Call to action: become an author/tech input for the next National Climate Assessment

The deadline for “self-nomination” as an author for the 5th U.S. National Climate Assessment (“NCA5”) is 8:59 PM PST, Saturday, Nov. 14, 2020. So time is short. 

Here’s the notice:

https://www.globalchange.gov/content/request-public-nominations-authors-and-scientifictechnical-inputs-and-notice-planned-public

This will be loaded to the gills with climate alarmists, so some cooler heads will be welcome – Anthony

9 thoughts on “Call to action: become an author/tech input for the next National Climate Assessment

  1. Anthony: I object to your use of the phrase ” loaded to the gills with climate alarmists”. I would prefer it if you could use something instead like: “I imagine that many of the contributors will be the kind of people who get their exercise jumping to (the wrong) conclusions”.

  2. I have posted before about the corruption in Sigma Xi, National Honor Research Society. Won’t go into details such as joining AAAS about fighting climate change, but as I hoped membership is waking up some. The Sigma Xi Executive Director/CEO Jamie Vernon just produced a letter about the new administration –“It’s Time to Restore Scientific Integrity” mainly bashing Trump about various including his virus failure which showed a serious lack of homework. https://www.sigmaxi.org/news/keyed-in/post/keyed-in/2020/11/11/sigma-xi-speaks-it-s-time-to-restore-scientific-integrity

    As of this writing he has two comments with considerable pushback. The first ends with “By making this all about Trump, you have missed a massive portion of the problem. Many of my colleagues have stopped donating to their universities because they are appalled at what is happening to science and engineering departments.” The fiery latter states “Will we see a return of the auto-da-fe, applied to scientists and physicians who dissent – for good reasons – against such error-filled concepts such as the CO2 theory of global warming, or the Covid19 hysteria and public lying about it, or who recommend hydrochloroquine for off-lable use, as with corona-virus issues? Maybe just firing them will be sufficient? ” and ended with “Your letter is a call for scientism to “root out the infidels” who dare to speak truth to power. The best thing you could do to restore scientific integrity, Mr. Vernon, is to fire every administrator in SX who agreed with what you just wrote, and then resign. While consensus voting never determines truth or fact, a more free-wheeling permissive approach is needed in the sciences, to allow anti-consensus new ideas to grow and thrive, without being strangled in the crib.”

    All of this had been preceded by a number of political type policy letters from Sigma Xi whose officers clearly do not understand the science they promote. I know a lot about marine science corruption and would do it if younger, wouldn’t get picked anyway.

  3. I nominate Ghalfrunt. Ghalfrunt told people to drink bleach…natural fit for a known liar.

    Maybe I took the Ghalfrunt’s words out of context 🤔

  4. After decades of publish or perish and the struggle for a tenure dependent on grants, the ethics rot and rent seeking is deeply ingrained in the membership of science academies. But they need a membership collapse to find a re-birth after a leadership replacement.
    Not sure how the situation can correct itself with politicized science rampant and the politcaly-oriented grant process that enables career success dependent on being part of the consensus, even when it is wrong. But somehow it must happen.

    The only conceivable path back to integrity must come from an utter collapse/failure of consensus climate science. Nature is going to have to demonstrate a prolonged harsh cooling period that leads to AGW paradigm collapse. But that would be a harsh teacher as the world is little prepared for such a famine-inducing cold calamity after decades of warnings of warming and destruction of reliable energy supplies.

  5. It’s a dead duck. You might as well put what you write straight into the trash can. The assessment process for inclusion will do it for you if not; particularly if you raise a valid but inconvenient argument, question or challenge.

    • None less, when this goes to court, it will be on the record that they knew how conflicted and wrong the IPCC is and should have never relied on their assessments. I’ve done my part and sent them the conclusive evidence and analysis.

  6. Why doesn’t Anthony nominate himself? After all, he was so successful in getting his devastating analysis of global temperature data published.

  7. Will the assessment utilize scientific product that complies with OMB Quality Assurance requirements?
    In reading Patrick Franks article “CMIP6 Update” a paragraph that stuck me included these claims: “…. AGW consensus climate scientists ….. find no meaning in the critically central distinction between precision and accuracy. There can be no possible progress in science at all, when workers are not trained to critically evaluate the quality of their own data.”
    As a retired engineer I can generally understand the concept Franks discusses and it raised the question of what Quality Assurance requirements govern NOAA, NASA and USCGRP. Do they screen input and reporting to ensure it has gone through appropriate error analysis and the rigorous peer review processes outline by the OMB. If Patrick Franks assessment is correct, it appears that the output of climate models should be unusable by the 3 agencies.
    Certainly when you read about “Climategate” and how IPCC abuses the peer review system, McIntyre/McKitrick frustrations at challenging “Hockeystick” statistical methodology and many other peer review problems it is fairly obvious OMB requirements are ignored.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *