Another government sponsored climate crapstorm coming our way

From the “trust us, it’s worse than we thought” department comes another climate report that looks about as predictable and exciting as the Academy Awards on TV. They had to make a press release telling us all it’s “being reviewed”, like that means something these days? Perhaps the only people that will get excited about it will be Al Gore, who might use it as an opportunity to make more money.

National Academies review of the draft Fourth National Climate Assessment and second state of the carbon cycle report

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to review the draft Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) – a congressionally mandated report that evaluates the state of climate science and the broad range of impacts of climate change in the United States every four years – and the draft Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2) – a report that feeds into the overall assessment process developed by the USGCRP. The final NCA4 and SOCCR2 reports are anticipated to be released by USGCRP later this year. The National Academies released today evaluations of these two draft reports.

Review of the Draft Fourth National Climate Assessment

The Academies committee that conducted the new review concluded that the draft NCA4 accurately describes the science of climate change and impacts occurring and likely to occur this century across the nation. With appropriate revisions, the draft NCA4 provides a strong foundation of science that can serve as a valuable resource for a wide range of audiences.

To strengthen the NCA4 and enhance its ability to reach broad audiences, the committee recommended improving the communication of key aspects of the draft report. This includes providing more examples that describe the actions taken by private sector, public-private partnerships, and government to illustrate the range of solution-oriented efforts to address climate change impacts and associated risks.

The committee also suggested improving linkages across chapters, to better capture the interconnected nature of many climate change impacts. The Academies’ report says that chapters in the draft NCA4 detailing climate change impacts in U.S. regions are particularly effective in conveying the complex nature of climate change, largely because of the discussion of these interconnected impacts. The chapters addressing the impacts of climate change on specific sectors – such as the built environment, energy, ecosystems, and coastal areas – would benefit from similar attention to these complexities.

The committee also recommended that the NCA4 report explicitly identify significant advancements made since the Third National Climate Assessment with emphasis on emerging science, impacts, and examples of new response actions.

Review of the Draft Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report

A separate committee appointed to review the SOCCR2 draft concluded that it is a very informative overview of current scientific understanding of carbon cycle dynamics across North America. Some recommendations to strengthen the draft include: providing consistency in how carbon sources and sinks are described across various chapters and figures; clarifying ambiguities in the geographic scope of the assessment; focusing key findings on describing specifically what has been learned from new research; and expanding discussion of opportunities for effective management of carbon sources and sinks.

The Academies’ studies were sponsored by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln. For more information, visit


UPDATE: You can read it here.

h/t to “Kurt in Switzerland”

Note the list of reviewers, Heidi Cullen, Jonathan Overpeck, and Mary Nichols – some of the worst alarmists on the planet.

98 thoughts on “Another government sponsored climate crapstorm coming our way

    • Political elements “review” policy based science? Go to Prado museum in Madrid and you will find 3 floors with “art”. Actually it’s religious “art” and shows very well what happens in society when one idea is King. Envirosocialism wants the same today. They failed with the idea of Dictatorship of the proletariat so they relabeled to Dictatorship of the environment and climate, Nature, instead?

    • They need to better describe the money sink they have caused. (Mis) anthropogenic gorebal swarming…

    • It’s fun to know the ins and outs of the carbon cycle, but when these details are being drafted by those with an agenda to show things in the worst light, they are difficult to trust.
      As we need more CO2 not less and no trace gas in the atmosphere can drive our climate, particularly when one honestly includes the massive global heat engine called the water cycle, the expenses of the entire carbon report could have been used more productively elsewhere, but not on climate science to be sure.
      If, at some time, we have a worry about not having enough CO2, it might be useful to pursue such studies. For now, no.

      • GIGO
        Guesses in, generalizations out.
        Guesses in, canons out. (Also, insurance.)
        Speculations in, salaries out.
        It is interesting to see how far the evidence has to be thinly spread to counter the contradicting facts in order to redistribute the wealth of nations. Methinks the grand venture will crash and burn rather sooner than later, leaving the redistribution to others less credulous and more rational.

      • Or Phycho as in these SNIP. Profanity not allowed here. Not even profanity hidden by ‘*’ substitutions. Play nice. people are psychotic.

  1. Let’s see if they can find the missing oceanic heat…
    Or the elusive sea level acceleration…
    … or …

  2. accurately describes the science of climate change and impacts………………LOL, they haven’t been right yet

    • 😎
      Show us the Climate Model so we can oooh and ahww at how pretty she is…. at first. But it will become apparent just how shallow she is.
      Marry her and you will soon want a divorce.
      The divorce is easy unless your cash flow or ideology depends on her.

    • Reads like a thesis from a social scientist, recanting dogmatic (canonical?) bromides, with nary a word devoted to testing the premise that human-caused CO2 combustion is actually causing any measurable climate change, however that should be categorized and measured (i.e., nobody involved with the report has the scientific acumen to address the dreaded “attribution” question).
      I supposed that part is “settled”, as they say.

      • “recanting dogmatic (canonical?) bromides,”
        I assume you meant “decanting” or “reciting”

  3. Shouldn’t we be focusing our energies on pointing out that the theory of CO2 warming doesn’t rest on any experimental proof of its central thesis: that CO2 radiative scattering warms a surface? Nahle in 2011 confirmed Wood’s experiment of 1909: a greenhouse does not heat by “trapping” LWIR. If a greenhouse cannot warm through LWIR back-radiation, then how is an atmosphere able to do this?
    Any number of experiments using CO2 in a column could be done to prove the central thesis of CO2 warming; I’ve found no such experiment that confirms that thesis. Anyone else?

    • Don:
      I raised this issue of an experimental proof with the University of Melbourne during an internet Climate Course. I called it the Holy Grail; so it was politely suggested to me that I take a Course with Chicago University to further my education and have things properly explained to me.
      Neither did they explain if or why the IPCC definition of Radiative forcing failed to comply with thermodynamic law. I did, however learn much to reinforce my sceptical tendencies.

      • Thank you Alasdair. I’ve recently noticed that there isn’t a shred of proof that CO2 back-radiation warms a surface, not withstanding the uncontrolled experiments offered up as “proof” on YouTube.
        So I wonder: are we really so utterly stupid? Because correct me if I’m wrong, but we base an entire branch of science, not to mention public policy, on a theory with no experimental proof.
        For all those who say: we can measure CO2 back radiation. Yes. We can measure outgoing and downwelling radiation. Yes. CO2 absorbs and emits LWIR. Yes. But where is the proof that CO2 LWIR scattering, or back-radiation or downwelling or whatever you want to call it, will warm a surface? Is that not a theory with no direct proof, when such proof could easily be demonstrated in the lab? Or are we afraid to replicate Nahle’s experiment, or do any other relatively easy experiment, because we don’t like the answer?
        Do the proof!! Don’t tell me you “know.” You may know a lot of things, but one thing I know for certain is that unless you do the proof, you’re only assuming.

      • Don132: But we have models. Based on MATH. And PHYSICS. And really, really big computers. Who needs a silly experiment when you have math, physics and supercomputers?
        (Do i really need a /s. Please say no.)

      • so, if you have a steel bar that’s red hot-
        then cut it in 2
        then one half will heat the other and it will cool more slowly
        is that how it works?
        or maybe you take a pot of boiling water and put it in 2 pots side by side-
        then they will be hotter longer than if they were just one pot?
        this has practical value, eh- u can cut a pizza in half and it will stay hot longer!

      • Hans Erren: yes, Spencer raises some good points and I’ve seen this. OK, got it. Some disagree. How do we resolves this? An experiment, maybe?
        Has Dr. Spencer replicated and refuted Nahle’s experiment? What is Nahle’s experiment telling us? It seems to me that it’s saying that reflected LWIR will not heat a greenhouse, and if so then it also seems to me that neither will CO2. This may throw a wrench in our theory: that’s what experiments do! But maybe I’m misinterpreting Nahle.
        If we take a candle and put it five meters away from us and point an IR thermometer at it, will it measure anything? If it does, does that mean the candle’s warmth is reaching us? Is that warmth significant? These are just questions and I don’t know the answers.
        When Dr. Spencer pointed his IR thermeter at a cloud, does that mean that the cloud’s heat is reaching the front of him as he faces it, and when he turns away to measure the clear sky, that the cloud’s warmth is then not reaching his front but his side instead? If he puts sensitive thermometers around his body, would these thermometers reflect the measurements from the IR thermometer as he turned from facing a cloud to facing away from it?
        Hmmm. Maybe we should … do an experiment?

    • Don132 – “Any number of experiments using CO2 in a column could be done to prove the central thesis of CO2 warming” …
      We can’t even find a way to show how this ‘property’ of CO2 manifests itself on Mars which has an atmosphere of 95% CO2.

      • Indeed – this is where the CO2 “heat trapping” BS quickly falls apart. It has been shown that at an altitude where the atmospheric density is the same as Earth’s atmosphere, Venus’ atmospheric temperature needs only one thing to be differentiated from Earth’s – the distance from the Sun. The fact that Venus has an atmosphere which is over 95% CO2 vs. Earth’s 400ppm is MEANINGLESS.

    • Alarmists like to refer to Feldman 2015 as evidence that CO2 increases downwelling radiation. Since they were able to measure it you can’t claim the surface is not absorbing the radiation because obviously the equipment did.
      What they don’t like to mention is that the same basic equipment that was used in this experiment was also used in Gero/Turner 2011. It measured the total change in downwelling radiation. Guess what? No increase. This is actually evidence to support negative water vapor feedback.
      It appears that CO2 does act as advertised but causes a reduction in high altitude water vapor that basically cancels out the effect of the increase in CO2.

      • Richard M March 13, 2018 at 5:17 am:
        “Alarmists like to refer to Feldman 2015 as evidence that CO2 increases downwelling radiation.”
        Gero and Turner give a different answer: as you point out.
        I think all this concern with radiation is confusing us. So I’d like to circle back to Dr. Spencer’s measurement of IR, and particularly this post: Here it’s asserted that the IR thermometer warmed up to 14 degrees when pointed to a cloud, thereby proving that downwelling LWIR was coming from the cloud. Got it. So then does that translate into 14 degrees warmer at the surface? One degree? How far down does this downwelling go? Is the upwelling the same as the downwelling– 14 degrees? Or are we really measuring the atmospheric temperature at that height and not radiation from the cloud?
        Back to a candle at 10 meters from us. We measure the IR. We get a higher reading than the surrounding air. Is the heat from the candle reaching us? What is the meter reading really telling us?
        OK, so maybe this gets a little confusing and my answer for this is that since the basic question is not, how much downwelling radiation does CO2 cause, but more directly, how does CO2 affect the atmospheric temperature profile measured directly by thermometers, no matter the balance between upwelling and downwelling radiation?
        Do a controlled experiment and measure the temperature distribution of a CO2 atmosphere directly, compared to one without CO2. Depending on radiation measurements seems to me to be adding a potential confounding factor.

  4. I dissected the first chapter of the previous NCA in essay Credibility Conundrums. Easy but boring to do it yet again to the next version of the same climapornpropaganda from the very same people.

  5. “To strengthen the NCA4 and enhance its ability to reach broad audiences, the committee recommended improving the communication of key aspects of the draft report.”
    We need more dough for advertising.

  6. “Talking about how we should talk about talking about it” … would be a better title.
    The potion of the document that I scanned had zero substance. What are the claims being supported? Spell them out, simply, clearly, cleanly. Cite the evidence exactly.
    Maybe I don’t get it, but this just seems like a mind-numbing excursion into the formal protocols of approval.
    I want to SEE what the hell they are talking about approving.
    How far into the document do I have to dig to find this?

    • robert g madison
      March 12, 2018 at 3:11 pm
      I wonder if they will mention the satellite data at all.
      I am not sure which satellite data you mean, But the CO2 satellite data do not show at all any human CO2 “signature” there…
      Very clear natural signature” there, quite clearly shown due to seasonal variations! 🙂
      That seasonal variation signal seems to overwhelm whole supposed human one, the “ghost” human one, if I may put it that way.
      Besides, the human CO2 emissions flux lacks the main natural flux support, as almost all of the main flux is from oceans to atmosphere….very little from land. 🙂

      • Rockyredneck
        March 12, 2018 at 5:50 pm
        Nice to see someone actually considering the evidence but if possible I would appreciate a few links.
        Sorry Rocky, I can not and do not do links, really sorry about it.
        But I think it will not be so difficult to get to CO2 satellite data….
        besides many have seen such data in posts here.
        And if you interested at what about is or not with my comment above, a little “sweating” wont hurt.

      • ptolemy2
        March 12, 2018 at 11:53 pm
        Thank you very much for your effort.
        I am not really sure but I must say, somehow Cleopatra comes to the mind….:)
        But all this said, lets have another approach at my comment, for the sake of it….
        “Besides, the human CO2 emissions flux lacks the main natural flux support, as almost all of the main flux is from oceans to atmosphere…. very little from land. :)”
        When considering this statement of mine, one thing that definitely needs no links or any further support, as per the claim, is that human CO2 emissions are regional, over land, very regional when considering the global earth’s surface.
        Which may easy lead to the question… do GCMs do play the artificial CO2 knob, is that in the prospect of global or is it regional??
        Do the GCMs do artificial CO2 knob in a spread out global, or do the GCMs do it in tightly regional format !!!!
        And the other question when at it, will be ,,, whatever way done, does it consist as only in one way, or it happens to be in both ways, tested and simulated in the GCMs, as per means of comparing ?!
        I do not know the answer to such questions, that is why pointing out at such as .
        Besides, any way that it could be considered, the Anthropogenic CO2 forcing should have a signature of a CO2 “hot spot” over the land area of the world, at the very least.
        As far as I am concerned that does not exist, in the data and evidence thus far.
        I know this a bit hard to look from this angle, but that is how I have got to look at it…
        There is not only a missing hot spot in tropics as far as heat concerned or warming concerned, but there also is a missing CO2 “hot spot” over the land area, as it supposedly should be if Anthropogenic CO2 forcing real….
        But that is me, and I am still ready to accept the possibility that all I am talking about here is just valueless…
        Thanks, Dear…:)

      • Oh, ok that is really bad..
        I am sure I have not used any “F” words this time around, for my comment to be in moderation, but I think a mistyping of my email address may have some thing to do with it .
        Please mods if that happens to be the case please try to allow my comment if possible.
        Appreciated, whatever way, as I am pretty sure is my fault in misspelling or wrongly typing my email address.

  7. This thing is quite frank about being propaganda.

    Propaganda involves the intentional sharing of
    facts, opinions, and ideas designed to change behavior or
    motivate action. link

    Here’s what the press release says:

    To strengthen the NCA4 and enhance its ability to reach broad audiences, the committee recommended improving the communication of key aspects of the draft report.

    They make no pretence of dispassionately presenting facts. It’s all about getting the population to adopt their chosen point of view. It fully conforms to the definition of propaganda.

  8. Mary D. Nichols is a Professor in the UCLA Institute of the Environment … In a long career as an environmental lawyer and policymaker, Nichols has worked as a senior staff attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Law in the Public Interest, and headed the Environment Now Foundation as Executive Director. She also co-founded the first environmental justice working group …
    Also, Mary Nichols [graduated] from Cornell with a bachelor of arts degree in 1966 .. and graduated with a law degree from Yale.
    Mary Nichols is completely unqualified to review the science of a “Climate Assessment.” She has no business being part of an NAS science review panel.
    Her associations with NRDC and other supposed environmental “justice” groups should disqualify her from membership on any environmental science review panel pretending to objective assessment.

      • Would you care to actually try to discredit the work that ristvan does? Or are you not man enough for that task?

      • Translation, I can’t attack Rud’s work, so I’ll attack his profession.
        I never said that being a lawyer qualified one to talk about other issues. That’s your peculiar perversion.
        What I said is that if you want to attack Rud’s work, go ahead and do so.
        Since you don’t, I’m guessing that it’s because even you know that you can’t.

      • MarkW, I never attacked Rud, or his work. You are sadly mistaken if you think so. I merely recommended that one consult with him, and elicit his opinion on something. Please go crawl back under your rock and mind your own business.

      • DD, you are an incredibly dense troll.
        Your claimed inability to parse what you yourself wrote is disingenuous at best.

    • “Her associations with NRDC and other supposed environmental “justice” groups should disqualify her from membership on any environmental science review panel pretending to objective assessment.”
      Couldn’t agree more, but that is the tactic they’ve been using for many years now – put SJWs and activists into positions of power to drown out any dissent from the CAGW “message.”

    • Government and the institutions in and around all science associated with government are replete with attorneys. Most couldn’t make it as practicing attorneys so became public interest advocates. Over time they convince themselves that they are indeed experts in science. We see the same behavior with attorneys entering politics. Many running federal agencies have law degrees. Though seldom said, during Senate confirmation the senators hate when someone comes up who is not a lawyer.

    • David, it’s more than that Mary Nichols is a lawyer. She’s also has a career in political advocacy, specifically in so-called environmental justice. That career marks her as thoroughly politically biased, in the very field, namely environmental regulation, that requires dispassionate analysis. That alone is enough to disqualify her.
      That was an obvious point of my post (paragraph 4), which apparently you missed.
      However, her training as a lawyer provides no assurance that she is able to evaluate the data underlying her rulings, a problem separate from her evident prejudices.
      I believe that Rud had some training in science prior to his JD.

  9. Don132, I have been looking at how to measure the radiative effects of Carbon Dioxide with classical instrumentation, and I have to say I am fogged in. The experiment done by Dr Nahle seemed reasonable to me. I have found some leads in the works published by Hoyt C Hottel, but either cannot understand the work or have yet to dig out original references. Or both. I was hoping to find a simple, non contact measurement method, but the simpler devices do not seem to have usable spectral response in the CO2 IR window. It may be that since CO2 just does not radiate much of anything at the low temps and pressures found in the upper atmosphere. CO2 is regarded as a non-luminous gas, which makes taking it’s temperature a bit more difficult. Anyone who can chime in with references, ideas, explanations or clarifications, please do so!
    I know the gov’t spent a lot of money trying to characterize the atmosphere and its responses to radiation, see MODTRAN,. I believe most of that works was done as a precursor to Project Corona and looking for radiation windows for imaging into the Evil Empire. Oh, and funny atmospheric ducting of RF signals was also of some interest.
    Thanks, All, Tom Bakewell

    • T. Bakewell, it seems to me that we are leaping from all of our radiative measurements into “therefore, CO2 must be heating the atmosphere.” But I’m not sure that radiative transfer or scattering automatically implies heating. We need to measure it directly: take CO2 and measure how it does or does not warm a model atmosphere (a physical model, not a computer model.)
      Everyone knows CO2 warms a (computer) model atmosphere! No one knows if it warms a real atmosphere until the real-life-non-computerized experiment confirms it. The amazing thing to me is that it seems this real-world demonstration would be fairly easy to do in the lab yet it’s never been done.

      • The problem in a practical (realistic) experiment is that water vapour overshadows the effect of CO2. Both gases do exactly the same thing. There is a heck of a lot more water vapour than CO2. Any experiment that tries to separate the two is doomed by fluctuations in everything: temperature, wind, concentrations. Some things are true but difficult to demonstrate. Other things are true but trivial.
        The classic explanation of ‘how GHG’s work’ is defective. An atmosphere with no radiative gases would be quite a bit warmer two meters off the ground that one that is able to cool radiatively. CO2 heated by contact with other molecules of non-GHG gases would radiate in all directions, shedding heat upwards as well as down. CO2 is also a source of cooling, just like any radiative surface. It does not receive all its energy in the form of IR from below and above.

      • Crispin in Waterloo but really in Karabalta March 13, 2018 at 4:00 am:
        “The problem in a practical (realistic) experiment is that water vapour overshadows the effect of CO2.”
        True, but why couldn’t a controlled experiment be done is a lab with columns of atmosphere? If we wanted to measure how CO2 actually affects an atmosphere, then what if we had a column say 10 meters high, controlled for pressure, humidity, heat input, etc., and then measured how the temperature profile of this (physically) modeled atmosphere changes as we alter CO2 content? Maybe we have to jack the CO2 up to 2000 ppm to see an effect at this scale, I don’t know. We only want to know if CO2 radiative scattering does indeed increase the temperature in the lower part of an atmosphere through the assumed mechanism, which amazingly has never been tested.

  10. Need more “actions taken … to illustrate the range of … efforts…” Isn’t that admitting that we need more examples that show we are still trying? As opposed to really getting somewhere. Is merely trying for 10 years enough? No real progress is necessary??
    I call BS!

  11. In a previous comment, a very long time ago, I wrote that my sister, my older sister, was a nun. Well, while she was in the convent, with the other nuns in training, they all amused themselves with the following poem:
    When you’re old and feeling blue
    And there are no boys left for you
    Join the convent
    And, see the world!
    Well, I think that little ditty is worthy of a revision:
    When you’re old and feeling blue
    And there are no World Wars, famines, or pestilence left for you
    Join the bogus Climate Crusade
    And screw the World!

    • Marxism is about absolute power in society. So..
      When you’re old and feeling blue
      And there are no absolute power for you
      Join the policy based Climate Crusade
      And screw the World!

  12. Glad to see tha some of the readers are mentioning co2.
    Its the only thing that matters, the rest is just thousands of reports, reviews, & books about its soposed effects.
    Another thought, as our politicians only seem to act on what is the very politically writton ” summery ” what about the niocc also issuing a ” summery” based on the same ipcc data, so we, & hopefully the poloticians can then compare the two.

    • The preferred path is to never mention CO2 again, having ingrained the phrase, “climate change” to subsume CO2 via innuendo, only to reinforce the preferred obfuscating phrase now, hoping that most people have forgotten that the reason “climate change” became so important, which was because of what this pop phrase now erases from memory, allowing only the dire warnings to frighten us to do something about something we no longer have a clue about why anymore.
      Okay, I just wrote that off the top of my head, and it’s all jumbled, and so it needs to be said more intelligibly. Hopefully, you get my drift with the first draft.

  13. A fine example of propaganda, aimed at controlling the population through fear.
    Let’ see how often it ends up as school curriculum presented as fact. Frighten the children into abandoning their parents’ values.

  14. Until the endangerment finding is reversed we will have to endure this nonsense. What happening with the “children’s crusade” lawsuit out in California?

  15. The New and Improved Climate Report will exploit the 2015/16 Super El Nino event, and the devastating 2017 hurricane season for years to come….
    Of course they’ll fail to mention the 2017 hurricane season ended an 11-year CAT3+ hurricane drought, and forget to mention that Super El Nino events occur regularly every 15 years or so, but who cares? It’s “SCIENCE!!” (TM).
    They’ll also use Ye Ol’ canard that “x” years out of the last 20 years were the hottest years evahhhh, which is a completely meaningless factoid without corresponding trend data (UAH Trend: 0.07C/decade over the past 20 years… Oh, the humanity…
    This is like a healthy idiotic 38 year old saying that for 20 out of the last 20 years, he’s been at his tallest height evahhhh, ergo, he’s suffering from catastrophic giantism, even though he stopped growing at 18 when his HGH production shutdown…
    CAGW is the death of reason and science…

    • Then they will have much to discuss in the years ahead. The Onslow TC location should be active over the next 3 to 4 years. That means at least one TC during every season. Is this going to be the next Onslow TC? …,-11.36,1823/loc=105.630,-14.459

    • Well said. Whenever I bring up those types of “inconvenient facts” in a discussion with a “believer,” I just run into the wall of them telling me that we’ll just have to “agree to disagree,” because the cognitive dissonance becomes too great if they have to face the logical fallacies underlying their belief system.

  16. Just looking at the acronym’s for the names of these reports, tells you that they are as exciting as watching rocks weather away to nothing.

    • I thought the Trumpster was going to put a stop to all this. He can’t stop a “crapstorm”?

    • I can’t believe those three wackos are the reviewers. Sure would like to see their “consulting fees” for the review (payback for loyalty to the cause?). All we do is go around in circles. This will come out from the same group (sanctioned by “science organizations”), will get huge MSM coverage and re-affirm the prevailing belief system. It will then be rebuffed by qualified skeptics, will be ignored by the MSM, and we will discuss it here. Nothing gained in the last four years. Trump/Pruitt/Zinke etal should exercise some control by formally appointing qualified folks to write the counter argument, which, at least, may require some MSM coverage, and put it into the public arena. The foxes are still controlling the hen house.

  17. Where are the National Sciences on this:
    Apparently following WW2, the people of Japan were introduced to the joys of beefburgers and the lapped them up. As a consequence of the extra animal protein and on average, the people of Japan grew to be an extra 6″ taller

    under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln.

    Is it correct that Abe Lincoln was 6ft and 4″ tall – and by accounts not especially tall amongst his peers?
    Would it be fair to say that a person that tall these days is ‘a bit of a freak’?
    I repeat, where are the National Global Research Science Change United Committee Of Parties And Good Times Tedious Bureaucracy Paranoia Propaganda And Finger Wagging saying about that.
    Don’t tell me, someone adjusted the data.
    (Mosher, you can come out now, you’re busted)

  18. Dear Climate Scientists,
    Pkease give us our money back. It turns out we have real issues to deal with, and we cannot keep paying for your story telling time.
    Thanks in advance,
    Citizens of the world

  19. “… to better capture the interconnected nature of many climate change impacts. The Academies’ report says that chapters in the draft NCA4 detailing climate change impacts in U.S. regions are particularly effective in conveying the complex nature of climate change, largely because of the discussion of these interconnected impacts. The chapters addressing the impacts of climate change on specific sectors – such as the built environment, energy, ecosystems, and coastal areas – would benefit from similar attention to these complexities”
    Excellent stuff. And here is what should happen: Donald Trump, who is already frustrated with Scott Pruitt’s work at the EPA, should fire him and replace this corporate lobbying/expense account loving grifter with an individual with from an appropriate scientific background and with relevant scientific academic qualifications. This individual should then act on this report’s recommendations, with Trump giving him/her free rein to do so. Such steps will get the US back on track in combatting the effects of AGW in line with the rest of the global community.

    • “combatting the effects of AGW” – sorry, you’re once again assuming “facts not in evidence.” First, “scientists” need to show that they have actually identified all natural climate drivers and analyzed all of THEIR effects on the Earth’s climate. Once that is accomplished, there won’t be anything left to blame on CO2, if their science is honestly done.

    • One of these days ivan will present an actual, logically valid argument.
      Until then he will continue to assume that anyone who dares to disagree with him is evil and in the pay of big oil.,

      • Strange that you mention being in the pay of big Oil … why did you bring this up? Big Oil is certainly providing funding to push back against AGW research. Why should someone who disagrees with me be backed by big Oil? You have your viewpoint and I have mine.

      • What you wish to be true and reality have never, not even once, coincided.
        The lie that Big Oil is paying for a disinformation campaign has been refuted many times, but since the lie is so useful to those who have no other arguments, it does get brought up again, repeatedly.

  20. One of the reviewers, Jonathan Overpeck stated in one of the Climategate 2.0 emails:
    “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.
    If the main message is the guide for reporting & reviewing you will know the result before reading.

  21. As long as the taxpayers keep paying taxes, the climate warriers keep publishing reports. What I see is that we, the critics, keep making the same mistake as we did before. We talk to ourselves. I read all the comments, and say: I agree, and write another comment. To people like ourselves. The people in power, who could swing votes, don’t care what we say. They make money, and power, as long as the public keep voting as they do, and keep paying taxes when forced to do so.
    I have sent numerous notes and articles to newspapers and other news media, but the people working in the censor departments are the only ones reading what I write. The censorship in Norway is extremely strong and effective. Freedom of speach? This concept has been stricken from our educational system long ago.

Comments are closed.