Scientists
rip new federal climate report as ‘tripe’ – ’embarrassing’ – ‘systematically
flawed’ – Key claim based on study funded by Steyer & Bloomberg.
It’s derived from a study funded by Tom Steyer et al. The 15 deg F temp increase is 2x most extreme value reported elsewhere in the report,” Pielke Jr. wrote. “Shouldn’t such an outlandish, outlier conclusion been caught in the review process?” Pielke Jr. added. “Not a good look that sole review editor for this chapter is an alum of the Center for American Progress … which is funded by Tom Steyer. Even rudimentary attention to COI (conflict of interest) would avoided this,” he added.
It’s derived from a study funded by Tom Steyer et al. The 15 deg F temp increase is 2x most extreme value reported elsewhere in the report,” Pielke Jr. wrote. “Shouldn’t such an outlandish, outlier conclusion been caught in the review process?” Pielke Jr. added. “Not a good look that sole review editor for this chapter is an alum of the Center for American Progress … which is funded by Tom Steyer. Even rudimentary attention to COI (conflict of interest) would avoided this,” he added.
However, that claim is based on research funded by groups founded by Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg. The Bloomberg-Steyer-funded study found future temperature rise could cost “roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per [additional one degree Celsius increase] on average.” At the most extreme high-end, that could add up to 10 percent of GDP by 2100.
Climate
expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: The claim of economic damage from climate change
is based on a 15 degree F temp increase that is double the "most
extreme value reported elsewhere in the report." The "sole
editor" of this claim in the report was an alumni of the Center
for American Progress, which is also funded by Tom Styer."
Climate
analyst Paul Homewood: ‘Cherry picks’ a few bad weather events…extrapolates
using the most scary scenarios’
Climatologist
Dr. Pat Michaels on the report: ‘Systematically flawed’ – Report ‘should be
shelved’
Trump
v. Trump?!: Dr. Ken Haapala: 'The global warming chorus immediately seized on
the new USGCRP report claiming the
Trump administration is contradicting President Trump’s claims about global
warming. Amusingly, some of the chorus interviewed people who worked on the
USGCRP, who were political appointees under the Obama Administration.'
Greenpeace
co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: "The science must be addressed head-on. If
POTUS has his reasons for letting this Obama-era committee continue to peddle
tripe I wish he would tell us what they are."
Dr.
John Dunn: "Two years into the Trump administration it is sad to see this
400-page pile of crap."
Climate
Depot's Morano: "It is a political report masquerading as science. The
media is hyping a rehash of frightening climate change claims by Obama
administration holdover activist government scientists. The new report is once
again pre-determined science.
The
National Climate Assessment report reads like a press release from
environmental pressure groups because it is!
Two key authors are longtime Union of Concerned Scientist
activists, Donald Wuebbles and Katharine
Hayhoe.
The
new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide To
Climate Change: MIT climate scientist Richard
Lindzen wrote of the National Academy of Sciences: "Regardless of evidence
the answer is predetermined. If the government wants carbon control,
that is the answer that the Academies will provide."
Climate
Depot Special Report
The new federal climate report,
the 4th National Climate Assessment,
released on Black Friday, is being hyped by climate activists and the media.
See: CBS News: ‘Mass deaths and mayhem: National Climate Assessment’s most
shocking warnings’ –
& Nothing new in administration climate
change report &
The report is under fire for its scientific claims:
But major scientific flaws were
immediately discovered in this new federal climate report. Climate experts call
out new federal report for hiding the decline in hurricanes – ‘Were
they thinking, no one would notice?’
Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore
ripped the new federal climate report: “The science must be addressed head-on.
If POTUS has his reasons for letting this Obama-era committee continue to
peddle tripe I wish he would tell us what they are,” Moore told Climate Depot.
“This new federal climate report even
flies in the face of the UNIPCC admission that there is no evidence of a
connection between AGW (anthropogenic global warming) and extreme weather.
[Lead author] Ms. [Katharine] Hayhoe reigns supreme. Very worrying,” Moore
added.
The National Climate Assessment report
is reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, is basing one of its
headline scare scenario on a study funded by climate activist
billionaire Tom Steyer. Climate expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. noted on
November 24 that the claim of economic damage from climate change is based on a
15 degree F temperature increase that is double the “most extreme value
reported elsewhere in the report.” The “sole editor” of this claim in the
report was an alumni of the Center for American Progress, which is also
funded by Tom Styer.”
Pielke Jr. wrote:
“Here’s source of the top line conclusion of US National Climate Assessment,
10% damage to US GDP
More here: HEADLINE CLAIM IN FED CLIMATE REPORT
RELIES ON RESEARCH TIED TO MAJOR DEMOCRATIC DONORS – A top-line claim in the latest
U.S. government climate report is based on research funded by groups tied to
Democratic donors. The new National Climate Assessment claims the U.S. economy
could take a 10 percent hit from global warming. However, that claim is based
on research funded by groups founded by Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg.
Dr. Pielke has rebuked this new federal
climate report, calling it “embarrassing.” See: ‘EMBARRASSING’: CLIMATE EXPERT
EXPLAINS WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE WHITE HOUSE’S NEW CLIMATE REPORT – Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: “By
presenting cherrypicked science, at odds w/ NCA Vol,1 & IPCC AR5, the
authors of NCA Vol.2 have given a big fat gift
to anyone who wants to dismiss climate science and policy,” Pielke Jr.
wrote in a tweet Friday shortly after the White House released the report. “Embarrassing.”
Dr. John Dunn lamented
that he was disappointed that President Trump has not halted these federal
reports written to promote climate fears. “Two years into the Trump
administration it is sad to see this 400-page pile of crap,” Dunn told Climate
Depot.
As Climate Depot has previously reported:“This is pre-determined science. If you are reading this
report and you say: ‘This sounds like a press release by environmental groups’
— that’s because it is! The lead authors are activists with environmental group
Union of Concerned Scientists.”
“The government is paying our National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to come up with alarming report with a bunch of scary
climate computer models. (NAS is almost entirely dependent on federal funding).
The lead authors of this report Donald Wuebbles and
Katharine Hayhoe, have come out and said every storm is now impacted by global
warming. It is a political report masquerading as science. We knew what it was
going to say before it was issued. The media is hyping a rehash of
frightening climate change claims by Obama administration
holdover activist government scientists. The new report is once again
pre-determined science.
The 2017 National Climate Assessment
report reads like a press release from environmental pressure groups — because
it is!
Two key authors are longtime Union of
Concerned Scientist activists, Donald
Wuebbles and Katharine Hayhoe.
Wuebbles is on record as believing global warming has powers and abilities far
beyond those of any other phenomenon. “There’s really no such thing as natural
weather anymore,” Wuebbles said in 2011. “Anything that takes place today
in the weather system has been affected by the changes we’ve made to the
climate system,” he added.
Whoa! Wuebbles may as well claim that we
never had weather like this until those darn witches moved in the neighborhood!
If he is correct, then how does he explain that as CO2 has risen, extreme weather events have declined?
This National Climate Assessment is a
political report masquerading under the guise of a “science” report. The report
is designed to pressure the Trump administration to reverse course on repealing
Obama era climate regulations. Essentially the same climate scare report is
issued every four years and relentlessly hyped by the media.
“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” By Marc Morano: Book Excerpt: The National Academy of Sciences came under
fire for its lobbying when a $5.8 million NAS study was used to lobby for
a climate change cap-and trade bill in 2010.29 The Washington Times
reported that the federally funded NAS “report urges that a cap-and-trade
taxing system be implemented to reduce so-called greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.” The science group also urged passage of a carbon tax
that same year,30 completing its transformation to an advocacy
group. NAS is virtually 100 percent dependent on government funding.
According to the NAS website: “
About 85
percent of funding comes from the federal government through
contracts and grants from agencies and 15% from state governments,
private foundations, industrial organizations and funds provide by the
Academies member organizations.”
MIT climate
scientist Richard Lindzen harshly rebuked then-NAS president
Ralph Cicerone in his congressional testimony in November 2010.
“Cicerone [of NAS] is saying that regardless of evidence the
answer is predetermined. If government wants carbon control, that is
the answer that the Academies will provide,” Lindzen testitifed.
Science group rips new fed climate
report: ‘Based on speculation, not hard evidence’ – ‘Vague and unsubstantiated’ – Dr. Ken Haapala, President, Science and
Environmental Policy Project (SEPP): The Fourth National Climate Assessment
offers no hard evidence, just vague assertions and claims that past climate
change is no evidence about future climate change. It earns the distinction
that it does not meet the standards of the Information Quality Act, and each
page should be stamped: “Based on speculation, not hard evidence.” Much of the
latest USGCRP report is vague and unsubstantiated.
Trump v. Trump: The global warming
chorus immediately seized on the new USGCRP report claiming the Trump
administration is contradicting President Trump’s claims about global warming.
Amusingly, some of the chorus interviewed people who worked on the USGCRP, who
were political appointees under the Obama Administration. Part of the problem
stems from the disorganization of the Trump administration after his election.
The administration was not prepared.
The USGCRP created an illusory climate
using complex climate models without a physical basis. As such, the entire
1100-page report can be viewed as an assembly of prophecies that may or may not
occur in the next 25 to 100 years – no contradictory evidence needed.
Climate analyst on fed climate
report: ‘Cherry picks’ a few bad weather events…extrapolates using the most
scary scenarios’–
Climate analyst Paul Homewood: ‘This latest Federal Climate Report follows the
same pattern as previous ones. Cherry pick a few bad weather events, ignore all
of the bad weather which did not happen, and extrapolate the lot using the most
scary scenarios.’
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels on new
fed climate report: ‘Systematically flawed’ – Report ‘should be shelved’ – Dr. Pat Michaels: The NA4
(fourth “National Assessment) and the accompanying Climate Science Special
Report repeatedly state that models show anthropogenic emissions are
responsible for almost all 20th-century warming.
This is claimed despite the fact that of
the two twentieth-century warmings; the first one, approximately from 1910 to
1945, could hardly have been a result of carbon dioxide emissions. The
1910-1945 warming is statistically similar in slope to the 1976-1997 warming.
Going back to 2000, there have been
persistent problems throughout the entire assessment process, underscoring the
need for major administrative change. For these and other reasons, draft
NA4 should be shelved and reset, so that time and resources can be devoted to a
new Assessment that corrects and addresses the first three Assessments and the
draft NA4.
NA4 suffers from a fundamental
methodological flaw in assuming that models making large bulk errors are
representative of a range of future warming. Ubiquitous tuning of the models to
the 20th-century history hardly increases their reliability.
HEADLINE CLAIM IN FED CLIMATE REPORT
RELIES ON RESEARCH TIED TO MAJOR DEMOCRATIC DONORS – A top-line claim in the latest
U.S. government climate report is based on research funded by groups tied to
Democratic donors.
The new National Climate Assessment
claims the U.S. economy could take a 10 percent hit from global warming.
Pielke called the use of such an extreme
scenario “embarrassing” because it’s based on a future that’s 15 degrees
Fahrenheit warmer — in other words, twice what the United Nations’ most extreme
scenario projects.
Comic Relief at CBS News: ‘Mass
deaths and mayhem: National Climate Assessment’s most shocking warnings’ – CBS News on new federal climate
report: “One chart in the study predicts that by 2100, drivers in parts of the
country could spend more than 625 million hours a year in their vehicle,
delayed on roads flooded by high tides… More mental health problems – and
murders”
This
federal climate report is released every few years.
Below
is a compilation of comments about the 2017 National Climate Assessment.
Analysis: Federal Climate Report A
Deceptive…mix of half truths, exaggerations, omissions & outright lies’ – Paul Homewood: ‘This new
climate report is not an objective or an honest assessment of the state of the
climate, particularly in relation to the US. Instead, it is a highly
partisan and politicized report, designed to promote alarmism. There
has been much talk of the need for red and blue teams, to challenge lazy
consensus. It is now time for this to happen, so that this Report can be
constructively assessed and, where appropriate, criticized. One of the tasks of
a counter group should be to produce their own state of the climate
assessment. The climate mafia have had it their own way for far too long.’
Physicist Steven Koonin: ‘A Deceptive
New Report on Climate’ – The
report ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a
year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate
since 1993.
But it fails to mention that the rate
fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century. The
same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically
indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human
influences on the climate were much smaller.
The report thus misleads by
omission…This isn’t the only example of highlighting a recent trend but failing
to place it in complete historical context. The report’s executive summary
declares that U.S. heat waves have become more common since the mid-1960s,
although acknowledging the 1930s Dust Bowl as the peak period for extreme heat.
These deficiencies in the new climate report are typical of many others that
set the report’s tone.
Consider the different perception that
results from “sea level is rising no more rapidly than it did in 1940” instead
of “sea level rise has accelerated in recent decades,” or from “heat waves are
no more common now than they were in 1900” versus “heat waves have become more
frequent since 1960.” Both statements in each pair are true, but each alone
fails to tell the full story.
Flashback: ‘Pre-determined science’ Morano reacts to NYT’s ‘leaked’
federal climate doom report: ‘Political report masquerading as science’
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody
GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment