Marlo Lewis writes at Fox News about the National Climate Assessment: (cue funeral dirge music)
Tuesday the U.S. Government’s Global Change Research Program released its latest “National Assessment” report on climate change impacts in the United States.
As with previous editions, the new report is an alarmist document designed to scare people and build political support for unpopular policies such as carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and EPA regulatory mandates.
Also in keeping with past practice, the latest report confuses climate risk with climate change risk.
Droughts, storms, floods, and heat waves are all part of the natural climate. Our risk of exposure to such extremes has much more to do with where we happen to live than with any gradual climate changes associated with the 1.3F – 1.9F increase in average U.S. temperature since the 1880s.
The new report is an alarmist document designed to scare people and build political support for unpopular policies such as carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and EPA regulatory mandates.
Since even immediate and total shutdown of all carbon dioxide-emitting vehicles, power plants, and factories in the U.S. would decrease global warming by only a hypothetical and undetectable two-tenths of a degree Celsius by 2100, it is misleading to imply, as the report does, that the Obama administration’s climate policies can provide any measurable protection from extreme weather events.
The Assessment is flat out wrong that climate change is increasing our vulnerability to heat stress. As hot weather has become more frequent, people and communities have adapted to it, and heat-related mortality in the U.S. has declined.
Cities with the most frequent hot weather such as Tampa, Florida and Phoenix, Arizona have practically zero heat-related mortality. That is the most probable future for most U.S. cities if global warming continues!
The report also foolishly predicts that climate change “intensify air pollution.” As EPA’s own data show, despite allegedly “unprecedented” warming, U.S. air quality has improved decade-by-decade since 1970 as emissions declined.
The report blames climate change for the Midwest drought of 2012. But the government’s own analysis concluded otherwise: “Neither ocean states nor human-induced climate change, factors that can provide long-lead predictability, appeared to play significant roles in causing severe rainfall deficits over the major corn producing regions of central Great Plains.”
Complete story here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/06/national-climate-assessment-report-alarmists-offer-untrue-unrelenting-doom-and/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John Coleman: Slams Obama Climate Report as a total distortion of the data and agenda driven destructive episode of bad science gone berserk: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/07/600-page-litany-of-doom-weather-channel-co-founder-john-coleman-slams-obama-climate-report-a-total-distortion-of-the-data-and-agenda-driven-destructive-episode-of-bad-science-gone-berserk/
palindrom:
re your post at May 7, 2014 at 4:00 pm.
No, I will not bite. In this thread I have already refuted each and every of your points. For example, your assertion of unprecedented warming is a repeat of your untrue assertion that effects of warmer temperatures are greater now than in the MWP.
You have demonstrated that your trolling can be better than that of Terry Oldberg, and lowering your standards to his reduces your effectiveness.
Richard
Palindrom, why are you lying about the list? Please name these so-called authors, then locate their papers on the list and state the reason for their inclusion.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Rebuttals
Criticism: Many authors/scientists have demanded their papers be removed from the list.
Rebuttal: Only one “co-author” (Russell Dickerson) has ever contacted the editor with any such demands and this paper was removed after it was determined that defending it’s inclusion was a distraction from the quality of the list, even though he was using strawman arguments for why it was included (e.g. “Please remove this article from your list of skeptics”). The lead author Roger Pielke Sr. never made any such demands and stated that the paper argues against the IPCC.
Any paper that was listed in error has long been removed. All papers are listed because they support skeptic arguments and has nothing to do with the personal position of the authors.