this fact with legitimate concern for the environment and create a crisis in the minds of the planet’s population – particularly the young.
I’m not sure what they hoped to gain from doing so, but it never made sense to me. I’m glad for this small victory.
Keep up the great work on the blog!
It is hard to find sources of information as well informed as this blog and its readers. Thank you Anthony for all that you do. And thank you to all the great posters who add so much.
Well done Anthony et al.
I have two apologies to make:
First I called you Andrew and second, I doubted your optimism and influence on the issue of commenting on the CCSP report. (August 14)
This result is stunning, even if it could be only temporary. Who would have thought this a few months ago?
People like yourself and Steve McIntyre are having a wonderfully positive influence on the AGW debate, especially here in Australia. (Until a few months ago there was no debate – only a one-sided tirade of misinformation and lies.) Now even some of the mainstream media are questioning and correcting our polititians and the activists.
Keep up the good work.
Herman Dobrowolski
Australia
Anthony, can I nominate you, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, jeez, Monckton, and a few others for sharing the next Nobel Peace Prize, not only to credit you guys but to restore integrity to that prize and to Science. What a fortnight, “My, look what the cat brought in” from Steve, the story of Wahl and Ammann from Bishop Hill, snow in both hemispheres, Monckton trounces DeSmogBlog in debate, and now this.
I’ve been polishing up my introduction to the whole Climate Science story (from my perspective as a U-turner) to be ready for the next generation, and to help newcomers to precious sites like this one, so that people don’t need to keep on explaining too much. I’ve also been collecting all really good intros I can find – mine is not the only intro going, after all. At present they are simply further down my main page as a nice little list.
I don’t ever want to lose that sense of science actually HAPPENING as you trawl through the replies here. This is the most exciting outcome of working under cover, to see the transfer of real scientific research into the truly public domain, when dedicated bloggers can keep the threads clean, fun, and not too OT. And here’s one of my own benefits from your site that I want to feed back to you because it’s worthy of more notice: Josh Hall’s use of WFT for differential pairs of comparisons, to strongly suggest what is cause and what is effect. I’ve put his temp/CO2 pair of graphs HERE because they deserve to be seen and used. If my eyes don’t deceive me, I think they’re a clincher with wide applications to prevent nonsense in future.
Thank you everyone.
Reply:surfacestations.org and this site are Anthony’s projects. I am simply a volunteer moderator, and while an occasional thank you is appreciated I simply do not belong in that list above~charles the moderator aka jeez
REPLY2: Thanks Lucy, but I’m simply not of Nobel caliber. But I do appreciate the kind words – Anthony
NOAA- a corrupt agency.
NOAA cheated me out of over one thousand dollars. This was money out of pocket, not simply lost pay.
I took a physical and caught a temporary berth NOAA “ship”, had my gear broken into and reported it requesting transfer to my permanent ship after one week aboard.
NOAA is extremely politicized with activities going on that are basically “black ops” to discredit on board at least one vessel.
A cover-up was going on and I was “hired” specifically to conduct a discrediting operation, I was lied to, and fired, then cheated out of all the expenses of travel for everything start to finish.
The deception, political misuse of NOAA, intentional lies of the top officials, and retaliations in a discrediting process personally removes any and all confidence that NOAA today is capable of recording and reporting data from their studies or anything else they do or say.
A word to the wise- the data recorded is no different from using the above in a cover-up.
Take all NOAA data with a grain of salt. This is not what NOAA used to be now.
[…] Skeptics win one! NOAA/NCDC to hold the CCSP report NOTE: In the headline, the word “pull” has been replaced with the word “hold” which better […] […]
I’d call it more like the newspaper Astrology page. A bunch of generalized crap that has a 50/50 chance of being right/wrong at any given moment.
Perry, It’s “losing”, not “loosing”.
Patti:
“new and improved” Fairness Doctrine
Say What? Any congressional big names on board with that?
Top Posts « WordPress.com
Number 1!
Nobody beas the Rev!
Sorry if this is already answered. Where is the official retraction? Is it front and center on the official website? I could not find it….
Thanks
The bill below was introduced in 2005 but congress did not act upon it. As you will see further below, others in congress are trying to revive it. An unfortunate fact in the world that we live in is that everything is political, including the relationship between AGW and the new and improved Fairness Doctrine. A means to an end.
In the 109th Congress (2005-2007), Representative Maurice Hinchey (Democrat of New York) introduced legislation “to restore the Fairness Doctrine”. H.R. 3302, also known as the “Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005” or MORA, had 16 co-sponsors in Congress.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#cite_note-12
“There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”
“FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks. ”
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080812160747.aspx
The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during ’08. In ruling out a vote on Pence’s proposed Broadcaster’s Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” — which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185
“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-preps-for-talk-radio-confrontation-2007-06-27.html
Does anyone else have flashes of George Orwell’s 1984? I hear double-speak.
Anthony
I have the same feelings, but don’t give up. I look forward to your insight and that of your posters. I’m a little fish, but you big’uns are of worth to me.
Mark
OK, Anthony and jeez, Nobel nomination was a little tongue-in-cheek, but it would be nice to honour the many who have held out, at personal cost, for good science, and keep on holding out for good science… I think you all deserve the Nobel Peace Prize more than Al Gore.
OT – While the battle continues, it would be nice to see a post on “Does CO2 even have a greenhouse effect as stated officially”
REPLY2: Thanks Lucy, but I’m simply not of Nobel caliber. But I do appreciate the kind words – Anthony
Neither is AL Gore and look what happen.
Well, there you go. Does it make a midget taller to cut off the leg of giant?
Al Gore is a good man, a great man. He was right about saving ARPANet — you profit from that, and you owe him thanks — and he was right about organ transplant registries, and organ transplant pharmaceuticals. He was right about cleaning up grossly polluted sites. He was right about staying home with young Albert to make sure the kid healed up. He was graceful in his concession to Bush, a concession a lesser man wouldn’t have made (though the nation now suffers from his concession).
Gore raised a good point. We need to act against pollution, and whether or not there is a smoking gun that proves humans are causing warming of the climate, the climate warms, and we can act now to do something to ameliorate and alleviate the harms, and maybe save significant portions of the planet, or we can do nothing and leave creation much worse off.
It’s telling that you celebrate the political repression of a report here, instead of pointing to some science that might make the case and making the case. And just to make the case, sort of a dog dropping on the ice cream, you try to denigrate a Nobel winner.
“Going green” shouldn’t mean “let your jealousy show.”
no comment
“and leave creation much worse off.” Ed Darrell
I’m glad you brought “creation” up. I am puzzled about where carbon burning is forbidden by the world’s major religions. Oppressing the poor is condemned by at least two of the world’s major religions so I suggest caution when “saving the planet” comes at their expense.
statePoet1775 (19:35:50) :
“Oppressing the poor is condemned by at least two of the world’s major religions so I suggest caution when “saving the planet” comes at their expense.”
I hardly agree, well said Poet!
OOPs
I hard(i)ly agree!!!
Reply: Before anyone makes fun of you, we know you meant heartily agree.~charles the moderator
[snip – no religious discussions please]
Oppressing the poor is well evidenced when we consider that the chief human victims of warming are the poor. Not only are polluting industries, and roads, generally built where they affect the poor disproportionately, but we have tens of millions of people living in river deltas and other lowlands that are already disproportionately damaged by warming. Think about those injured by the Indian Ocean tsunami, or those displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, you begin to see the problem. If we can slow warming, or stop it, it is the poor who benefit most. Of course, the poor also have the weakest lobby among political powers. Kudos to the Rockefeller family for calling Exxon-Mobil on the carpet for spending millions to support your side with false data and false conclusions. (Anthony — when do you take after Exxon-Mobil for their PhotoShopping equivalents?)
Saving the planet comes at the benefit of all of us. If you’re completely ignorant of the history of pollution control, you might have a difficulty time believing that — but you can cure your problem with education. You’ve never heard of Donora? Look it up.
REPLY: Ed, Katrina and Rita have nothing to do with climate change. The link between individual storms, and even storm frequency trends tied to “global warming: has been disproven. Read up.
I find your suggestions that I am somehow involved with Exxon Mobil laughable. Don’t raise those suggestions again please, because they simply aren’t true. I don’t get any money from oil companies nor do I use “false data”. Show a place here on this forum where I’ve used anything but the publicly available datasets. You really are over the line and it is encumbent upon you to prove such things before making those claims. It seems to be the standard excuse “oh, he doubts AGW, must be on the take from big oil”. That is the ultimate in lazy arguments.
As for photoshopping, other than the “coal cliff” (Peabody if I recall correctly) I don’t know of any others. I would have called that one out too. So far I’ve only seen one example of photoshopping in a report, the one highlighted here. So, expressing frustration that I haven’t “taken after Exxon Mobil” is again just a lazy argument.
Using photoshopped images has no place in science or policy reports no matter where.
Please read my “about” page, available on the menu bar, and look at all the things I’ve done, then if you can put your obvious dislike and prejudice of me aside, tell me how you think then. Be sure to note my solar projects and my electric car I drive daily.
I ask you sir, other than complain about others, what have you done? You want to reduce pollution and end waste. So do I, and I’ve put my money (note the “my” not Exxon’s) where my mouth is and actually done those things because they make good sense to me econimically and from a pollution standpoint (CO2 excepted, as it is not pollution). In the way of conservation and energy efficiency, what have you done to walk the talk? I’d love to see pictures of what sort of energy conservation projects like solar or driving an electric car that you’ve done. Feel free to post any examples you have here. – Anthony