Framework for translating science into local action
Earth Institute at Columbia University
As climate change proceeds, businesses and communities are wondering how to adapt and prepare. However, they’re finding it’s not always easy to translate broad-scale climate science into local solutions, or even to figure out which data to rely on and how to apply it.
That’s why a federal advisory committee appointed by President Obama started meeting in 2016 to explore how to make the National Climate Assessment (NCA) more usable for communities who want to take action. President Trump dismissed the panel in 2017. But with support from the Earth Institute at Columbia University, New York State and the American Meteorological Society, the committee reconvened as the Independent Advisory Committee on Applied Climate Assessment. Today, the committee’s findings and recommendations are published in Weather, Climate and Society, a journal of the American Meteorological Society.
The report calls for the creation of a new network to provide guidance to state, local, and tribal governments on how to use the NCA and other sources of science to get things done in their communities. This network, launched today as the Science to Climate Action Network (SCAN), is independent of the federal government and comprised of experts from civil society and state, local, and tribal settings. By providing hubs for businesses, communities and academics to work together on practical challenges, the network is designed to produce guidance for using science to update infrastructure and building codes, reduce wildfire risk, manage flooding, cut carbon emissions and more.
“The point is to take what we know, make it usable for the communities, and increase their confidence in weighing the tradeoffs and opportunities that come with different strategies for adaptation and mitigation,” said Richard Moss, a visiting senior research scientist at Columbia’s Earth Institute and chairman of the Independent Advisory Committee.
Daniel Zarrilli, New York City’s chief climate policy advisor, said such a collaboration is needed. “We live in an era of climate change and yet many of our systems, codes and standards have not caught up. Integrating climate science into everyday decisions is not just smart planning, it’s an urgent necessity,” he said. Zarilli noted that New York City has its own climate science panel, but most cities don’t have the same resources.
While partnerships to apply climate science in specific cities and communities have already started to take form, Moss said the Science to Climate Action Network will bring projects working on similar challenges together to share ideas, evaluate best practices, develop authoritative data, and then share this information on a national scale.
The consortium would help communities evaluate which climate datasets to rely on for specific decisions and actions. It would focus on practical challenges such as improving engineering designs to be more resilient and establishing new methods to assess returns on investment and weigh the costs and benefits of different strategies. In the long term, said Moss, the knowledge developed could inform the training and certification of professionals who specialize in applying climate science to support decision-making.
The Independent Advisory Committee is not the first to suggest such a consortium, but the new report is “much more specific about how to do this than in the past,” said Moss. “Many of the ideas come from decision-makers, community-based organizations, and climate experts who help users apply knowledge. We’re trying to produce something that adds value for those on the front lines of preparing their communities for climate change.”
The Science to Climate Action Network has already started collaborating with a number of regional research networks, university groups and organizations such as U.S. Climate Alliance and the Urban Sustainability Directors Network. Moss says the consortium’s next steps will be to engage additional partners, attract funding and decide which projects to tackle first. “We want to get started right away. With climate impacts becoming more problematic and efforts to limit climate change falling further behind, we can’t afford to wait,” he said.
###
Backlinks: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/03/national-climate-assessment-advisory-committee/ https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/05/01/international-advisory-committee-meeting/ https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/12/14/national-climate-assessment-adaptation/
“Many of the ideas come from decision-makers, community-based organizations, and climate experts ….“
Well, it should be all right then. ( Do I need a /sarc ?)
When I read this part:
“We live in an era of climate change …”
May as well state, ‘we live in an era of going around the Sun’.
Beat me to it.
Super acronym
I A CACA
No wonder they didn’t use it
“We live in an era of breathing in air.”
“We live in an era of beating hearts.”
“We live in an era of bipedal locomotion.”
“We live in an era of stating the friggin’ obvious.”
Robert, rotfl!
@ctm, where’s the badly needed “like” button? Hint: here’s one for WordPress:
https://wordpress.org/plugins/likebtn-like-button/
“climate change” will soon be changed to “climate upheaval”, sounds more alarming. And, “climate change” has ALWAYS been.! DUH!
What did happen to “Climate Cancer” ?
…and erosion is happening now!
Erosion of misplaced confidence would be nice. Not that I consider humility a likelihood in those charged with drama.
You’d think critics would tire of this joke.
“Climate change” is often used as shorthand for “modern significant anthropogenic climate change” because the latter is a mouthful. I think everyone is aware that many vocal critics of science protest this shorthand and (apparently) argue that only the long form should be used. Perhaps people have other things to do though.
Evidence from the recent past shows that CO2 has risen much faster and much higher in the atmosphere than anything seen in millions of years. It also shows that sea level and temperature have accelerated significantly relative to what we see in the past 10,000 years during which human civilization grew up. (I’m aware there are many web sources like this one disputing the different kinds of observational evidence on the topic of climate. “Global fraud” theories may be true, but putting those aside pending evidence, this is what observations show, which is consistent with what understanding of mainstream physics and conservation of energy predicts.)
I’m not sure exactly what “observations” you are speaking of. When NASA puts out a map showing the continental US and Siberia having some of the highest concentrations of CO2 around the globe and then new research shows that much of the continental US and Siberia are also “global warming holes” it strains credulity to believe in “anthropogenic climate change” caused by CO2 in the atmosphere.
“new research shows that much of the continental US and Siberia are also “global warming holes””
The continental US is warming.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
Geoff: “The continental US is warming.”
Not according to these studies.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/02/the-mysterious-global-warming-hole/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040922072638.htm
Global warming averages lie. They tell you nothing about what is actually happening. The second site listed above is based on averaging *maximum* temperatures. If maximum temperatures are not going up then how can the area be “warming”? There *is* an answer. Go look up “cooling-days”. ‘ll leave it to you to figure it out.
As a hint figure the “average” of these data sets.
3,4,5
4,4,5
2,3,8
Geoff- do a little research. Sea level rose about 120 meters in 9000 years(7000 years ago). That works out to about 15mm/year everywhere on the globe. Most recent reliable measures put the rate of sealevel rise at 1.5mm/year, 1/10th as much. The most reliable measures don’t show any acceleration, given the large range of reported sea level rise of -17.6 to + 9.4mm/year.
Since humanity grew up in the last 7000 years the rise has been about 8-10 meters- 1.5mm/year since the end of the surge of melting from the glaciers tapered off.
Using unadjusted reported daily average temperatures there has been no acceleration of temperature change in over 100 years. There are plenty of peaks, valleys, and geographic variation, but at least in North America the temperatures from the 1930’s have not been exceeded. To find warming you must use “temperatures” that have been adjusted and/or homegenized for many different reasons.
The science reported in the various IPCC’s summary for policy makers all show increasing(slightly) rates of temperature change that more or less match the projected equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.5-4°C. As a result the projected temperatures from IPCC models are several °C above actual measurements.
1.7°C temperature change is ~1 century is pretty mild climate change.
Thanks for the reply Philo.
“Sea level rose about 120 meters in 9000 years”
I wrote “It also shows that sea level and temperature have accelerated significantly relative to what we see in the past 10,000 years during which human civilization grew up” – my point was about acceleration/change, i.e. the major acceleration that has happened in the past couple of hundred years as humans industrialized, relative to the smoother flattening out (slowing) of sea level we see coming out of the massive ice age deglaciation (according to the reconstructions we have).
Per IPCC, “Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence)”
You are speaking of rate itself – yes if you go back to the early part of the time period I stated (only, I think), say 10K thru say 7K years ago (presumably you went back further to include the fastest periods of ice melt like meltwater pulse 1A) it appears there was still steeper sea level rise, slowing down over time as the Holocene peaked and started the apparent slow overall cooling before the sharp modern warming spike.
I’m not sure your reference here about previous sea level is reassuring, exactly. Sea level rise continues to accelerate per multiple measurement methods including satellite altimetry (see below). At the steepest post ice age rates (MWP-1A) it was melting as fast as *5* cm/year, or as much as a meter every 20 years or so, for a couple of centuries. How you imagine that to be reassuring seems a trick. Hopefully the fact that there is less ice to melt now will slow the rate, though there is still enough for 60+ meters and the global energy imbalance happening now may be stronger(?)
“Most recent reliable measures put the rate of sealevel rise at 1.5mm/year … most reliable measures don’t show any acceleration”
Your use of “reliable” seems a bit of a tell. As I said, I am aware observational data is bitterly disputed/frequently rejected, I acknowledged that in my comment. I’m sure you and bloggers have some explanation why you think smaller estimates somewhere are more reliable and that you are a better judge of this than scientific experts (and that the hyper-partisan messages that attend such sober assessments of “reliable evidence” are purely coincidence.)
But just going by the data we have such that scientists and the IPCC reference, such as satellite altimetry:
“It is very likely that the mean rate of sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010. Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1” – IPCC
Chen et al 2017, “The increasing rate of global mean sea-level rise during 1993–2014”
“Global mean sea level (GMSL) has been rising at a faster rate during the satellite altimetry period (1993–2014) than previous decades… The mass contributions to GMSL increase from about 50% in 1993 to 70% in 2014 with the largest, and statistically significant, increase coming from the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet, which is less than 5% of the GMSL rate during 1993 but more than 25% during 2014”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3325
Dieng et al 2017, “New estimate of the current rate of sea level rise from a sea level budget approach”
“An important increase of the GMSL rate, of 0.8 mm/yr, is found during the second half of the altimetry era (2004–2015) compared to the 1993–2004 time span, mostly due to Greenland mass loss increase and also to slight increase of all other components of the budget.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/2017GL073308/abstract
Hay et al 2015, “Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise”
“Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals, also indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010, consistent with prior estimates from tide gauge records4.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093
Dangendorf et al 2017, “Reassessment of 20th century global mean sea level rise”
“Here we introduce an approach that combines recent advances in solid Earth and geoid corrections for individual tide gauges with improved knowledge about their geographical representation of ocean internal variability. Our assessment yields smaller trends before 1990 than previously reported, leading to a larger overall acceleration;”
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/5946.abstract
I won’t dissect all of your comments to the same degree. There are other clearly factually incorrect statements though…
“As a result the projected temperatures from IPCC models are several °C above actual measurements.”
There are no “IPCC models”, presumably you mean CMIP5. Actual IPCC summary:
“Over the 62-year period 1951–2012, observed and CMIP5 ensemble-mean trends agree to within 0.02°C per decade (Box 9.2 Figure 1c; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.13°C per decade). There is hence very high confidence that the CMIP5 models show long-term GMST trends consistent with observations”
“1.7°C temperature change is ~1 century is pretty mild climate change”
Meaningless subjectivity – current warming is sufficient to induce escalating die-off of coral reefs, about half the coral in the 1,800 mile Great Barrier Reef in ~12 months.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/03/05/guest-post-on-coral-alarmism/
Hopefully some of this is helpful relative to your exhortation to “do a little research”.
Cheers.
The first key words that struck me sour were … “science” … and … “tribal settings”. What is meant by “science” is JUNK science, THEIR science, Computer model “science”, statistical manipulation “science”. Their “science” isn’t science. And “tribal settings”? What other national (meaning impacting every American’s life) Policy is governed by “tribal settings”. How utterly PC and politically triangulated. Ohhhh the “Tribal People’s” knew how to live with nature, live with climate change, live in the dirt … so let’s consult and USE the “tribes”. Just like some aged tribal “elder” banging a drum in some white kids face, eh? Oh, oh, oh … and the “tribes” have been sooooo useful in protesting oil pipelines. Proving to be very useful idiots.
This report is rubbish. Junk. It should be taken out with the rest of the trash that is called “climate change”.
No, the article says experts were included from “tribal settings”, to “to provide guidance to state, local, and tribal governments on how to use the NCA and other sources of science to get things done in their communities”. In other words, consulting tribal experts about resources that would be useful to local tribes. There is nothing about tribal experts setting policy “for every American’s life”. “Just like some aged tribal “elder” banging a drum in some white kids face, eh?”… You seem to be reading from a (sorry, not sure of other words to use) paranoid and hostile perspective?
I suppose it would not be PC to suggest that many tribes could start by picking up all the trash and litter thrown around and near the reservations?
One knows when one is getting closer to the Res as the litter on the highway steadily increases the closer one gets.
Sorry, but it’s true.
Yes, environwackadoddles are paranoid and hostile, and their religion is sh*thouse rat crazy. Humans are not causing climate to change, humans can not stop climate from changing, it changes constantly and always has. Telling lies to steal people’s money is still just lying and stealing.
no, you need smart quotes . . . .
Daniel Zarrilli, New York City Chief climate policy adviser: “We live in an era of climate change…”. Next thing you know he will go far out and declare the sun will come up in the east tomorrow. The world seems to be full of these nonsense committees, groups, alliances, and organizations, or is it just the enhanced digital communication that shines the light on them?
Such organizations provide employment for otherwise unemployable middle-and upper-class wasters.
uh huh like the climate committee? in aus that flimflam was in, they got shurdown by govvy so just went n begged funds and kept going as if they were credible, and abc keeps giving them airtime
That’s cause the ABC drinks the Klimate Koolaid
“Integrating climate science into everyday decisions is not just smart planning, it’s an urgent necessity” says Daniel Zarrilli. Well yes, if we knew with certainty the exact timing (even just to the nearest decade) of the expected changes, it would indeed be smart planning. But the point is that we don’t know – and that we can’t know. A city council cannot do any urgent planning, let alone any planning at all. I think we (and City Councils) should just leave it all to the insurance market. Pay the premiums required, by all means – but do absolutely nothing else.
Bit like airports in the UK that got rid of or didn’t replace old snow clearing equiptment only to find snow wasn’t “a thing of the past” and they could’nt clear runways. Oops!
James Bull
“Integrating climate science into everyday decisions”
Would that be things like wearing coats in the winter, and short sleeves in the summer?
With knowledge and insight like that you could earn a fortune giving advice to the climatically challenged.
James Bull
Dunno about fortune, but imparting the knowledge and insight has put bread on the table for me and others for years. Decades. Some listen, act accordingly, and acknowledge the advice. Others don’t and blame climate change.
If “integrating climate science” were changed to “integrating climate preparedness” it would be smart. People living in Las Vegas benefit from urban planning that accommodates flash floods, folks in Florida need smart planning that defends against hurricane damage and flooding from coastal subsidence, and up in Canada we need planning that addresses the ice and snow that create hazards every year. Every climatic region has its special challenges; they’re not getting worse, but they keep occurring. Climate “science” has nothing to do with smart planning, but engineering and hazard-aware urban planning surely do.
Excellent. That means that any regulations imposed by eco-loonies can be avoided by moving somewhere else. I hope this happens everywhere, but I guess it never will.
I love the last link. There’s a wonderful photo of the panel, and one of them standing and talking, and a while load of entire empty chairs!
A perfect demonstration of their reception.
Zig, note,they are all old white liberals. They also invented ‘diversity’ and the name of all the new genders. Climate science itself is a whitey enterprise as are all the billionaire elites and planners for a Eurocentric Global gov. The protesters on call are all white overweight ladies. WUWT?
This is the equivalent of academics adding “more research needed” at the end of every paper. What they mean is “more of your money needed”. The most important words here are “attract” and “funding”.
Whack-A-
MoleRATThat would work well even without the
strikethroughFeather-bedding rent seeking tax eating predators strip mining the fruits of your labor. Maybe that’s to long. Have been following the SNC-Lavalin scandal in Canada way to closely but it’s a been a pretty good political show. Interesting simultaneous outbreak of underlying stupidity by the opposing players. Jody Wilson-Raybould and Justin Trudeau both complaining that the scandal distracts from action on climate change. We can hope for mutually assured destruction leading into the next election.
The best possible outcome is a total paralysis on “climate action”. Climate action is code for “crazy plans that do nothing but sound good in principle if the real problem is a high climate sensitivity to CO2”.
The witches of German had nothing on the current crop of cauldron-stirrers in Ottawa. They are chanting and claiming to be able to control the weather, to start, halt or direct storms and lightning, all the time stirring an enormous cauldron filled with… taxes! That’s right! They are now in possession of buckets and buckets of carbon tax money with which they intend cook up a storm.
Eye of newt and wing of bat – all that was invalidated years ago. To control the climate you need huge pots of money stirred and doled out to the “right people” who truly believe. Belief is very important. That is what conjectures are for.
Conjecture+dogmatism+faith = money and a glowing image.
How to bring that nonsense to a shuddering halt? Keep them busy for months claiming the moral high ground while delivering sermons on who is more ethical than whom.
JWR should form a new party composed only of people who believe the rule of law comes before all personal advantage. She would be PM in a month. Maybe Diogenes can help.
“Jody Wilson-Raybould and Justin Trudeau both complaining that the scandal distracts from action on climate change. ”
If the scandal distracts from their action on climate change, that just goes to show that to every cloud, there is a silver lining. Canada got a break there. Good luck on ridding yourselves of JT.
Is there any actual climate science data in this report released? I couldn’t have made article any more vague even if I was being paid a lot of money for it. Or is that the point? Bottom line seems to be correct though is that it really is a bit vague – ‘a murky science’ as John Christy was said.
Speaking of whom – his data does show warming so what was with the title – Scientists who rejects warming……’
All you can hope for these days with the media mob climate wars is to get people to understand that the climate has always changed and the rest really is very murky stuff – from glacial to interglacial and what’s happening now is anybody’s guess- may as well not admit it while there’s money to be away for free!!! so many people kidding themselves that they know it all – understanding of climate is in its infancy – actually no it hasn’t even reached the zygote stage yet.
How often do they use “we are falling behind” all around the world to create false urgency? Who or what are we falling behind? Is it a person, a country , a UN schedule what? where is this ideal model , that has widely deployable global solutions, that we all lag? Please, I need to know.
It’s formerly known as UN Agenda 21 (Now Agenda 2030), available on the UN website. It is propagated globally and implemented locally. Every municipal and ‘tribal’ government will create a Local Agenda 21, usually under the pseudonym ‘Sustainable Development’ embedded in an OCP. (Official Community Plan).
The means whereby your Local Agenda 21(LA21) is propagated is via a UN NGO known as ICLEI which provides assistance, training, templates (ie. which bylaws to we need to force through to become ‘sustainable’. The planners in your local government get the municipality to join ICLEI, send in the fees and then the pre-canned templates and instructions on how to implement and combat resistance to same are provided by ICLEI to them. They ‘localize’ it so it looks like it all was just thought up locally.
Go online to your municipal government website Yarpos and it will be there as ‘Sustainable Development’ with the 3 pillars — Environmental, Social, Economic which are always code for Agenda 21.
G**GLE it. “UN Agenda 21” …or… “UN Sustainable Development Goals”.
Better yet, and ESPECIALLY if you think this is all tinfoil hat stuff, just G**gle ICLEI.
You’ll get the picture as to where all this is coming from.
Human nature to be be behind , last time I thought I was caught up, my wife left me.
A few thoughts on adaptation:
1. If you think hurricanes will blow your house down, start again, have a full sized cellar and a single storey home. Northern Scotland has road tested single-storey homes in an area where 90mph Westerly storms occur every single year. They do not get blown away. Fact.
2. If you think both hurricanes AND flooding will destroy your home, you might like to ask why you built it there in the first place. You put the home on stilts, the hurricane will blow it away. You build a single storey with cellar, flooding will completely destroy it. Your current site is suitable solely for mobile homes, tents and teepees.
3. If you build your home in a forest fire region, probably best to use stone or cob, not wood. Not sure what you would use for doors, but not wood. All in all, a risky undertaking all round.
4. The Missouri and Mississippi rivers flood. Historical fact. If you must live on the flood plain, try keeping your grain stores ten feet above river flood levels, try building your farmhouse on stilts and stress test the design to cope with floodwaters applying unidirectional forces on the stilts. Oh, and hope you do not get any hurricanes coming your way…
5. Politicians care about themselves. The ark is for politicians, not you guys. But the submarines to survive nuclear war are only for the billionaires.
6. Just remember, climate will change, even if politicians do not know how and are suggesting a game of poker. Two years ago, California was in drought, now Nebraska is flooding. THIS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE, HONEST! No floods in 1990s, 1970s, 1950s and certainly never in the nineteenth century. All those Wiki entries are LYING CRAP!
7. In general, average Sierra snow fall has been higher since 2000 than in the 1970s, although five years of low snowfall produced a drought. But you pesky Californians did not build a wall so too many of you want too much water nowadays. GO AWAY TO OREGON AND TEXAS STRAIGHT AWAY! ESPECIALLY THOSE LONG-TERM RESIDENTS WHO ONLY SPEAK ENGLISH!!
8. Great Lakes Ice is a DANGEROUS NEW PHENOMENON. Hudsons Bay Traders never came across ice, 19th century Chicago residents went skinny dipping in March!! Michael Mann said so once, so I have heard, so it must be true. Even if he were riproaring drunk on Memorial Day weekend when he said it….if he said it….because I heard it getting drunk down the bar too…..
9. The Jet Stream is a MAN-MADE PHENOMENON, so if it goes wavy on us, that is HUMAN-INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE. No question….it is man-made because until we humans discovered it, it did not exist….just like America did not exist before Columbus made it safely across the Atlantic…
10. Your politicians know more about climate change than any damned engineer who studied thermodynamics. Climate Science is about rhetoric, not data……never forget that.
You may have noticed mutually incompatible pieces of advice here. Well that is politics for you, so get with the program….
Yup. We have houses on stilts here in Queensland. In fact, they are caked Queenslanders for that reason. And by the way, cyclones don’t rip them up, they just blow under and around them. Flooding, no worries, get a dinghy. Fires? Just cut down everything near your house.
I’m in a high risk area all around. My host was built sensibly, though. One storey, bottom of a hill (so fire will go away and up) drained (so downpours won’t flood it) and above any waterway (so it won’t flood from rising rivers). It’s not complicated imo.
Almost every house on Hatteras Island, North Carolina, is on stilts. Been that way forever. We call them “beach houses.” They’ve survived many a hurricane.
If the blurb on the leading photograph is to be believed. this “putting houses on pilings” is a CITY initiative. So, why are they spending local taxes on individual houses, rather than increasing the height of the sea-wall? There IS a sea-wall around this low-lying area, isn’t there?
Actually, no. The very people who pretend to be alarmed by climate change went to court to block building seawalls, and they are trying to remove the barriers that do exist. Interfere with nature, don’t ya know!?!?!
“How Can We Use the National Climate Assessment to Prepare for Climate Change?”
–> How Can We Use the National Climate Assessment to get more money?”
Fixed.
Its a sort of Broken Window feedback loop they’ve created innit?
Basically, Government employed Climate Scientists rage around the ‘field’, here there & everywhere and no matter what they find, where they find it, Climate Change means that it’s broken.
Or will be soon. Or later. Maybe already is broken.
They are effectively raging around everywhere ‘breaking windows’
(if that’s not mental dysfunctionality, someone please tell me what it is. Needn’t bother breaking Windows 10, already = trainwreck)
No matter, a whole tribe of well intentioned souls, again on the Government payroll, will pop up to inform, steer, guide, tell, force, cajole & tax everyone else about how to fix all these broken things.
And every time, The Tax Collector gets to take a slice of the financial action. (= considerable for Government Work)
Just like insurance companies always taking a slice off incoming premiums then another slice off any/all outgoing claim payments.
What Climate Scientists are doing is akin to insurance companies sending out teams of ‘workers’ to cut brake pipes, set fire to things (ooooh, hello California and ain’t I just a beeee-atch) ) and cause any other train, plane and car wrecks they fancy laying waste to.
When it comes to Climate, absolutely NOTHING is safe from their endeavours
This in the safe and secure knowledge that their employer (hence they themselves) will be financially enhanced – both from arranging the repairs and from increasing future premiums
Extra safe also in that their employer is The Government, chock full of Good Intention and thus makes them eternally safe & Immune from prosecution for whatever all havoc they create. Hello M. Mann, Gleick not least.
Nice work if you can get it….
Its what Eisenhower talked about in his ‘leaving speech’ wasn’t it?
…. meets Mencken and his gobbgoblins
In a swamp
When they expend vital funding to prove some normality is actually broken (normal = broken) the Yahoo’s are truly in power
Woe is a world ruled by Yahoo’s and Google’s
I could have written a better report in two sentences!
“City planners: don’t allow building in flood plains.”
.. that includes the 100-year, 250-year and 500-year flood plains
Common sense is not as common as you think it is Tim
“Framework for translating science into local action”
No, hell NO !
Framework for transferring social money to private accounts.
I kindly invite you to watch this movie. Sorry, German language. It’s all about the construction & operation of an “offshore hotel” for those involved in North Sea windmills. The top of living quarters alone costs 100 Millions Euros to produce.
https://youtu.be/4YYiUXrPVIA
Countless companies & subcontractors pull pure gold from this mine. Anyone involved in offshore business knows the price lists.
Would someone with even marginal engineering knowledge accept this as a viable solution for reliable & affordable energy production ? No, hell NO.
However it happens, right now. A blatant display of organized corruption at all levels. What climate action is all about.
Do we really need a federal panel to tell us when to put on or take off a jacket? I know leftists are helpless, but that’s a feature, not a bug.
It’s part of their umbrella policy.
Who doesn’t?
More to the point, however, how does a climate policy advisor spend his days? How do these people get connected to such jobs?
They are free ones that AOC will provide as a living wage under the GND.
So, the same liars and spewing the same lies. Why is anyone supposed to be surprised?
It’s good to see a “climate panel” that will develop strategies to deal with a cooling planet. I think everyone can agree that this is what’s needed right now.
‘We want to get started right away. With climate impacts becoming more problematic…..’
Name a single climate impact. The only impacts I know of are the costs and lost jobs due to climate change policies.
“As climate change proceeds, businesses and communities are wondering how to adapt and prepare. However, they’re finding it’s not always easy to translate broad-scale climate science into local solutions, or even to figure out which data to rely on and how to apply it.”
I guess I need to start up a climate change consulting business. It looks like the world needs my help.
Telephone rings.
TA: “Hello, Reality Climate Change Consulting, how can I help you?”
BusinessPerson/Politician: “I am looking for information on what I can do to prepare as climate change proceeds.”
TA: “There’s no need to worry. Just keep on doing what you are doing now and everything will work out just fine for you and the rest of the world. That will be $10,000 please.”
“Science to Climate Action Network (SCAN)”
I’m trying to think of a word beginning with an “m” that would replace “network” and turn this into a (SCAM). I’m drawing a blank for some reason. 🙂
Thesaurus.com offers ‘maze’ and ‘mesh’. These happily give you “SCAM”.
You might also like to try “Multi-Plexus” and brings to mind “SCAMP”.
“Science to Climate Action Multi- Plexus” sounds good, and means as little as the bunch of nuts promoting SCAN.
Problem solved, Tom.
Committee of Climate Pigs recommends funding for bigger trough.
Same deal in Oz when the Coalition Govt cracked down on jobs for the boys and girls and they slithered off elsewhere-
“We live in a world with all kinds of passionate, innovative individuals – working tirelessly to improve our planet, and the lives of those in it. But to make sure the world meets the needs of future generations, we need to act today. To bring the thinkers and doers together with a platform to collaborate, to educate, to take action – and to make a real difference.”
“Monash Sustainable Development Institute is that platform.”
https://www.monash.edu/sustainable-development
They have all the right feelgood buzz words and then you go to the Staff Directory for the usual.
So… this group would give guidance to a city like Miami to prepare for hurricanes? And maybe to towns that are along the Mississippi, they would tell them to prepare for possible floods? I’ll bet that a town close to Death Valley can’t wait to hear what insights someone else may offer.
The Independent Advisory Committee on Applied Climate Assessment?
“Sinecure” is much more descriptive.
US Government tried this 4 decades ago along with the (then minor) invasion of the whirlybirds. It was called “Technology Transfer.” Problem was that they didn’t have proper technology to transfer, just wanted control, same as judges making law, umpires changing rules, scientists making policy. Nowadays competence seems inversely correlated with the length of your title. In psychology it’s called something like displacement activity, common human trait when you don’t know what to do.
“… a house in New York City’s Breezy Point neighborhood… was battered by Hurricane Sandy”
A house at Breezy Point was damaged in a hurricane? How could have anybody have seen that coming?
That reminds me of the 2013 climate-change blindsiding in Alberta’s town of High River, when homes built on the flood plain were…
In other words they are struggling to find something caused by global warming that actually needs immediate fixing. There’s nothing worse than having a solution but no problem.
Activists = people with nothing to do believing they are making a change for the better. All you need to do is seed their brains with any idea that gives them moral authority and they’re off and running. They’re always right and anyone that questions them is wrong. Useful idiots.
Notwithstanding the probable waste of money in raising these houses in response to predicted Climate Change, at least they are tackling the supposed risks locally. Much better than imposing carbon taxes on everyone in the country.
Sounds like religious zealots are flushing scarce college funds down the drain.
They feed you with Climate Change Virtue Credits (CCVC). You feed them with dollars ($$$). All that matters is the exchange rate and daily volume. Additional words unnecessary, it’s all just numbers.
“…Here, a house in New York City’s Breezy Point neighborhood, which was battered by Hurricane Sandy, is being raised out of harm’s way as part of a city initiative…”
So it won’t be battered if a repeat of Sandy takes place?
The fact that they somehow amazingly found the money to continue work after being disbanded tells you that they should never have been funded by the government in the first place.