We’ve heard this before

National Academy of Sciences :

Action needed to manage climate change risks — new report

WASHINGTON — Warning that the risk of dangerous climate change impacts is growing with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, a National Research Council committee today reiterated the pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare to adapt to its impacts. The nation’s options for responding to the risks posed by climate change are analyzed in a new report and the final volume in America’s Climate Choices, a series of studies requested by Congress. The committee that authored the report included not only renowned scientists and engineers but also economists, business leaders, an ex-governor, a former congressman, and other policy experts.

“The goal of the America’s Climate Choices studies is to ensure that climate decisions are informed by the best possible scientific knowledge, analysis, and advice, both now and in the future,” said committee chair Albert Carnesale, chancellor emeritus and professor, University of California, Los Angeles.

The new report reaffirms that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities — especially the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere — as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades. This trend cannot be explained by natural factors such as internal climate variability or changes in incoming energy from the sun. The report adds that the impacts of climate change on human and natural systems can generally be expected to intensify with warming.

While it recognized that climate change is inherently a global issue requiring an international response, the committee focused on the charge from Congress to identify steps and strategies that U.S. decision makers could adopt now. A coordinated national response to climate change, which the country currently lacks, is needed and should be guided by an iterative risk management framework in which actions taken can be revised as new knowledge is gained.

“America’s response to climate change is ultimately about making choices in the face of risk,” noted committee vice chair William L. Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Risk management strategies must be durable enough to promote sustained progress yet sufficiently flexible to take advantage of new knowledge and technologies.”

Substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions should be among the highest priorities in the national response, the committee said. Although the exact magnitude and speed of reductions will depend on how much risk society deems acceptable, it would be imprudent to delay taking action. The committee cited many reasons for not waiting, including that the faster emissions are reduced, the lower the risks. And because the effects of greenhouse gases can take decades to manifest and then persist for hundreds or even thousands of years, waiting for impacts to occur before taking action will likely be too late for meaningful mitigation. Beginning emissions reductions soon will also lower the pressure to make steeper and costlier cuts later. “It is our judgment that the most effective strategy is to begin ramping down emissions as soon as possible,” Carnesale said.

State and local efforts currently under way or being initiated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are potentially quite significant but unlikely to yield outcomes comparable to what could be achieved with a strong federal effort, according to the committee. It said the most efficient way to accelerate emissions reductions is through a nationally uniform price on greenhouse gas emissions with a price trajectory sufficient to spur investments in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies. Having such policies in place is crucial to guide investments in energy infrastructure that will largely determine the direction of greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come.

The committee deemed the risks of sticking to “business as usual” to be a much greater concern than the risks associated with a strong response. Most policy responses could be reversed if they prove to be more stringent than is needed, but adverse changes to the climate system are difficult or impossible to undo. It also said that uncertainty in projecting the severity, location, or time of climate change impacts is not a reason for inaction. On the contrary, uncertainty about future risks could be a compelling reason for taking action given that abrupt, unanticipated, or more severe impacts could occur.

Aggressive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the need for adaptation but not eliminate it, the committee emphasized, urging the nation to mobilize now to reduce vulnerability to climate change impacts. While adaptation planning largely occurs at the state and local level, the federal government should help coordinate these efforts and develop a national adaptation strategy.

In addition, the federal government should maintain an integrated portfolio of research programs aimed at increasing understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change and developing tools to limit climate change and adapt to its impacts. The government also needs to take the lead in collecting and sharing climate change information to ensure that pertinent knowledge is used to inform decisions. Public and private sector engagement through broad-based deliberative processes is essential as well. These processes should include transparent analyses of climate change information, an explicit discussion of uncertainties, and consideration of how decisions will be affected by differing personal values.

Because emissions reductions in the U.S. alone will not be adequate to avert dangerous climate change risks, U.S. leadership needs to remain actively engaged in international climate change response efforts, the committee emphasized. If the U.S. pursues strong emission reduction efforts, it will be better positioned to influence other countries to do the same. Given that climate change impacts elsewhere in the world may affect U.S. interests, it would also be prudent to help enhance the adaptive capacity of other nations, particularly developing countries.

###

The new report builds upon the four previous America’s Climate Choices panel reports: Advancing the Science of Climate Change; Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change; Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change; and Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change.

The America’s Climate Choices studies were sponsored by NOAA. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter. Committee members, who serve pro bono as volunteers, are chosen by the Academies for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Academies’ conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf.

Advertisements

69 thoughts on “We’ve heard this before

  1. Would they be dissapointed or happy if there is serious doubt about the greenhouse effect all togther?

  2. “The US will be in a position to lead …” Ah, the old “moral leadership” wheeze.
    Tacitly acknowledging that the actual change effected will be trivial, but if BRIC gets on board …!

    Right. In their dreams. Both elephants in the room know better than to stop breathing. India and China are on the cusp of massive combustion-fueled energy demand and supply growth. Deal.

  3. All based on inaccurate GIGO model forecasts and ignoring actual data? And the hidden agenda is?
    They want to frighten us and grab our hard earned money………..

  4. “The new report reaffirms that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities”

    … and exactly what is the “scientific evidence” ?????

  5. . . . “ These processes should include transparent analyses of climate change information, an explicit discussion of uncertainties, . . .

    The major uncertainty is they don’t know whether climates on Earth are changing — warming, cooling, or neither.

    Had the total cost of the preparation of this report been used to accomplish something, say buying up houses in the Mississippi floodway and moving people and business out, some good might be done.

    Consider this statement:
    “. . .the exact magnitude and speed of reductions will depend on how much risk society deems acceptable. . .

    What is the meaning of “society” in this context? Such writing and thoughts are just high class barnyard manure. Maybe they mean the President. Or the folks in the EPA. Or the Senate. Maybe they will include the question on the 2020 Census. We could have a special survey and ask everyone over 12. Or we could get rid of most of these folks after the next national election. Then the nation’s experts could get on to real problems.

  6. Seeing as funding for blaming humanity for climate change isn’t working anymore the Climate Alarm Industrial Complex is moving on to seeking funding to address the horrible consequences of climate change from whatever cause.

  7. “The new report reaffirms that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities — especially the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere — as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades.”

    Horsefeathers. Presumably, that scientific “evidence” refers to alarmists’ consensus based on predictive modelling, long since debunked by empirical evidence. How much longer will these craven institutions funded by taxpayers trot out their rancid rants?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/scary-exaggerations-unfounded/

  8. “This trend cannot be explained by natural factors such as internal climate variability or changes in incoming energy from the sun.”

    ____________________________________________________________

    At least this part is true. Kind of.

    Internal climate variability and changes in incoming solar energy remain so poorly understood that it is impossible to use them to explain anything.

    Puzzling that out would take a lot of darned hard work. Blaming everything on the CO2 “bogeyman” is so much easier………

  9. Wow again.
    Am I really this stupid? This is the N.A.S. for crying out loud.

    I look at the science, the temporal, observational and mathematical scales, the satellite data and know that the science is still in it’s infancy.

    The climate hypothesis can’t be finalized as Hooke’s Law was.

    Thanks to AW, SM, JC, WE, RM, et al. You all are doing Yeomans work.

    I see this, wonder how many millions they got to publish this nonsense and wan’t to scream from the mountain tops.

    This is abuse from on High.

    EJ

  10. The timing is hilarious. And the message drones like a Sitar with rusty strings.

    “As the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades” And if the reasoning be true, the cooling over that last one. But look closer: as the MOST likely cause of MOST of the global warming. Which percentage? And what might the other causes be, perhaps? Not a peep.

    Hansen in court, and the Alarmists go to work again, cutting and pasting.

  11. Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California-Santa Barbara, who resigned this month from the American Physical Society after 67 years of loyal membership. His resignation letter said this:
    “It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” bit.ly/h2XnZ8

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal

    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy

    “Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in history . . .When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, and award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “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.” – U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    Global Warming Consensus was only 75 scientists worldwide http://bit.ly/eq5GBK

    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

    “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way around. . . A large number of critical documents at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.” Andrei Kapista, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

    “I am convinced that current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken . . . Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

  12. Brian H says:
    May 12, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    “The US will be in a position to lead …”

    Too late, Australia is already leading the world, according to our Julia.

  13. What a load of hot air. There were so many of these – Coulds=1 ,Mays=1, Possibles=3, Likelys=3.

    And then this gem.

    ‘And because the effects of greenhouse gases can take decades to manifest and then persist for hundreds or even thousands of years, waiting for impacts to occur before taking action will likely be too late for meaningful mitigation.’

    They said and proved nothing at all. And they claim to be ‘not only renowned scientists and engineers but also economists, business leaders, an ex-governor, a former congressman, and other policy experts.’

    God help us.
    Douglas

  14. Aggressive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the need for adaptation.

    Since water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, are they suggesting we should have another Ice Age to save the earth.
    The need for adaption is admitted. So now they are experts in adaption. They believe than can control temperature, gases in the atmosphere and the degree of adaption required. They can control the budgets of every nation on earth and redistribute wealth by making everyone poor, not wealthy.
    They must be Almighty these warmists.
    I wonder if they can chew gum and tie shoelaces at the same time?

  15. Do the National Academy of Sciences write this crap for the purpose of treating insomniacs.

  16. Clearly the NAS, the Royal Society, the Australian Academy of Science, and all their kindred societies around the world are full of gullible idiots who have no concept of how science should be done and are easily conned by a handful of climate alarmists.

  17. Zzzzzzzzz…

    Reminds me of a high pressure salesman trying to push me inti a really bad deal.

  18. “as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades.”

    Shouldn’t they say ‘prior to the last decade’, or have I missed some warming in the last 10 years?

  19. Don’t forget that these organisations are so attached to the AGW scam that they simply cannot afford to take a different stance. Egg on face. Let NAS gain a new board of directors and maybe there would be a new approach.

  20. Yawn. Don’t think you’ll find many people are still listening to this re- warmed drivel….

  21. There’s a huge amount of firepower behind this report and it was commissioned by Congress. I have to say I’m very disappointed in this outcome and I fear this report will weaken the stance of Congress in rolling back the alarmists.

  22. Warming? Not much warming going on down here in Oz.

    “Cold blast has country shivering
    May 13, 2011 – 4:24PM

    The recent blast of cold air is having a wide-reaching effect, with unseasonable cold from Tasmania to the northern tropics.
    It has been at least 30 years since a series of cold fronts has had such an impact this early in the year, affecting almost every state and territory, Brett Dutschke, senior meteorologist at weatherzone.co.au said.
    It’s been more than 50 years since Sydney, Canberra and even Mount Isa have been as cold this early in the year.”

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/cold-blast-has-country-shivering-20110513-1elx6.html

  23. They aren’t alarmists, they have bad science and professionals are blind to temperature.

    Finding the cause of urban heat islands and why they use massive energy reponding to them showed solar emfs interacting with building exteriors. The result is extreme heat generated atmospherically all year round. We couldn’t see it before.

    Here is a link to infrared images including time-lapsed infrared videos showing buildings being radiated right after sunrise. Heat rises from building development and a the link will show the National Weather Service video of winds moving across the country. http://www.thermoguy.com/blog/index.php?itemid=59

  24. Your title is dead right: we’ve heard every word of this before – and we didn’t believe it then, either. This sounds like “just another” attempted iteration of the Goebbels Technique: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. The lie is vast, the repetition incessant, and, sadly, too many people still believe it, which is why this sort of rubbish continues to appear. We still have much work to do.

  25. The committee that authored the report included not only renowned scientists and engineers but also economists, business leaders, an ex-governor, a former congressman, and other policy experts.

    FFS! More flaming experts? If mathematics was to become corporeal this committee would be equal to or greater than the square root of stupid…

  26. Anthony,

    If they said “The heat generated on this planet has stretched the atmosphere”, then they would have a leg to stand on. But straight CO2? The density is heavier in the atmosphere is all that can be claimed due to the complex interaction many other factors exhibit.

  27. What a bunch of boneheads. The only attributable effect of increased CO2 is global greening, and that is nothing but a plus. On the other hand, every ‘remedy’ they’ve suggested will increase poverty, with 100% certainty. We’ve spent 80+ billion bucks on climate research, and gotten nothing but ambiguous results and a lot of PhD’s.

  28. “It also said that uncertainty in projecting the severity, location, or time of climate change impacts is not a reason for inaction. On the contrary, uncertainty about future risks could be a compelling reason for taking action given that abrupt, unanticipated, or more severe impacts could occur.”

    What brilliant logic. “Uncertainty” is a “compelling reason for taking action.” With logic like that you can justify just about anything. They must really think we’re morons.

  29. And for every ton of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere nature pumps 100 tons. So what is their point?

  30. Other than losing me on the “preponderance YAFA YADA”., they also lost me completely on the flippant response to the risk of doing something. It could be turned off, lickety split. If it was possible to stop on a dime, so to say, they would have been able to implement their “remedies”by this time. Once policies, with backing of money, are in place can you imagine the sort of inertia those activities would have built in to undo them; only ivory tower denizens could conjour up this stuff.

  31. Did the report specify exactly what impact these urgent reductions in “deadly” CO2 would have on the climate v’s doing nothing? What’s the temperature difference after say 50yrs and is it in fact measurable?

  32. These folks must be experts, alright. They think we need to be well informed when we will be making all those “climate decisions”! The report needed to be checked by a psychiatrist before publication; the authors need to be sharing a room with this month’s “Napoleon.”

    Just one more “the end is near” report from the CAGW infotainment industry. It was much better when the schoolmarm was blowing up her students.

  33. We must act quickly before it becomes clear that we don’t have to act at all.

    Huh?

    Somebody give the Mad Hatter another cup of tea.

  34. “Because emissions reductions in the U.S. alone will not be adequate to avert dangerous climate change risks, U.S. leadership needs to remain actively engaged in international climate change response efforts, the committee emphasized. If the U.S. pursues strong emission reduction efforts, it will be better positioned to influence other countries to do the same. Given that climate change impacts elsewhere in the world may affect U.S. interests, it would also be prudent to help enhance the adaptive capacity of other nations, particularly developing countries.”

    Do you realize this is an admission that they know they are wrong and caught out but cannot say so directly. So they hedge around it by saying they need funding for adaption and for leadership.

  35. In the 19th century big business was often seen as corrupt for having inter-locking Boards and self-serving undisclosed relationships.
    Remember that every time we read of these ‘initiatives’ someone is being paid nicely to perform the ‘research’ . The people receiving this money are all related by politics, academic relationship and ideology on AGW.
    The corruption of ‘pal review’ is only the tip of the iceberg.
    As long as Congress permits and even encourages these self serving groups large budgets which they spend pretty much as they see fit, this corrosive unproductive derivative and misleading work will continue.

  36. What are the requirements to enter the delusional bubble which can so easily reject objective science and reasoned presentation of fact. I think the first must be: leave your intelligence at the door, and the second requires that all truth must be filtered through the conspiratorial lens endorsed by everyone else now resident in the bubble. Oz is just over the horizon.

  37. Ten years ago we moved from the northern US to the southern US with an average temperature difference of plus 16 degrees F. I adapted immediately.

  38. “the risks posed by climate change are analyzed in a new report and the final volume in America’s Climate Choices, a series of studies requested by Congress”

    ‘ a series of studies’? Requested by what Congress?

  39. Ayn Rand said “The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They are accepted by default.” Write your leaders, talk to your friends, don’t let this propaganda stand!
    Thanks to WUWT for speaking out.

  40. The same old stuff, below, copied from the CAGW mantra.
    Apparently they did not even update for recent events like huge snowfalls across the US.
    In all fairness they did finally drop out the previous claims if increasing frequency and intensity of Hurricanes.

    “Changes in climate and related factors have been observed in the United States.
    These were recently assessed in Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States23
    and discussed in two of the ACC panel reports (NRC, Advancing the Science and Adapting
    to the Impacts), and include the following:
    • U.S. average air temperature increased by more than 2°F over the past 50
    years, and total precipitation increased on average by about 5 percent;24
    • Sea level has risen along most of the U.S. coast, and sea level rise is already
    eroding shorelines, drowning wetlands, and threatening the built
    environment;25
    • Permafrost temperatures have increased throughout Alaska since the
    late 1970s, damaging roads, runways, water and sewer systems, and other
    infrastructure;26
    • There have been widespread temperature-related reductions in snowpack in
    the northeastern and western United States over the last 50 years, leading to
    changes in the seasonal timing of river runoff;27
    • Precipitation patterns have changed: heavy downpours have become more
    frequent and more intense;28 the frequency of drought has increased over the
    past 50 years in the southeastern and western United States, while the Midwest
    and Great Plains have seen a reduction in drought frequency;29 and
    • The frequency of large wildfires and the length of the fire season have increased
    substantially in both the western United States and Alaska.”

  41. “It also said that uncertainty in projecting the severity, location, or time of climate change impacts is not a reason for inaction”

    Notice the use of the double negative to create a misleading conclusion. “Not a reason for inaction” does not mean “a reason for action”, or the report would have spoken in the positive.

  42. Dean Acheson, President Truman’s Secretary of State has been quoted as saying
    “Don’t just do something, stand there.” This seems a wise choice here.

  43. Dr A Burns says:
    May 12, 2011 at 10:24 pm
    “The new report reaffirms that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities”

    … and exactly what is the “scientific evidence” ?????

    Is there any new data in this ‘Report’, or is it just another rehash of IPCC agenda-driven conclusions? One also has to ask whether any of these luminaries have actually studied the growing body of evidence that the CAGW (“climate change”) speculation has no empirical basis whatsoever. Do they talk only to each other and read nothing but RealClimate?

    It’s frustrating beyond belief to realize that at the highest levels of our scientific and governmental institutions there is no rational nor independent thought taking place.

    /Mr Lynn

  44. Maybe the National Science Foundation needs to focus its attention more on something like outreach to Muslims, as NASA is doing!

  45. How about a challenge? Offer post space to any of this report’s authors to come here and defend their analysis and conclusions, on one condition: that this author stick around and debate the evidence with the experts on this board.

    I won’t hold my breath. . .

    /Mr Lynn

  46. Quick, we must destroy every last vestige of individualism and all nations joined under one banner so we can have a very very select few rule the unwashed masses for they aren’t even smart enough to recognize our superior intellect./sarc

    Were they honest men, this is what they would actually say. Since there is a refusal to accept that they may be wrong on this whole issue, they continue to state that the sky is falling and try and force economic destroying laws, as if the current admin isn’t already doing a good job of that already, upon the rest of us. This makes them dishonest and that is putting it nicely, for were I to truly state what I am thinking, the mods would rightfully can the post.

  47. I’m all for mitigating risks. Now when you add the risk of starvation from inadequate energy……. Ah. But that is not their remit.

  48. My biggest worry is that soon they’re resort to a switcheroo of gargantuan proportions–the “enlightened” meme that increased atmospheric CO2 actually COOLS the earth rather than warms it, thereby implementing drastic policy measures that would force curtailment of all activities that burn carbon-based fuels.

    Look out, Western civilization and humanity in general–your heydays are numbered!

  49. The US scientific community continues to deny reality:

    Wind and other renewables will not unseat coal any time soon. In fact, worldwide, coal-fired electricity has grown more (in absolute terms) than any other source since 2000.

    http://bostonreview.net/BR34.5/victor_morse.php

    Coal is the world’s fastest growing fossil fuel (for the 8th year now) and likely will be for the next 10-20 at least. According to BP’s 2010 Statistical Review of World Energy released this month, coal now occupies a greater share of the world’s energy mix than at any point since 1970.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/the-coal-age-continues/

  50. The NAS yells, “Help!”
    “The foundation of our global religion is beginning to unravel, and we need to secure more research funds while we can still fool the masses.”

  51. This old hat appears to be based on a pre-Climategate ‘Summit on
    America’s Climate Choices’ which took place in March 2009.

    The event was obviously part of the hype leading up to Copenhagen.

    Pity they took 2 years to write it up. Now it just seems dated.

  52. “The goal of the America’s Climate Choices studies”. There you have it, we can choose our climate but not the light bulbs we use. Taken out of context, I hope so but that is what it implies.

  53. Their motto: “Where the Nation Turns for Independent, Expert Advice”

    Funny how the email addresses of the Science Academy aren’t available. If anyone finds the list please post it here.

    These people should be sued.

  54. Another government funded climate fear report which hides so many scientific inconsistencies and fails to provide perspective or context about global emissions. According to the World Climate Report U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2009 are at the lowest point since 1995 and have been declining since 2007. Meanwhile China’s 2009 greenhouse gas emissions in 2009 were 42% greater than those in the U.S and continue to climb at a rate of over 500 million metric tons per year. These emissions reductions in the U.S. are hidden from view by most of the mainstream media to conceal from the public that high unemployment and reduced economic growth comes from emissions reductions efforts. Further the European Union (EU) has just announced that EU 2010 greenhouse gas emissions have climbed by about 3.3% despite billions of dollars in taxes being assessed by the Emissions Trading System (which functions to support the failed Kyoto Treaty scheme). So the government taxing of emissions is not about reducing emissions its about getting increased tax payments from society.
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has issued analysis concluding that the winter snow storms and recent severe thunderstorms, tornadoes and flooding have no connection to man made global warming science but are due to natural global climate drivers. Yet the climate fear advocates and their media admirers continue to offer scientifically unsupportable conjecture that these natural events are due to increased global emissions.
    The climate fear advocates hallmarks of truthfulness are derived from nothing but deceit, deception, hidden data and analysis (from research funded largely with tax payer dollars), denied FOI requests for information which precludes independent review, government funded peer review gatekeepers who block publication of hundreds of scientific papers by authors who refuse to comply with climate fear orthodoxy and on and on.
    The recent study just continues this sad tradition.

  55. Yes , we’ve heard all this before , but I have to ask : when did the notion that co2 persists in the atmosphere for hundreds or even thousands of years come from ? Most of the estimates that I’m aware of say a couple of decades or so – the exception being the IPCC . Are there any valid studies out there ?

  56. I have long suspected that there are politicians and civil servants in the West that hate and detest everything that the West stands for. They will use any means to wreck our states and our economies, providing of course they get wealthy in the process. I’m sorry if this sounds like the ranting of a conspiracy theorist but I have watched this process for more than 40 years. America is the last best hope of the West. Don’t let them bring you down!

  57. The give-away line is:

    “… the federal government should maintain an integrated portfolio of research programs …”

  58. I cannot argue with the title. There is indeed a need to MANAGE climate change risks. The status quo is that anybody anytime can declare anything a climate change risk requiring any type of remediation costing any amout of treasure.

    In this case, there might by little danger in letting a government department MANAGE it. The Effort will become so moribund in process, the cause will petrify ‘fore our very eyes. /sarc

  59. @Brian Johnson uk says:
    May 12, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    All based on inaccurate GIGO model forecasts and ignoring actual data? And the hidden agenda is?
    They want to frighten us and grab our hard earned money………..

    I used to think it was a scam to grab our money. I’ve read enough of their manifestos to understand their intent is to solve the problem of the extra six billion people living on the planet and they don’t intend to wait for natural causes…

  60. This is so bizarre. It’s a world-wide “problem” they say…. but “we” must suffer,
    pay more in taxes and energy, so….? So, that carbon emission industries move to
    the third world….?

    ….so that Al Gore and his venture capital companies make billions….?

    ….so that Americans are furthered subjugated and subdued….? Big Sis and her TSA
    gropers are not enough…?

    I cannot believe this is about anything more than money — the creation of a new
    “commodity” upon which Goldman Sachs et al plan to make zillions and zillions in
    commissions.

    This just does not make any plain common sense any way you parse it: a global
    problem…. “doing good” is not enough….. only a carbon tax will help us…..

    It is so hard for me to believe that any educated and thoughtful person contributed
    to the creation of such an obviously alarmist — and ridiculous — study. This is an
    indictment of the American scientific establishment elite. It is sad, also.
    …..Lady in Red

  61. No proof of global warming out of the ordinary that I can see.
    The climate in my region was sinusoidal from the 1840’s to around 1940. Now it is random with a zero trend. It was hotter and drier twice before supposed AGW began.
    No evidence in the troposphere of 400mb warming, the smoking gun cited.
    Nothing but hardsell fast talking, pasty faces demanding “We must act quickly” and darting eyes.

  62. “Warning that the risk of dangerous climate change impacts is growing with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, a National Research Council committee today reiterated the pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare to adapt to its impacts.”

    Can’t even get the basic facts right (see global temperatures below) so no one can trust anything they say. Need a temperature increase to support unfounded rubbish, nevermind provide scientific evidence to support it.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/normalise/plot/uah/from:2001/trend/offset:-0.2/plot/rss/from:2001/normalise/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/offset:-0.2/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/normalise/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend/offset:-0.3

    Science observations shows with no doubt over recent years the risk of dangerous climate change has declined. Lets not have spin and made up rubbish get in the way of a good story. It’s clear this rant of a scare story is not from scientists and these know the true concern ended with the peak of the 1997/98 El Nino with no noticable warming since.

  63. This is where you want to face the government toadies and scream “Don’t just do something, stand there!!!!”

  64. Another report making it easier to be a Feynman Scientist: “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts.”

Comments are closed.