A Leading Climate Agency May Lose Its Climate Focus
By John Schwartz
The Trump administration appears to be planning to shift the mission of one of the most important federal science agencies that works on climate change — away from climate change.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is part of the Department of Commerce, operates a constellation of earth-observing satellites. Because of its work on climate science data collection and analysis, it has become one of the most important American agencies for making sense of the warming planet. But that focus may shift, according to a slide presentation at a Department of Commerce meeting by Tim Gallaudet, the acting head of the agency.
In the presentation, which included descriptions of the past and present missions for the agency, the past mission listed three items, starting with “to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts.” In contrast, for the present mission, the word “climate” was gone, and the first line was replaced with “to observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions.”
The presentation also included a new emphasis: “To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.”
Full story here
While this no doubt has climate warriors in a tizzy, who’ll likely be screaming and protesting soon, I’ll have to agree and say that a total of removal of climate from the NOAA mission is probably not a good idea.
Limiting the scope of the agency to data collection and short-term climate forecasting (such as seasonal outlooks done regularly by CPC) would probably be a better strategy. Will still need data collection, and we still need these short term climate forecasts for a wide variety of interests.
Limiting NOAA’s proselytizing about gloom and doom and tinkering with climate data such as Karl et al did in 2015 to remove “the pause” would be a better approach in my view.
If the Trump administration really wants to limit the gloom and doom, getting rid of NASA GISS GISTEMP climate division and the feckless Gavin Schmidt would be the best approach. The agency was formed to study planetary situations for NASA missions, not to study the climate of Earth. It’s a redundant agency, using NOAA’s climate data and then bollixing it to fit their viewpoint. Further, Schmidt has shown time and again that he’s lost the principles of what science really should be about, and has become more of an advocate than a scientist, much like his predecessor James Hansen, who would regularly get himself arrested at protests.
Eliminate NASA GISTEMP, for the good of America. Make Climate Great Again!
h/t to Eric Worral
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I agree with you fully, Anthony. But let’s not stop there – there are over 20 agencies in the USG spending money on climate change. There should only be one, with a clear charter, and direction to follow the classical scientific method, or find another job.
That agency is NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) in Boulder, CO. Unfortunately, it is headed by Tom Karl.
Karl retired.
NCAR is led by Jim Hurrell.
https://ncar.ucar.edu/directorate/about-jim-hurrell
“As recently as the beginning of this year it was caught red-handed trying adjust the Big Freeze of the winter of 2017/2018 in the U.S. out of existence.
But that was just the tip of the iceberg. One of NOAA’s jobs is to maintain the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), one of the world’s major earth surface temperature datasets. It has frequently been caught adjusting this data in order to make early 20th century temperatures colder and recent temperatures hotter so as to give a more dramatic impression of “global warming.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/25/report-noaa-to-give-up-on-climate-change/
Breitbart! Now there’s a trustworthy source when it comes to climate! /sarc
When it comes to trust shouldn’t we focus on what is written instead of who wrote it?
Look up the meaning of ad hominem troll.
I certainly agree with John that NOAA should have a role in monitoring and analyzing climate trends. It would be helpful to have ENSO cycles understood as they seem to produce the most direct climate impacts. Other cyclic climate controls could be studied as well. However, mixing in Political Science is not warranted and therein lies the current Administrations focus. Bring back non-political Science!
Perhaps a NASA as part of the military would not need a climate change function.
Some typos in the two paras above the map. A redundant “of” in the 1st paragraph (total of removal) and “will” instead of “We” (or “we will”) in the 2nd after “strategy”.
Concur that GISTEMP should be stripped from NASA first. The data base should be moved under NOAA responsibilities and strict enforcement of maintaining secure copies of the original data sets, as well as all sequentially adjusted data sets, should be implemented. All of the original and adjusted data sets should be open for independent analyses.
With just 3% unemployment nationwide and huge numbers of job positions going begging, the cashiered NASA bureaucrats will have no difficulty finding productive employment in the private sector economy. As Our Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama used to opine “Think of it as a learning opportunity!”
Using GIT comes to mind.
NASA should build a planetary defense against comet and asteroid impacts https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4Fgfe69FySJQLSsk83gbZfbp4ZRUfwUm
And giant mutant space goats
http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Golgafrincham
They should work on detector for Green B.S. Then we’d have something!
NOAA / NASA
Close! Both have a front N and two As.
Apples / Oranges
Close! Both are sort of spherical.
Still, if I ask for and Orange, don’t give me an Apple.
No. Some folks here think that things of that sort must be run as private businesses, available only for those who can pay for it. /sarc
Some people here get bent out shape at the notion of having to pay for the stuff they want.
Removing the word climate is absolutely great news because it has lost all meaning. John Schwartz obviously does not know, “…short-term climate forecasting (such as seasonal outlooks done regularly by CPC) …” I have repeatedly been told that climate has a minium time period of 30 years. So the above quote about seasonal outlooks being climate is absolute nonsense. When a word has lost its meaning it should no longer be used in official statements.
You are WAY out of date… Your antiquated definition for climate may have applied pre-2000s, but now? If the temperature goes up, it’s climate. if it’s stable or goes down, it’s weather.
“30 years”
A number selected in the mid-1930s for common reporting of averages (“normals”) of weather observations. The choice was not based on concepts about climate, but rather how newspapers and radio could report on weather such that an adult could relate daily measurements to those averages.
For climate — see Köppen & vegetation.
Your comment definitely supports my view that the word climate should be not be used in official or scientific discussion. “to observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions” is such a wonderfully clear, precise, and scientific goal, I do not understand how anyone could complain about it. Any statement with the word climate in it is ambiguous, imprecise, politically charged, and does not belong in science.
When you have two agencies doing the same thing, one of them is redundant. How many more examples of this are there in the federal government? Some folks think the Department of Homeland Security might be redundant. link Our congress critters have to get away from the idea that the way to solve every problem is to create a new bureaucracy and throw money at it.
As an example of this type of government first thinking, during the debate over whether to authorize the Dept of Homeland Security, then minority leader Tom Daschle proclaimed that “in order to professionalize, you must federalize”.
I thought that was about the TSA, not Homeland Security. I also seem to remember that it was Ted Kennedy.
Could be, I’ll have to research the quote.
We were both half right, it was about the TSA, and it was Daschle.
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=123823&page=1
I didn’t get the quote perfect either.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
What a wonderful example of pseudo-profound bullshit. It sounds like it might have some deep meaning but no …
I do not quite agree. Honest competition stimulates business.
The opinion of just one single agency has to be taken at face value.
If you have a severe medical issue, you also go for a second opinion.
This way you always have the chance to cross check the results.
It ought to be done here as well.
It’s hard to compete against a company that can afford to give it’s product away for free, or who doesn’t have to worry about business cycles.
When the government losses money, they either print more money, or just raise taxes. Private companies can’t do either.
The government has too many built in advantages to allow it to ever compete directly with for profit companies.
The Federal government takes NO problem whatsoever and charges several agencies with confirming each others biases in aid of expanding the bureaucracy that does nothing but talk about it and create rationales for greater taxation.
Could be worst analogy ever. Severe medical decision is not comparable to academic exercise of gathering global temp data to make fudge. Your idea leads to two federal govt’s, to “cross-check”. Business competition happens in free countries, when one guy makes money, and a second guy tries to make money by doing it better, cheaper. None of those words (cheaper; better; make money) pertain to one gov’t agency, never mind a second “cross-check” agency. Non, your statement is Not Even Wrong.
I’d love to see your face when there is obviously severe weather around and a private forecaster drops in and tells you, that he will give you all the information required to save the life of you, your family and your property only if you’ll pay him. You want to charge the citizens an extra for each airstrike against terrorism? Sorry, but you seem to have an abominably queer and weird understanding of what a government and some of its institutions are for.
I would love to see your face when a private company tells you that it is willing to sell your family the food that you need to stay alive.
Defense is a non-excludable good, so government is the logical way to provide you.
Weather forecasting is not.
Your claim that it is the job of government to provide to you, free of charge, everything you need to keep your family alive logically results in communism. Which doesn’t work.
Utter rubbish. Go back in history to see why communities have been formed: basically because of mutual protection against the odds of life and living. If you don’t need or want information about what might kill you, like a hurricane , for example, you are absolutely free to ignore it. I am convinced that, with an attitude like yours, you are one of the most lonesome people in your neighborhood. If there is any.
People band together for protection. Therefore government should provide everything for us.
The issue is not whether I want free stuff.
The issue is whether it is a good idea for government to be providing free stuff.
Fascinating how you assume that because I don’t think government should provide free stuff, you assume I must be anti-social.
What a troll you be.
Just note that your kind of slander like calling others Trolls and trying to make allusions to communism make this assumption becoming more and more probable.
When is the truth slander.
And if your behavior communistic, why is it wrong to point that out.
No Name: You said, in effect, one gov’t agency to gather “climate” data is not enough, we need two for cross-checking. I said we don’t need two of gov’t anything, least of all two gathering climate data, and it’s not comparable to private business competition. Where did I suggest that weather forecasting should go to private (door-to-door?!) forecasters? We were not discussing weather forecasting, were we? Your response is not even responsive, but at least you’re consistent.
I also mentioned the “second opinion”. Furthermore, it seemed to me necessary to visualise the cons of certain types of business or branches. This is pretty legitimate, because there are some other readers here as well. If visualising exceeds your mental horizon, I’m terribly sorry.
Does visualizing a tr0ll trying to type while gazing at his navel count? Then, yeah, within my horizon. Please don’t tell us anymore about your visions or the mushrooms you ate, TMI.
The word, “climate”, has become such a loaded term that I can almost understand removing it from any situation that deals strictly with science and measurement.
Let’s face it, “climate” has been butchered, deformed, and misapplied in such a way that removing the idea of human causation from it is almost impossible now.
This is a tragedy of language, and I do not know if there is any going back to reclaim the word’s original meaning. I would be game for all efforts to do so, but I am currently less than hopeful.
I agree with you regarding allowing NOAA to collect data. However there are private agencies that sell short range forecasts. The government should not be in competition with private agencies.
I agree that GISS is so far from it’s original mission that ending the organization is the only way to end the rot.
I doubt if the rest of NASA would object. I seem to remember that on two occasions some Astronauts and their colleagues complained about the climate people at GISS giving NASA and science a bad name.
Actually the MISSION directive was changed when DR. Hansen took over the department in 1981.
I may be a cynic, but I can see very little work which would fit under the old mission which does not fit in the proposed new mission. This could be nothing more than a change in a Powerpoint slide as the NOAA manages ‘upwards’ in the new political climate (ho ho).
Government’s response to most issues is creating and funding a new program. My all time favorite quote from a liberal politician was “what this problem needs is a large infusion of federal dollars.” Sadly if a present agency with the responsibility is not “doing the job” then create another one. They are often hidden in Continue Resolution Budget and as was passed last year a Omnibus Bill. As it is we probably could balance the budget by eliminating duplicative programs. Last count it was over $250 billion per year. NASA should have never been in the climate business. DOD even had a climate program under Obama. I will bet USFWS has a climate program. Government needs better focus. Why do we need NASA, NOAA and other government agencies in the climate game and then fund programs outside government through organization such as the National Science Foundation?
Trump has been President for over 17 months, and we still have an acting NOAA Administrator rather than one nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress? What about draining the swamp?
What about you personally helping to drain the swamp?
Contact your obstructing democrat senators and tell them to approve President Trump’s nominees!
Trump previously nominated Barry Myers, a lawyer who is CEO of a private weather forecasting company that lobbied Congress to pass legislation to remove the National Weather Service from some forecasting duties to leaves those to private companies. Even Anthony Watts said it would be a mistake to put Barry Myers in charge of NOAA, in https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/12/trumps-nomination-of-barry-meyers-to-head-noaa-is-a-mistake/
And notably, current Senate rules don’t allow filibustering nomination votes, so no Democrats are needed to confirm a nomination. Note the confirmation votes for our current Secretary of Education and our Attorney General.
So… complain, offer no solutions, and do nothing but post your unhappiness on blogs is your modus operandi?
Trump isn’t a dictator, he has to act with congress.
Mark, the left thinks he is a Nazi 🙂
Doug
The left thinks everyone’s a Nazi, including their own.
I think it’s an expression of admiration.
In the verbiage of the left, Nazi no longer has any meaning beyond, bad person.
MarkW
I didn’t put that very well.
I think it’s an expression of their admiration. They would probably devoutly follow Trump were he a Nazi.
This would be great news for efficiency, unbiased research standards, and common sense.
NOAA has several functions which are not Climate, Oceanic, or Weather related. Satellite registration is one of those functions. Not sure why it is their domain but it is.
NOAA runs their own satellites too, including solar observations. They have a subscription service warning of incoming solar blasts so people can shutter their communication satellites.
Actually not a bad idea of a government to issue warnings “to whom it may concern”, thus reducing the risk of damage and loss of property of all private enterprises w/o charge. Serve and Protect.
Except that you guarantee that there will never be any private companies that provide the same service.
This eliminates the pressure on the one single agency to ever improve their product. Also with government’s immunity from being sued, there will be no consequence for getting your warnings wrong.
If having government provide a free service for all is such a good idea, why don’t we expand the scope, and have the government provide for free services like health care, air service, automobiles. The list of things that government can give us for free is endless.
NOAA has worked since inception to improve its product by improving its tools. Satellites is one example. The latest generation is a huge improvement over the prior generation, and compared to the last 20 years, the early satellites can only be called “crude.” Similarly, they have improved their weather radars and numerical weather prediction models, which NOAA uses to do daily short and mid-term forecasts (72 hours to 14 days max). Do not confuse these with the silly university models that “forecast” out a century. They establish forecasting accuracy objectives and track progress, and publish the numbers. E.g., in the 70s hurricane track forecasts were only good 72 hours out. Now, 96 hours. That makes a difference in evacuations. They have similar improvements in tornado warnings. Besides, no sane private company would take on the liability of issuing a hurricane forecast that evacuates a city, only to learn it was wrong. Or, worse, fails to tell a city to evacuate. Most of the private weather companies take NOAA’s forecasts and repackage them.
Everyone agrees to letting NOAA still be in charge of collecting raw data.
Liability could be handled in much the same way that the liability for nuclear power was handled.
Or how the ridiculous attempts to apply product liability to guns that functioned as designed were handled.
I understand that you don’t want warnings issued – in this case when severe weather conditions are coming – just because these warnings are given free?
You seem to forget the recent Florida hurricanes where people were happy to get warnings in time and without charge. You also want the Homeland Security to provide its services only to those who pay for it? I’d love to see your face when your house is on fire and the firefighters ask for cash, credit card or deposit before rolling out their engines.
You seem to have gotten something terribly wrong.
Let’s take your idea to it’s logical conclusion.
You have stated that the government should provide free warnings because people need them to protect their families.
Well people need food to protect their families.
People need shelter and clothes to protect their families.
People need health care to protect their families.
If it is the job of government to provide people with the things they need, free of charge, where does it stop.
It is the job of individuals to think for themselves and to plan ahead.
If you want to be provided with weather warnings, sign up ahead of time.
If you want to be provided with fire protection, sign up ahead of time.
What you want is to be protected by someone else, and to force others to provide for that protection. That works, but only until the supply of other people’s money runs out.
You are comparing hurricanes to shirts. May the Good Lord help you, but, I’m afraid, that’s far beyond his skills. Your somehow antagonistic ideas are those of the dark ages. This is a modern society, and there are things much more interconnected than you can imagine. Preventing people from becoming needy is the idea of a such public services. But, it seems to me as if the life and well-being of your neighbors means nothing to you. Selfish.
You can always tell when a troll has run out of arguments. He starts whining that analogies are invalid because they don’t support his desire to force other people to provide him with free stuff.
I didn’t compare hurricanes to shirts. That’s your desperate desire to change the subject.
I asked where is the dividing line. You were the one who claimed that it is the responsibility of government to provide people stuff they need, free of charge. So support and de-limit this responsibility.
Not thinking that the government should provide everything for free, is now medieval? Up above you declared that not believing that government should provide free stuff was anti-social.
Just how far are you willing to go in order to defend your desire to have others take care of you?
Nope. Show me – date and time stamp, please, where I chose these words, exactly these words you now misleadingly try to sell as mine.
Let’s see. You are the one who went ballistic at the notion that the government shouldn’t provide weather forecasts for free.
You are the one who brought up a long list of other government programs provided for free and proclaimed that anyone who didn’t support these things was being anti-social.
You did not answer my request to quote verbatim, with date and timestamp, what you insinuated me having posted here. That is, because you can’t. Your allegations, are, therefore, in fact pervasive and slanderous.
And, one important thing that you obviously did not understand is the fact that all these services NOAA for example delivers have been paid for by the taxpayer, the people. They therefore have the right of getting information freely and without surcharge, like a hurricane warning. If you want them to pay and pay for something they have already paid for, you are in my opinion on the brink of being a weasely scamster, and a misanthropic one, anyway.
You made the claim that the government should provide weather forecasts free of charge because people need them to protect their families.
I asked you if there was any limit to this belief, and gave you a list of other things that people need to protect their families and should government provide all of them for free as well.
Instead of answering you attacked me.
I understand that you probably have never bothered to sit down and actually think through what your philosophy is. Either that or you know darn well what the answer is and don’t want to answer the question.
I see that you still stick to the notion that if someone needs something, he’s entitled to steal from others in order to get it. And you wonder why I call that communistic in nature.
What? When Jerry Brown just explained on 60 Minutes how outrageously dangerous and real global warming is, and we are all going to die if we don’t do something, how can this be?! (sarc)
Just let Mr Moonbeam know that he is going to die as well, no matter in which direction the climate changes. /sarc
It seems as if he is a litte bit estranged from real life. no sarc.
The predictions should be left up to the free market using data collected by primarily satellite.
Having the bureaucracy predict doesn’t lead to accuracy, Very little that the Government does is better than private enterprise and certainly is less efficient.
The word “climate” as was was once thought to be known, as in the book “The Theory of Climate” does not exist. Rather, the word “climate” and phrase “climate change” have been weaponized into political-religious dogma for the murder of the U.S. citizenry who are not employees of the 1.2 million strong Stalinist Federal Bureaucracy.
In this context “climate” as it was once thought of, does not exist. In addition to disestablishment of NCAR and UCAR, NASA should be disestablished simply because it is irrelevant. Humans, let alone NASA will never be capable of inhabiting the Moon, Mars or anywhere else off Earth.
Climate is weather that has been averaged enough time that the original meaning of the data becomes lost.
’bout time too – ‘Amtosphere Amdineration??
Who *are* they kidding.
Its a Gas, absolutely. And chaostic. And clupped with lonlineerlee. I see no andimistering whatsoever, specially with these self seeking clowns in charge.
I mean. Look at it, its just *everywhere*. And all over the place. All the time. huh
doubt they could amdinister a hamster if their lives depended. Sack the lot
NASA should be out of the climate business 100% except for actually launching the satellites. NOAA or one agency should take it all over. However, as stated I am concerned with the integrity of the data, so collection and archival should be 100% transparent for the public to see.
I believe that all satellite launches are subcontracted to an aerospace consortium. Even the military and NRO doesn’t launch their own satellites. NASA has had a big role in designing satellites, but again, the construction goes to the major aerospace companies with the facilities and experience in manufacturing. But, I don’t see any reason a paint crew couldn’t be sent out to the buildings that the designers work in and have a big “NOAA” or “USGS” painted over the NASA logo.
Require they ONLY release raw data from their observations. Cutoff the data manipulation currently published and their “climate change” mission collapses
I think that it would make more sense to get NASA out of the climate business and rely on NOAA and USGS to collect and analyze the data. The USGS had the foresight to launch and maintain the Landsat series of satellites, which provides the longest, uninterrupted historical views of Earth available. NASA has experienced severe mission drift in recent years.
Sorry, but I do not see how this shifts away from “climate change.” If anything, it has the potential to make their objective “climate change science” – for the first time in many, many years.
“Observe” – gather data from the real world, whether it is in the natural environment or in a physical experimental apparatus.
“Understand” – figure out why the real world produced that data.
“Predict” – use your understanding to make a reasoned forecast of what the real world data will be in the future. Compare your prediction to the real world, and return to “understand” if it does not match; this time with more data.
Note that the word “observe” was missing from the previous version. This is because their “data” is not from the real world – it is the outputs of models at the NOAA, that tells them how to jigger the numbers to match their “predictions.”
As a former weather forecaster for NOAA, it’s my very humble opinion that short-term weather forecasts in the 1-3 day range have improved dramatically in the past 45-50 years. I feel most of you would agree with that assessment. 3-5 day forecasts have gotten better too, just not as much or with the same “specificity” as the 1-3 days forecasts. The 6-10 day “outlooks” have also slightly improved, as the NWP models have been able to resolve upper air patterns better, thus improving the implications for surface weather that good analysts can exploit. Monthly and seasonal (3-month) outlooks have traditionally been horrible, as there was a basic lack of knowledge of the underlying reasons for the patterns that developed; but, even these have undergone some improvement as understanding of ENSO, MJO, and other factors have made for marginal inroads to verification success. Of course, understanding from the academic/research community with respect to ocean and solar influence/control has been sorely lacking compared to what we OUGHT to know now, as efforts are overwhelmingly biased toward the erroneous idea of GHG forcing. True climate forecasting for 50-100 years is a fool’s errand until the science community understands more precisely how the climate system actually works. I feel we do not presently have enough knowledge to make 50-100 year proclamations. “They” think otherwise, of course. But, there is no verification, so how can they “know?” “Hindcasting,” they say, but that has been shown to be erroneous. If hindcasting of the GCMs showed that forecasts were valid, we would already have seen that over the past 20 years, and those forecasts have not verified. My opinion is that NOAA has not been very good at “long-term weather” or “short-term climate” outlooking (1 weekd to several months), and this is a field that ought to get a lot more attention, because the economic benefits would be enormous.
5 day forecasts are about as accurate as 3-day forecasts were when I was a kid.
I don’t really remember any forecasts from when I was a kid. However, I’m not convinced that weather forecasts are significantly better today than they were 50 years ago, before we had geosynchronous weather satellites and Doppler radar. Any day I can look at two different weather forecasts online and one may predict rain and the other just clouds — and they will change everyday over a 5-day period. They do a pretty good job with temperatures, but precipitation not so much. Similar problem with climate models.
My experience is that weather forecasts improved substantially since the 1970s. Modern 5-day forecasts are at least as good as 3-day forecasts of the mid 1970s, both in terms of temperature and precipitation. (In each case, only fairly good with temperature, and sometimes notably having trouble with precipitation.) The trouble with climate models is different – they are inherently as able to predict climate change for decades or more as weather models are able to predict for a couple to a few days. The biggest problem with climate models is that most getting considered were tuned (or made, even if accidentally) to be successful at hindcasting mainly a 30-year period, 1975-2005 (in the case of CMIP5 models), often a similar period for most others. And due to groupthink, without considering multidecadal oscillations that were upswinging at that time, so the models accounted for that extra warming by having manmade increase of greenhouse gases causing more warming during that time than was actually caused by manmade increase of greenhouse gases. (I think about .2 degree C more, based on trying my hand with Fourier on HadCRUT3.)
50-100 year climate change forecasts are analogous to predicting the change of duty cycle of the output transistors of a Class D amplifier, as a result of changing something. Weather forecasts are analogous to making a microsecond-by-microsecond forecast schedule of the states of the output transistors, and will approach 50% wrong in less than a second when predicted as a function of changing something. The main problem with climate change forecast models is (generally) that they were made/selected/tuned to hindcast the past, especially (and especially with the CMIP5 ones) chosen/tuned/made to hindcast mostly the 30 years before they transition from hindcast to forecast, and for CMIP5 this generally means selected/tuned to mostly hindcast 1975-2005. That period had (as I figure) about .2 degree C of warming from a factor not considered by the models due to groupthink – multidecadal oscillations. So these models were selected/tuned to hindcast about .2 degree C more warming from 1975 to 2005 due to manmade increase of greenhouse gases than actual. A side effect of such groupthink-driven poor selection/tuning of the models is their prediction of the “tropical upper tropospheric warming hotspot” that John Christie pointed out. The main insufficiency of most climate models is not that they can’t work, but that they’re poorly tuned due to groupthink that wants them to predict that the rapid warming from 1975 to 2005 won’t slow down.
Check out Joe Bastardi and the guys at WeatherBELL Analytics. They aren’t perfect, but they consistently get the longer term forecasts right better than anyone else I have encountered. Weatherbell.com
Bad idea !
Climate is changing, always did and always will do. We can not say with the absolute certainty that it may not get significantly warmer, it did in the more distant and even the recent past. Equaly, we can not say with the absolute certainty that it will not get much colder, it did in the more distant and even the recent past.
Where NOAA and NASA went wrong was to associate themselves with the extremists by attributing the recent warming to just CO2 in exclusion of everything else, and finally subscribing to the CAGW nonsense.
What is needed is a start again from a square one by taking into account the lessons of the past faliures.
Government agencies always get captured. Either by the industry being regulated or by extremists.
For the simple reason that the industry being regulated and extremists care enough to capture, while the rest of the population either is unconcerned, or have never heard of the agency in the first place.
Declaring that if we simply clear out the idiots in charge and bring in new people, this time we will get it right reminds me of their declarations that the only thing wrong with the previous attempts to make communism work was just that the wrong people were in charge.
This time we’re going to make it work.
I’m not accusing you of being a communist or even thinking like a communist.
However there is a common thread in the belief that enough laws will be able to change human nature.
Like campaign finance laws, if it is in people’s interest to find away around the existing laws, they will find away. Adding more laws just increases the number of ways to get around the laws.