FT: 'No one trusts Washington on climate change'

The 841-page National Climate Assessment released by the US government last week has been described as “sobering”, but Americans do not appear sobered.


Story submitted by Eric Worrall

The Financial Times, a major international business newspaper, the main competitor to the Wall Street Journal, has just published an article, highlighting the insignificance of the impact Obama’s National Climate Assessment has had, on American public opinion.

According to the FT,

“Americans have been receiving such warnings for a decade. None has managed to rouse the country from its seeming indifference.”

“… the authors seem to have forgotten that weather is not the same thing as the climate.”.

“Former US ambassador to China Jon Huntsman wrote recently of having watched a debate at which “all the Republican candidates chuckled at a question on climate change – as if they had been asked about their belief in the Tooth Fairy””

(Note – you only get one viewing of this link, due to FT content policy. If you try to click this link a second time, the site will likely demand you buy a subscription)

The Wall street Journal summed it up this way:

Obama’s Climate Bomb

He’s flogging disaster scenarios to promote his political agenda.

May 8, 2014 7:25 p.m. ET

Supervising the Earth’s climate—or at least believing humanity can achieve such miracles—may be the only political project grandiose enough for President Obama. So it shouldn’t surprise that after reforming health care and raising taxes, the White House is now getting the global-warming band back together, though it is still merely playing the old classics of unscientific panic.

On Wednesday the White House released the quadrennial National Climate Assessment, an 829-page report.



newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Steve Keohane

Actually, the link does not allow one beyond the cover page, you can’t read the article this post is about.

Proud Skeptic

Managing the Earth’s climate is the only thing big enough for Obama? Sure…he’ll pay half assed attention to it for a year or so then become bored. Then frustrated. Then disappointed in the world for not coming up to his standards. Then he will create a website to combat it and it won’t work.
Seen this movie before.

M Seward

Then he will put Michelle on Twitter with a sign saying #SaveThePlanetPleaaase! then outsource to her an address to the nation about Carbon Pollution is Killing Us . She has been a pretty reasonable Deputy Vice President (DeViPOTUS) in my opinion. Beats the hell out of whatshisname. I wonder if she’ll run against Hilary? Makes sense in Obamaworld.

Jim G

“The Financial Times, a major international business newspaper, the main competitor to the Wall Street Journal, has just published an article, highlighting the insignificance of the impact Obama’s National Climate Assessment has had, on American public opinion.”
Or anything else he says, at least to those who are not addicted to the kool aid. Unfortunately, that is only about half of the US population. The other half are getting ‘free’ stuff and will believe whatever they are told with, of course, the help of the major media outlets.
I substitute teach high school and, sadly, common core supports AGW as a fact. Until we take back the educational system and media in this country, we are fighting an uphill battle.


No one trusts Washington. Period.
If you like your lies, you can keep you lies. Period.

The problem with Washington, DC is everything coming out of there is driven by political agenda, usually far-left. There is no honesty, just manipulation.

Just Me

If you google the title of the article you will be able to read it in full

Steve P

With U.S. foreign policy in disarray, turning again to the kool aid drinkers and true believers is an obvious move to revitalize a flagging presidency, where the war on coal is already an indelible stain on Mr. O’s legacy.


Some people call it ‘sobering’ while others remain silent. Why? My guess is alarm fatigue. I stopped being alarmed about 2007/9. Then I became shocked, then sceptical, then angry, and now I’m as mad as hell.


you can enter your email details and get 8 articles per month for free.


Still the regulatory machine grinds on. Obama’s EPA has proposed green house gas (GHG) rules limiting CO2 emissions on new power plants. Once the final rule is written it will wind its way through the inevitable legal challenges. In June, Obama will propose GHG limits on EXISTING sources that from leaks looks like a recasted cap and trade program. It, too will face legal challenges as it is bound to go beyond language written in the clean air act.
Truth is this…as long as he gets away with it he will continue. The ONLY way to stop this crap is at the polls. Get the Senate this year and the executive branch in 2016.

The early comments on the article are almost entirely by catastrophists. Repeating the same old stories: “funded by oil interests” “same people as smoking” “the science is settled” et cetera.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


I also think you can read it if you register with them. That costs you nothing. The summary here was sufficient, however. Reading it does not get you a lot more.

Alan Robertson

The only thing I find sobering about the National Climate Assessment is the wholly inept and meretricious mendacity of the Obama administration, regarding climate change.

Anything coming from WashinKton is a load of dog dooo, and Obummer is the top contributor to the pile.


I don’t see where the surprise is….
…we’ve had people saying with the right sacrifices we can control the weather….. since the beginning of time
Witchdoctors, shaman, snake oil salesmen, etc
It’s all been about the weather….
Are we really that advanced……
….there’s still plenty of people that believe in witchdoctors

What is disheartening is the tsunami of the same old, same old, True Believer dogma interspersed by an occasional burst of reason. Post in the comments if you can people, science needs your support.

Pamela Gray

Here we go again. And I am getting really tired of it. The scare mongering regarding the CCSS is as bad as climate change scare tactics. And neither group has any grasp on the subject yet they try oh so hard to sound well-read. Yet all they have for evidence are beliefs. Most of us here understand that belief trumps data every time and is why AGW proponent articles are so bad. So from now on I am calling out both groups with equal Irish bitchyness regarding their beliefs. And am putting them on notice that a correction is in order when stupidity peppers their keyboard.
Jim G has not read the Common Core State Standards yet he thinks himself capable of commenting on them. If he had read the entire document he would have to admit that there is no mention of climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise in the entire document. So he is either a very bad sub teacher with regard to the standards, or is lying.
My great-grandmother was the first Principal of the Lostine High School in 1900 (which only went up to the 8th grade back then). If you wanted a diploma back then, you had to take an exit test and pass it. This test, called the Common Exam, includes questions and formats that are similar to the new high school 11th grade Smarter Balanced Assessment examples that are based on the CCSS. I challenge Jim to pass this test. I doubt he can. He would actually have to meet the high school standard of Common Core to have a chance. Common Core reverses the long dumbing down trend In standards that has put the US behind so many other developed countries. And it’s about frickin time.
So Jim, pass the 8th grade 1912 public school exam and issue a correction to your CCSS statement WRT climate change.

Robert A Dorrough

I would wager none of of commenters thus far have read the 841 page NCA and are much less capable of understanding it. Therefore I submit all heretofore do not speak from knowledge.
Suggestion: Read, understand, speak, in that order.
The wise speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something. para.–Plato–
Which would you rather be?

Gary Pearse

My worry is that once all the regs are installed and the treasury income it generates, the opposition won’t change it (meaningfully) once in power. Even the Aussies elected on such change have been underwhelming. I remember in Canada P.M. Brian Mulroney introduced the dreaded goods and services tax which the opposition had as their platform to undo. When they saw the income it brought in, they simply left it in place. They are all harlots.

Russ Wood

If one just simplifies this to “Give us more money and we’ll change the weather”, then anyone should be able to see how much bulldust all of this CAGW is!

Pamela Gray

Jim, read up on CCSS before you spout anymore drive-bys.
“Are there plans to develop common standards in other areas in the future?
CCSSO and NGA are not leading the development of standards in other academic content areas. Below is information on efforts of other organizations to develop standards in other academic subjects.
 Science: States have developed Next Generation Science Standards in a process managed by
Achieve, with the help of the National Research Council, the National Science Teachers
Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. More
information about this effort can be found here.
 World languages: The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages published an
alignment of the National Standards for Learning Languages with the ELA Common Core
State Standards. More information about this effort can be found here.
 Arts: The National Coalition for Core Arts Standards is leading the revision of the National
Standards for Arts Education. More information about this effort can be found here.

more soylent green!

Attempting to run the executive branch of government bores Obama. Much of the duties are beneath him. Running the global climate seems like a much better fit for his unique talents and abilities.


He is an incompetent, bumbling, ill-educated, pathological liar, but I’m sure redirecting the entire energy sector and deconstructing the industrial base and economic foundations of America are well within Obama’s capabilities./

Non Nomen

Not a persuasive precedent, this President – and his Manns.

Is my understanding correct that the IPCC admits it doesn’t understand the net warming or cooing effect of clouds even though it is presuming a net warming? if so then the AGW logic, including some consideration for the precautionary principle, boils down to this?
1. The earth will uncontrollably and irreversibly warm as X increases in the atmosphere
2. This is shown by models.
3. The models have failed to predict major temperature trends as represented
5. The models admit that they do not understand how a major factor Y works
A. Whether Y works to warm or cool the earth
B. How X affects Y.
6. We do know more X will make a greener planet.
7. We should drastically at nearly any cost reduce X anyway.
Not my idea of clear critical thinking.


News Flash: No one trusts Washington on anything!

Jim G says:
May 11, 2014 at 8:34 am
I substitute teach high school and, sadly, common core supports AGW as a fact. Until we take back the educational system and media in this country, we are fighting an uphill battle.
Right you are. The public school system is nurturing “new” believers in the junk science of CAGW …… twenty plus (20+) times faster than one (1) of them can be re-nurtured (converted) to believe the actual, factual science.
And the colleges are graduating more of the same like-minded Teachers of CAGW, etc.

Mac the Knife

Y’all are just wasting everybody’s time, dontcha know?
Obama: Climate Change Deniers Are ‘Wasting Everybody’s Time’
“Rising sea levels and more severe storms, those are bad for the economy,” Obama said. “So we can’t afford to wait and there’s no reason why we can’t even go further than we are so far by working with states and utilities and other organizations to change the way we power our economy. climate change is real and we have to act now.”

Ed Mertin

“Supervising the Earth’s climate—or at least believing humanity can achieve such miracles—may be the only political project grandiose enough for President Obama.”
I’ll give you Republicans a grandios political project, get rid of the neo-cons. We probably wouldn’t have this (the science is settled) dufus in office if it wasn’t for them. Obama is so stupid he kept the neocons around. He possibly would be too busy achieving world peace and prosperity right about now to be instead pumping climate disaster scenarios. This is a good read…
What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis

In comments that I submitted to the government on its National Climate Assessment when this document was in draft form ( see ), I pointed out that the document drew conclusions from equivocations, that is, from arguments in which one or more terms changed meanings in the midst of the argument. To draw a conclusion from an equivocation, the “equivocation fallacy,” is logically illicit. I recommended disambiguation of terms of the language in which the document was written for the purpose of eliminating the equivocations and pointed out that doing so would reveal the absence of a scientific basis for regulation of CO2 emissions by the government. (It would additionally have revealed the failure of government sponsored global waarming research to produce a usable product and the failure of the government to tell the truth about this failure.)
As written, the National Climate Assessment goes part of the way toward achievement of the objectives that I recommended. In particular, it distinguishes between “prediction” and “projection” and admits that its climate models do not make predictions. However, it fails to disambiguate the term “science” or to admit the absence of a scientific basis for regulation by the government of CO2 emissions. The lack of completeness of the disambiguation of the terms in which the National Climate Assessment is written allows the government to employ the equivocation fallacy in expressing nonsensical confidence in conclusions drawn from a study whose sample size is ZERO when, with a sample size of ZERO, one can have no confidence at all in the conclusions of this study unless the meaning of “confidence” differs from its usual meaning in the scientific literature. The accuracy of the testimony provided to the citizens of the U.S. by the National Climate Assessment is similar to that of Bill Clinton in addressing issue of whether he had had or had not had sex with Monica Lewinski. The sample size of ZERO is Obama’s Lewinski scandal.

Pamela Gray

Samual, do you not read? In what ways are Jim right and where is your evidence? Or is your comment a “Cooked” up with a dash of “Lew” comment?

Pamela Gray

“Samuel” Sorry for the keystroke. Fingers fly faster than my brain.


Pamela, whether or not Jim G is correct about the AGW content of Common Core, do you not have concern about the “common” element of it? Your cited fruit salad of boards, bureaus and committees hardly seems like a good source of NATIONAL standards for every single US student to be taught to. When NATIONAL control of a generation is up for grabs, guess who will show up to grab it. Government is merely an amplifier; the big question is who gets to supply the signal. If the signal source is screwed up, we must either change the signal source or, better yet, reduce the power of the amplifier.


Politicians are now and have ever been completely reliable.
If what they do violates somebody’s expectations, it’s the expectations that are in need of adjustment for they are prima facie delusory.
You can trust them to lie and steal. You had better count on it. It’s their identity. Get that part right and your expectations will be aligned with reality.
Meanwhile, disinterested, objective scientists have stood by silently while the very idea of science has been trashed. When I read ‘scientists say’, my initial reaction is no longer the reverent ‘oh, this will be interesting’. Now it is ‘oh, more bullshit, eh?’
It was not ‘a few bad apples’ that brought about this reversal of perception. It was the silence of the cowards who demonstrate acquiescence. As they get loaded on the cattle cars – i’ll wave goodbye and good riddance.
This scam has not quite gone on long enough. The culling of the sheep is far from over.
I’ve come to regard this as a natural process of evolution: rejection of the unfit = the voters, the tax payers, the submissive chattel who crave to be led anywhere rather than take any personal responsibility for anything. Cowards die many times. It’s to be expected. That’s life. The garbage is being taken out by the garbage pros. What’s the reward for those who finance and support this scythe of death that is harvesting them? Somebody to blame for their own evils!
Whine on. Take no effective action. You have rulers for that. Spit in massa’s drink, secretly, but bend over when he snaps his finger and you’ll be able to continue doing more of the same.
Until there are no more left, this won’t end.

Alan Robertson

Robert A Dorrough says:
May 11, 2014 at 9:32 am
That’s quite a diatribe against the WUWT readership, but do you actually have anything to contribute? Anything at all? Have you read the entire 841 pages?
As for me, I have read parts of the report and there is no way I’m wading through the whole thing. I must say, I’m a gardener and I know a manure pile when I see one. I don’t have to wallow in it.

Mike Roddy

A little OT, but I look forward to seeing you at Mandalay Bay for the Heartland Conference this July, Anthony. It should be enlightening.

There is no right or left agenda in Washington. It’s all about who is the most ruthless regarding promoting their agenda and profits.

Pamela Gray

Here we go again with projection versus predication. A most hair-splitting, lack of COMMON sense and vocabulary issue I have yet to come across with regard to climate change.
In plain English: models are of two kinds, or stages if you will. One, or the first stage, tries to mechanistically mimic current observations and should be tinkered with when there is a divergence because one or the other parameter is not set correctly, while the other, or second stage, attempts to see into the future in the hopes that the model accurately captures the mechanisms going forward and will be in concert with future observations without the need for tinkering. Therefore it is a prediction of what the current mechanisms, as currently modeled, will do in terms of temperature effects in the future.
Common sense vocabulary is what works best because of its solid nature and its ability to withstand all manner of debate, classic and otherwise. Contrived vocabulary will collapse due to it often being pretentiously hollow and unable to withstand debate. Those who use contrived vocabulary will often become labeled as being foolish and ill-advised in the end.

Pamela Gray:
“Common sense vocabulary” works for the purpose of logically drawing conclusions from arguments if and only if the terms in it are monosemic. If they are polysemic, one cannot logically draw a conclusion from the associated argument. In the language of climatology, “predict” is polysemic. In making arguments, climatologists use this and other polysemic terms in drawing logically illicit conclusions from arguments. You don’t want conclusions to be drawn illogically from global warming arguments, do you?

Alan Robertson

Terry Oldberg says:
May 11, 2014 at 10:19 am
Terry, I just want to say that while your given link doesn’t work, your website is a treasure trove.

Pamela Gray says:
May 11, 2014 at 9:29 am
Jim G has not read the Common Core State Standards yet he thinks himself capable of commenting on them. If he had read the entire document he would have to admit that there is no mention of climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise in the entire document. So he is either a very bad sub teacher with regard to the standards, or is lying.
Pamela Gray may not have read these two links, to wit:
And it appears she has not read, to wit:
Next Generation Science Standards
Which specifically states, to wit:
ESS3.D: Global Climate Change
Human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (global warming). Reducing the level of climate change and reducing human vulnerability to whatever climate changes do occur depend on the understanding of climate science, engineering capabilities, and other kinds of knowledge, such as understanding of human behavior and on applying that knowledge wisely in decisions and activities.(MS-ESS3-5)

Pamela Gray says:
May 11, 2014 at 10:23 am×1024.png
Well, by the early 21st century, people knew that the massive use of fossil fuel was heating up the planet. But people didn’t stop their destructive lifestyles. They just kept using up Earth’s resources. The ice sheets melted, and Earth’s crust shifted. Volcanic pressure burst through in places that never had volcanoes.” Gif continued, “In 2130, the oceans began to rise over farmland and cities. In 300 years, most of the eastern United States was covered with water. All that remains are the Smokey Islands – formerly the Smokey Mountains.”
New national science standards that make the teaching of global warming part of the public school curriculum are slated to be released this month, potentially ending an era in which climate skepticism has been allowed to seep into the nation’s classrooms.
The latest draft recommends that educators teach the evidence for man-made climate change starting as early as elementary school and incorporate it into all science classes, ranging from earth science to chemistry. By eighth grade, students should understand that “human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (global warming),” the standards say.
and there are many more examples

Pamela Gray

Don, we are returning to the kinds of standards public schools once had, especially in the Western United States before public school was mandated for all beyond 6th grade. Fewer students whet on to public “high school” (IE 7th and 8th) after grade school because the content was considered to be too challenging. You can clearly see this in grade school versus high school pictures in 1900. But once mandated school reached into the teen years, those rigorous standards were left behind.
Make no mistake about it. Back in 1900 this exam was a national standard exam (which then of course drove national content and textbooks) with some flexibility regarding the state the exam was used in. And you could not get into “college” without passing it.

my quotes got messed up somehow in my last post, sorry

Pamela Gray

Samuel, again you are wrong. The Common Core State Standards do not have any such language in them. You are quoting standards not part of the CCSS. If you have a beef with them, take it up with them. I have all kinds of issues with these other standards. But pointing a finger at CCSS in the context of climate change is a scare tactic not based in fact and mimics the very thing we point out in extreme AGW articles that use such tactics.
Complain all you want about these other standards. There will be more none-CCSS sets to come I am sure. But the CCSS is a separate issue that returns rigor to public school instruction long missing in action and is not a part of these various other sets of content area standards.

Larry Ledwick

Pamela I think the issue is a bit more complicated than it appears, the support of catastrophic climate change does not appear directly in “the standards” but is deeply imbedded in the teaching materials, class room activites and resources provided to support the common core curriculum.
If you go to the department of education web page:
Then click “teaching resources”, you can drill down to a list of 43 resources which are climate change related. Under “science — earth sciences”. The same applies to new text books that are aligned with the common core standards and will be used as primary teaching materials. They are deeply imbedded with references of climate change as an established fact and no counter argument about any legitimate doubt. The Common Core is much more than the outline of the basic standards, it is the summation of all the supporting materials and activities that will be taught to students many of which implicitly teach catastrophic climate change as a fact.
The companion Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and related materials are supposed to be even more heavily imbedded with climate change materials.
See the climate change activity mentioned in the green strides news letter (Feb 28 2014) from the Department of Education under “contests and awards”
(all archived bulletins)
Or the 11/22/2013 edition of green strides news letter which features:
One Year Later — Superstorm Sandy: Climate Chaos, Kids, and Schools by Claire Barnett
Or the NASA presentation on Climate: What We Know and How We Know it (NASA) and the Programs for Climate Change Education (USFS), from the Dec 23 2013 edition
Or the “climate change live” program from the forest service mentioned in the June 26 edition:
Or the October 25 edition:
The climate change agenda is deeply imbedded in the teaching materials and resources for Common Core aligned materials.

David Riser

Robert A. Dorrough,
If the report is not understandable by the general public, then the government wasted a lot of money creating a website for it and making it available. If you need a PHD to understand climate change than perhaps there is a reason why no one cares….. Or maybe the report is just poorly written and full of alarmism crap.
Lets start with the caption under the first all red picture of the US:
“The colors on the map show temperature changes over the past 22 years (1991-2012) compared to the 1901-1960 average for the contiguous U.S., and to the 1951-1980 average for Alaska and Hawaii.”
So the implication of the picture is that the US has warmed 1-1.5 degree F over the past 22 years. Which anyone who has paid any attention to the debate at all knows this is not true. So it starts with a absolute falsehood. Why would anyone feel compelled to read anything else? But anyway lets step down to the next puddle of bs, in the description of climate change impacts it states the following:
“Americans are noticing changes all around them. Summers are longer and hotter, and extended periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours. People are seeing changes in the length and severity of seasonal allergies, the plant varieties that thrive in their gardens, and the kinds of birds they see in any particular month in their neighborhoods.”
Supposedly the information in this paragraph is from peer reviewed research of the highest caliber if you would believe the report. I find this kind of dishonestly extremely distasteful. Anyhow we just had one of the coldest winters in a long time that was followed by an extreme period of drought. So its not surprise that anyone who start reading this garbage will never get the science bits. So Robert go jump in a lake, cool off and rethink your trollish post!
David Riser

Pamela Gray

Again, I see others using the same misinformation about science standards. They are not a part of CCSS. Oregon has their own set of science standards, as do other states. About half of the states are looking at a variety of science standards. Whether or not they exchange their own for one single set is up to each state.
What do I think of the one referred to in above comments? Not much. But again, not related to CCSS. So stop it with the misdirection already. It just makes you look stupid.

David, UK

Had to download the free FT app to read it. Nice big photo of a flooded neighbourhood followed by a story of how Americans, and particularly Republicans, are ignorant of science but getting wiser to climate change with each passing year. Patronising and ignorant rubbish. App deleted.

David Riser

Mike Roddy,
How can you say this is over the top? read the report anyone with sense will never make it past the first 10 pages let alone 841. Why would anyone believe something like this if they didn’t already. I personally believe that with the exception of a very small group of people, anyone who actually bothered to look at the evidence for climate change would become a skeptic fairly quickly. Its one reason WUWT is “The Blog” and continues to grow. Where anyone of the many CAGW type blogs owe most of their readership to fallout from WUWT when skeptics go there to check the bs level.
David Riser

%d bloggers like this: