There’s lots of hype flying around the newly released report by the Obama administration.
I didn’t comment much yesterday, I decided to read the report and consider it. Having done that, I’ll throw in my two cents with this statement.
To me, this looks more like a glossy sales pitch from a company that is pushing a product they know people may not need, but if marketed just right, it would be something they’d buy. It reminds me of some insurance commercials I’ve seen in the past, where the commercial portrays all the bad things that could happen to you if you don’t get covered. Basically, they are trying to make people afraid of the weather, and then they pitch a solution to that fear in a way that’s right up there with the best traditions of salesmanship:
Who wouldn’t want better weather? Just buy our product.
The marketing and hype is right up there with the “Affordable Care Act”and makes me wonder how much they spent on this somewhat dysfunctional website http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/ pushing the report, which crashes my browser due to all the flash video content they built into it. Swirling cloud backgrounds and multi-level forced web wading to get the basics don’t do anything for getting your information across.
Below is some commentary from others on the report, including Judith Curry and Roy Spencer.
Dr. Judith Curry writes:
While there is some useful analysis in the report, it is hidden behind a false premise that any change in the 20th century has been caused by AGW. Worse yet is the spin being put on this by the Obama administration. The Washington Post asks the following question: Does National Climate Assessment lack necessary nuance? In a word, YES.
The failure to imagine future extreme events and climate scenarios, other than those that are driven by CO2 emissions and simulated by deficient climate models, has the potential to increase our vulnerability to future climate surprises (see my recent presentation on this Generating possibility distributions of scenarios for regional climate change). As an example, the Report highlights the shrinking of winter ice in the Great Lakes: presently, in May, Lake Superior is 30% cover by ice, which is apparently unprecedented in the historical record.
The big question is whether the big push by the White House on climate change will be able to compete with this new interview with Monica Lewinsky 🙂
See her complete point by point breakdown here: http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/06/u-s-national-climate-assessment-report/
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes in a comment to Dr. Curry’s essay:
Hi Judy Excellent analysis of the NCA. Your text
“The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change”
“The failure to imagine future extreme events and climate scenarios, other than those that are driven by CO2 emissions and simulated by deficient climate models, has the potential to increase our vulnerability to future climate surprises”
succinctly shows the major failure of their report.
With respect to their equivalence of climate change to just that driven by CO2 emissions, this issue was clearly refuted in
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/
and
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/r-354.pdf
The failings of the models with respect to multi-decadal climate predictions (projections) is documented, for example, in
Pielke Sr., R.A., and R.L. Wilby, 2012: Regional climate downscaling – what’s the point? Eos Forum, 93, No. 5, 52-53, doi:10.1029/2012EO050008. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/r-361.pdf
and the Preface to
Pielke Sr, R.A., Editor in Chief., 2013: Climate Vulnerability, Understanding and Addressing Threats to Essential Resources, 1st Edition. J. Adegoke, F. Hossain, G. Kallos, D. Niyoki, T. Seastedt, K. Suding, C. Wright, Eds., Academic Press, 1570 pp. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/b-18preface.pdf
That much of the media accepted the NCA without questioning its findings and conclusions either indicates they are naive or they have chosen to promote a particular agenda and this report fits their goal.
Dr. Roy Spencer has also made a point by point rebuttal:
Follow the money, folks. This glitzy, 840-page report took a lot of your tax dollars to generate, and involved only those “experts” who are willing to play the game. It is difficult to answer in its entirety because government has billions of dollars to invest in this, while most of us who try to bring some sanity to the issue must do it in our spare time, because we aren’t paid to do it. It is nowhere near balanced regarding science, costs-versus-benefits, or implied policy outcomes. Like the previous two National Assessment reports, it takes global climate models which cannot even hindcast what has happened before, which over-forecast global average warming, which are known to have essentially zero skill for regional (e.g. U.S.) predictions, and uses them anyway to instill fear into the masses, so that we might be led to safety by politicians.
Caveat emptor.
(Oh, and if you are tempted to say, “What about all the Big Oil money involved in our need for energy?” Well, that money was willingly given to Big Oil by all of us for a useful product that makes our lives better. Government money is taken from you (I’m not anti-taxation, just pointing out a distinction) that they then use to perpetuate the perceived need for more government control. If “Big Oil” could make a profit by becoming “Big Solar”, or “Big Wind”, they would.)
His initial thoughts on the 12 major findings from the latest National Climate Assessment are here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/my-initial-comments-on-the-national-climate-assessment/
And, John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, writes on Facebook:
The sky is falling. “Climate Change” is running wild and disaster is certain unless we immediately stop burning coal and oil and move quickly to “green energy” to eliminate use of fossil fuels. Heat waves, huge floods, powerful storms, droughts and rising seas are on the verge of killing millions of us and destroying our civilization. That is my summary of the new Federal Assessment of Climate Change issued by a Obama administration team of more than 300 specialists guided by a 60-member federal advisory committee produced the report. It was reviewed by federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.
This 600 page litany of doom and gloom has received extensive coverage by the panting anchors of the national media who feel important when tell their audience that “the sky is falling.” Horrible pictures of storms, floods, drought and heat waves leaped out of the TV sets as the New York and Washington DC headquartered media was particularly excited to tell us how the huge increases in floods and storms was the worst in that part of the nation.
If you accept the picture painted by this report, the weather was just right, steady and nice in the historic past but because our industrialized society has powered its heating and air conditioning, its transportation by train, plane, cars and trucks, generated it’s electric power to run our lights, computers, television and smart phones with fossil fuels it has triggered this nightmare of awful storms, droughts and heat waves.
I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk. The only good news is that I least where I am and on the channels and websites I saw I was not further insulted by fawning TV Weathercasters visiting the White House and interviewing the President. I best I can tell, on a national level, that turned out to be a non-event (thank goodness).
Please allow me to hold your attention for a few minutes to explain why I don’t buy into this Climate Change alarmism. The climate of Earth has never been “normal” or stable. It has continuously changed through this planet’s 4.5 billion year history. Powerful storms, floods, droughts, heat waves and ice and snow storms have come and gone as long as Earth has existed.
The current bad science is all based on a theory that the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the exhaust of the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in “the greenhouse effect” causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the 2.6 billion dollars of year of Federal grants for global warming/climate change research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.
When the temperature data could no longer be bent to support global warming, they switched to climate change and now blame every weather and climate event on CO2 despite the hard, cold fact that the “radiative forcing” theory they built their claims on has totally failed to verify.
They call people such as me who debunk their non-scientific silliness as “deniers” and claim we are flat-earthers and shills for “big oil”. It is insulting and maddening. But I will not be silenced. And neither will the thousand others, many of them with Ph.D.’s and on the faculties of major universities who are working to stop this bad science that labels CO2 as a pollutant and blames it for every shift in the weather.
We will be gathering, we global warming skeptics, at Heartland Institutes 9th International Conference on Climate Change, July 7 – 9, 2014 in Las Vegas. You can learn about that conference at http://climateconference.heartland.org/. I will be one of the speakers at the breakfast session on Tuesday July 8th. Look at the list of speakers on the website and you will see an impressive group. A group of the powerful Ph.D.’s in the group have recently published a complete scientific document that totaling destroys the climate change alarmism of the US Democrat Party and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You can find that publication on line at http://climatechangereconsidered.org/.
Investors Business Daily Newspaper says:
‘It has nothing to do with climate, everything to do with power. It’s a green coup’
Obama using report to ‘simply declare an emergency and wield power without consent or involvement from Congress’ -‘It asserts as fact, for instance, the unknowable and unprovable: That the climate’s many effects are “expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond.’ – ‘It’s not the disruption of the climate that we should be worried about; it’s the disruption of our economy and constitutional rights.’
Delingpole in Brietbart London says: Obama’s Last Shot – Climate Change – And Why It’s Doomed To Fail
‘Fortunately, there’s some good news too: you don’t need to believe a word because, just like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports, this document is much more a political one than a scientific one.’
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The title of this online columns says it all:
Government Will Control You Before It Controls Climate
http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2014/05/07/government-will-control-you-before-it-controls-climate-n1834503/page/full
Climate Change is Ruining the Nation.
Not because of the CLIMATE, but because of the CHANGE,
& changes being made by and to these departments:
This is the real “Climate Change” happening:
1. EPA: over-regulation on just about every energy source except Wind & Solar, ie., destruction of the coal industry for one.
2. Department of Education: “Climate change adaptation plan,” US Department of Education (on their website) – Agenda 21 anyone – Common Core??
3. Department of Energy: Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz: “Climate Change Is ‘Not Debatable”, What have they done to increase cheap, reliable energy – nada (nothing)?
4. Department of Agriculture: (“Ethanol is a renewable fuel made from corn and other plant materials”) they are pushing this and it is raising the cost of food worldwide – great for starving people in the 3rd world…
5. Department of treasury: (“stop using U.S. funding for overseas coal projects”) – quote on their website.
6. State Department: Secretary Kerry: “No single country causes climate change, and no one country can stop it. But we need to match the urgency of our response with the scale of the science. … The clock is ticking.” They are all in on it…
7. HUD: “U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:
“Climate Change Adaptation Plan” –many pages, it’s on their website.
8. Department of Labor: Has a 2013 “sustainability and energy performance scorecard.” Also union laborers in energy – coal and fossil fuels are losing jobs. No jobs have been created by the Keystone pipeline project.
9. Department of Interior: “Climate change is affecting every corner of the American continent. It is making droughts drier and longer, floods more dangerous and hurricanes more severe.” quote on their website…
10. BOM Bureau of Land Management: “Climate change is influencing western lands and resources in many ways. As average temperatures rise, droughts are increasing, snowpack is declining, and water supplies are diminishing in key areas. Arctic permafrost is thawing. Wildfires have become larger and more frequent.” They should check the data. And I thought they were just trying to increase the government land acreage.
11. NASA: where do I start, heavily involved in Climate Change, as opposed to Space Exploration. Climate change satellites: AcrimSat, Aqua, Aquarius, Aura, Calipso, CloudSat and many others.
12. DOJ: “Department of Justice Climate Change Adaptation Plan”, I kid you not, check their website…
13. Executive branch – where do I start – forget it – in bed with the CAGW crowd, have installed all CAGW drinkers.
14. The Supreme Court – de facto labeled CO_2 as a pollutant by allowing the EPA to do so.
I could go on, but check all these USA departments under their Climate Change headline and they are all drinking the Kool-Aid I’m sad to say.
Even the National Park Service has drunk the Kool-Aid. Just look at climate change on any of their websites. The Congress and the Senate haven’t done any better and how about the “Main Stream Media”???
I notice that the similar government agencies from other important nations are all singing the same tune…Maybe Australia isn’t ( I hope).
Frodo says:
May 7, 2014 at 1:20 pm
“Your post really bothers me. Dr Curry deserves immense credit for living and working in what has become a deeply toxic academic environment and, despite that, still speaking out, to the very possible detriment of her career. ”
If only you had tagged violin music to your text I might have enjoyed it more. This is exactly the sort of polemic I live to debunk. Dr. Curry is 25 years behind the truth curve and still can’t acknowledge the basics of AGW political motivation directly. Yes, the slow tortured and nuanced journey from consensus supporter to vague skeptic continues, day after day year after year. Somewhere in her sock draw remain the “Che” tie-dye tee-shirt and all the culture she just can’t acknowledge that drives the nucleus of warming activism. She could certainly name names but doesn’t. So the dissent on technical “it’s about science” grounds is as genuine as a $3 bill, it’s a false framing of the debate carried to the extreme presented. So rather then be grateful to this sort of “skepticism” that is dishonestly incomplete and will never reach the goal line in the real world I choose to illustrate her inadequate disclosure regarding greenshirt climate extremism directly in the form of criticism. I’ve been on her case for about 7 years more or less, she’s improved the whole time and I’m certainly not alone so I’m not taking credit.
Regardless, the entire idea that AGW Greens are going to moderate into rational give and take on “science” that is largely irrelevant to their policy motives is one of the largest farces that Dr. Curry enables in her form of dissent. Every-time you see it you should dissent also, it’s a road to a green reeducation camp for your children or grandchildren. As NPR/NYTimes defines David Brooks as “conservative” Dr. Curry is all the consensus is willing to accept at the table as “skeptic” because she continues to permit the absurd framing of the actual debate talking points. I welcome and acknowledge her improvements but any person without ideological baggage realized more than 30 years ago about the diabolic nature of the warming agenda and in far more direct terms. Those people such as Dr. Lindzen, Spencer etc. are non-persons essentially in the consensus talking points to be smeared and mocked daily. Those are the true heroes who should be remembered in the age of Green Fascism. Dr. Curry is a mollifier of skepticism, it’s where skeptics go to placate and appease abhorrent warming agendas as if they were remotely rational. So to me she is a lightning rod of weak-kneed skeptics found everywhere. Something that has to be purged if skeptical progress is to continue.
While I don’t consider it very much at all, I highly doubt her career has suffered while carving out this niche of “moderate” in the climate wars. She has achieved near rock star status among many skeptics as they imagine themselves as one example. She is probably one of the best known and trusted in the low information casual inquirer market on the climate debate.
In the end “stealth” statism, expert authority even if it appears more reasonably packaged may in the end prove more destructive and dangerous then the sort of full-moon insanity of a Michael Mann, Al Gore or any of the other fanatics associated to the AGW cause. Go to her site, study her nuances and see what she is validating as well as what might be featured in dissenting statements. For example, today we have snark and admittedly humorous reference to Monica Lewinsky. Where though are the simple acknowledgements of the left-wing credentials all over the NCA report itself? Those will never come from her even if she links others who will list them. That line she will never cross, or hasn’t in all the years of following her comments so in fact the debate dissent remains half-baked and obfuscated. So much for honesty which old fashioned as it may seem isn’t a commodity to measured and spoon fed for effect. I have no doubt Dr. Curry knows which way the wind is blowing and to a degree this isn’t at all flattering to her acknowledgements either. Real courage was shown by people 20-40 years ago, who did stand up and object to AGW fanaticism and greater green as well, called it what it was and yet to this day Dr. Curry remains indirect to the most basic working parts of the political core AGW consensus. This isn’t courage at all.
Choose “heroes” wisely. While you might not get the reference Dr. Curry is no Whittaker Chambers who really was a reformed hero in the end. No Elia Kazan who did the right thing and did name names. Dr. Curry is still owned by the consensus and plays the game within those rules regardless of apparent improving public positions. I can only wonder if the wind was blowing the other way on trivial short-term data and the political frenzy where her talking points might be. If you can’t own-up to what core green agenda values and practices are in plain English then you are a secondary in moral and intellectual value.
More on alarmists of AGW . .
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”
— Frantz Fanon
Close the EPA, NOAA. NASA. University Grant Science business by doing this single project
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-28th-amendment.html
Bill Nye was out promoting the National Climate Assessment and got stomped on twice by Nick Loris of the Heritage Foundation during a Crossfire segment on CNN, i.e.;
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2014/05/06/crossfire-bill-nye-says-we-dont-agree-on-the-facts.cnn
and
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/05/06/crossfire-bill-nye-science-guy-on-climate-change-debate.cnn.html
When the best retort you’ve got is “hurricane shmurricane” you’ve clearly lost the debate…
Investors Business Daily Newspaper says:
‘It has nothing to do with climate, everything to do with power.
Always. Mind you, as Pontiac used to say, power is nothing without control. That’s why it had to be CO2. Who could you control with water vapor?
cwon14 says:
May 7, 2014 at 3:49 pm
Good luck running the inquisition there, cwon14. I share some of your political views but purges? For skeptical progress to continue huh. Is that like forming the Anti-Team?
No thanks.
I think we’re missing the most wonderful gift that science has given us. The human race has it in its power to eliminate the natural disasters that have afflicted mankind. Scientist now know how to control the climate that causes those horrible disasters such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, fires, heat waves, extreme cold waves. the list goes on and on. What a wonderful world we could all live in if we would just follow their advice and stop burning oil and gas. No more hurricanes, no more tornadoes, no more floods, no more droughts, science has truly blessed us. Please follow their advice so thousands can be saved from dying in these awful natural disasters.
So really, what is this debate really about?
Does it relate to control of energy distribution in the end?
What part of the economy in the US does that equate too?
Healthcare was what, nearly 20%?
Do some math folks
Just sayin……. Math is Math…….
Pitiful, I thought the left could do better.
Seems to me the White House got exactly what they paid for.
Any possibility of an FOIA to discover how much the White House paid and to whom?
John F. Hultquist says:
May 7, 2014 at 9:23 am
‘This Pres is like a shooting star’
Should that be tsar?
IBD says: “It has nothing to do with climate, everything to do with power. It’s a green coup. . .”
Which is exactly what I have been saying now for the last ten years or so.
Larry in Texas:
At May 8, 2014 at 1:14 am you say
Then you are ‘late to the party’. I have been pointing out this truth for the last 34 years.
The issue is about obtaining and increasing political power and money by all who desire power and/or money.
It is corruption and needs to be opposed by all who value freedom and justice whatever their situation or personal politics.
Unfortunately, whenever this truth is pointed out then ‘false flag’ trolls try to obscure it with the falsehoods promulgated in this thread by cwon14.
Richard
I wasn’t too keen on the snarky posts by cwon 14. Who is this person?
wasn’t it Kevin Trenberth in October 2009 – climategate time – that he pronounced on good foot-stomping fashion against the cold fall in Colorado, that the thing to do was to begin with the premise that AGW wasn’t a contingent theory but a PROVEN FACT?
And didn’t we skeptics back then think [can anyone cite a name? an online source?] that if the ‘pause’ continued, that collectively STOMPING THEIR FEET AGAINST REALITY by collectively asserting anything, the slimmest, slimiest bit of ‘evidence’ as proof of AGW/CAGW?
And lo and behold – what we thought way back then has indeed come true!
Something has been bothering me for a long time. In most cases where a disaster is predicted, the failure of it to occur is greeted with relief. In this case we have 17 years of no warming, and it seems to have been greeted by doubling down on the previous predictions. This new report is an example of that. Though I would say this report is more of a quadrupling down.
Continuation of the transcript of George Will and Charles Krauthammer, Special Report, May 6, 2014 on the National Climate Assessment report.
Part 3 of 3. (Part 1 here. Part 2 here.)
(43:47) BRET BAIER: The Climate Assessment today said this:
Now this White House put out a statement just a week and a half ago, last week, saying about the GDP,
Jay Carney was asked about all this. Here is what he said:
Charles.
KRAUTHAMMER (45:10): 99% of physicists were convinced that space and time were fixed until Einstein working at a patent office wrote a paper in which he showed that they are NOT. I’m not impressed by numbers. I’m not impressed by consensus. I, when I was a psychiatrist I participated in consensus conferences on how to define depression and mania. These are things that people negotiate in the way you negotiate a bill. Because the science is UNSTABLE. Because, in the case of climate, the models of changeable. And because climate is so complicated, the idea that we, who have trouble forecasting what is going to happen on Saturday in the climate, could pretend to be predicting what is going to happen in 30 and 40 years is absurd.
And you always see, that no matter what happens, whether it is a flood or a drought, whether its warming or cooling, it is always a result of…what it is ultimately what we are talking about here is Human Sin with the pollution of carbon. It is the oldest superstition around. It was in the Old Testament. It’s in the rain dance of Native Americans. If you sin, the skies will not cooperate. This is quite superstitious and I am waiting for science which doesn’t declare itself definitive, but is otherwise convincing. (46:30)
]There followed a discussion of the politics. Push the report, but approve Keystone XL because the WH felt it has always been a “side show”. Obama will concentrate on what he thinks is important in Climate Change. ]
GEORGE WILL (47:05): A moment ago we had a report here on our “Crumbling Infrastructure”. Gave it a “D”. Emergency! Who wrote it? As we said on there it was written by CIVIL ENGINEERS, who said: “By Golly, we need more of what civil engineers do and are PAID to do. Again, there is a sociology of science. And a sociology in all of this. And in gauging the politics of this we have to understand the enormous interests now invested in Climate Change.
LIASON (to Will): On both sides.
WILL: Sure
LIASON: The fossil fuel industry has a big interest. And you say the environmentalists has an interest.
WILL: PALES compared to the money flowing from the federal Government. [end of segment] (47:45)
Mark Bofill says:
May 7, 2014 at 7:40 pm
I acknowledge it is…..politics first. A more honest understanding of the actual debate. The spaghetti chart people will go on for decades more with no resolution and your local public school is already a reeducation camp that Mao would be proud of.
cwon14,
Can’t argue with that.
I appreciate your thoughtful response.
‘repeating an action with expectation of different results is the definition of insanity’ goes the quote attributed to einstein. while it’s not a definition, it is a description of a behavior that demonstrates insanity, which is the belief in something which is not true.
a more apt analog of the relationship of the taxpayer to the politician is the codependent abused spouse who believes her abuser really loves her and who is certain he will change. at least, she hopes he will and will suffer his abuse rather than dash her insane hope.
when finally convinced- and it will take some broken bones or missing teeth to become convinced – she will immediately turn to a fresh abuser to replace the hole in her life where a disciplinary authoritarian belongs.
this is the root of the insanity – the belief that a disciplinary authority is the same as a lover; that an owner is a mate; that a master is a friend; that slavery is freedom.
it’s the lesson she will never learn and will die trying to evade. it will likely kill her. when her resources have been drained and all hope is gone – what’s left of her?
the last rock she ever has to hide behind is ‘i have to do this for the kids’. whatever it is she has to do, she can never allow her own self to be the value she protects – but then, she’s already proven to herself, with the abundant and enthusiastic help of her abuser, that she is worthless and deserving of nothing but abuse; that this is her place in nature.
and so it must likewise be the position she trains her children to occupy as well.
by submitting to abuse, she sets the example for her kids. she teaches them what is normal and what is to be accepted without question. she raises a flock of little abusers and abusees who will perpetuate her morality; her insanity infects them and they become the next generation of insane and vectors who will infect the generation that follows.
she will teach them to whine and return for more. they will. they always do.
pay your taxes. vote. he really loves you. you know you believe it. that’s why this will end here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-07/venezuela-to-ration-electricity-after-colombia-cuts-gas.html
Annie says:
May 8, 2014 at 4:44 am
What I find “snarky” are skeptics who refuse to connect some rather simple political dots when the entire world is having them shoved down their throats through drooling and oozing propaganda like the NCA. Rather then comment directly on the left-wing associated groups;
Union of Concerned Scientists, Planet Forward, The Nature Conservancy, and Second Nature for example who put the bundle of nonsense together get and will get even more technocrats who are going to validate the composition by taking it technically serious when privately most know it’s twaddle from the start. Why many skeptics can’t accept the political truth (first) and the priority of the NCA document and would rather attack skeptics who do is worth discussion.
Of course Dr. Curry isn’t even a “skeptic” but many imagined skeptics here embarrass themselves by the continued meme of “it’s a science debate”. Why is the NCA afforded this gravitas and only mocked indirectly? Why not discuss who wrote it and the snarling political motivations which are clear as day?
J. Philip Peterson says:
May 7, 2014 at 3:35 pm
Climate Change is Ruining the Nation.
Not because of the CLIMATE, but because of the CHANGE,
& changes being made by and to these departments:
This is the real “Climate Change” happening:
Exactamundo. But we are still winning, right? In the end the truth will out, right?
Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.
Mark Twain
In the Spring, I have counted 136 different kinds of weather inside of 24 hours.
Mark Twain
Friends:
At May 8, 2014 at 9:53 am cwon14 says
Nobody knows the identity (or identities?) of the troll posting as cwon14, so it is not possible to discuss his/her/their snarling political motivations which are clear as day. His/her/their blatant attempt to set AGW-sceptics against each other is a very nasty political ploy.
However, all true AGW-sceptics have the courage of their convictions and use their own names to speak out against AGW; for example, Judith Curry is one such.
And if people want to know how and why scientific institutions have been usurped by green activists then this paper by Richard Lindzen ‘names names’ in a shocking, informative and entertaining read.
Richard
” It reminds me of some insurance commercials I’ve seen in the past, where the commercial portrays all the bad things that could happen to you if you don’t get covered. ”
It is a good comparision, because an insurance dont prevent any mishappen, but just pay some compensation when it happens.
The climate insurance is a bit worse, because you are not even compensated when it happens.
richardscourtney says:
May 8, 2014 at 11:48 am
Yes, Dr. Lindzen is a hero in stark contrast to the middle road statist mush of Dr. Curry when you consider a broad sample of her positions in context.
I don’t know why you whine so about me? My points are valid, the initial talking points of many “skeptics” issued regarding the NCA are inadequate and incomplete. The very first, middle and last thing to be discussed is the partisan (left-wing) facilitators “science” all over the document and the usual parroting process of the various professional groups that have followed that path.
Instead we get insider mockery and abstractions as we are asked to take the document as a serious science claim that it in fact isn’t. Dressed as science it’s another climate change polemic and op-ed piece suitable for Mother Jones magazine.
It’s your brand of over-the-top “it’s about science” nuance that is the distraction and weak link in the public debate. The NCA document is political rubbish from sources that should be laughed off the stage from the start. It’s the sicking politics of AGW advocacy, when confronted directly, that is breaking down on the margins.
Keep in mind this comes from a left-wing organ-grinder, the The Washington Post;
“3. The global warming cause fits too nicely with the president’s left-wing political agenda. The prescriptions for dealing with climate change are the same policy objectives the left has promoted for other reasons for at least the past 25 years. That is, redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, anti-growth, anti-development regulations, etc. Because they don’t have much support from voters, the left has to advance its cause through surreptitious maneuvering rather than forthright advocacy of its specific global warming policies. The left never answers the questions of who pays, how much and for what result.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/05/08/the-insiders-five-reasons-voters-dont-believe-the-white-house-about-global-warming/
So in this, pardon the pun, “climate” you want to fall back and first address point by point all the crap stats, graphs and spaghetti charts line by line? Make shallow innuendo/mocking comments rather than direct observations of obvious political shill nature of the authors and contributors? The sad sack leftist agenda of AGW policy itself?
Skeptics such as yourself need to set better priorities, you’re a waste of space and energy in the current form. Dr. Curry is a footdragger and a skeptical malingerer, again look at the totality of her views not a quote mined of recent days. The very idea that broad AGW debate isn’t political at the core is beyond reason or logic. The idea there is middle, precautionary policy or an apolitical segment to emerge is appeasement of the very worst elements of AGW movement itself. Those that can’t identify the leftist principals that have driven the AGW movement are neither contrite, rational or honest regarding the actual historical context of the past 35 years in particular. Bemoaning “politics” in an equalized fashion is absurd, only one ideology has benefited from the prostitution of science in AGW advocacy. If that isn’t acknowledge directly the skeptical affirmation is questionable, it reflects an unreasoned conclusion likely for deeper cultural associations that trump logic. For example your stated hatred of “right-wing” parties simply overwhelms your broader conclusions of AGW political motivations.