24/7 Newsfeed

Put Reason 24/7 on Your Site

RSS

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter and via RSS

Obama Turns to Climate Change in Search of Legacy-Building Exercise

The White House released a report on climate change today, the latest National Climate Assessment (NCA). The report warned that climate change "has moved firmly into the present" and that the evidence it is man-made "continues to strengthen," blaming longer, hotter summers and heavier rains, among other things, on climate change. "Americans are noticing changes all around them," the report claims.

This is the third NCA for the U.S., but the first to be posted online, something the White House called "a key deliverable of the Climate Action Plan launched by President Obama last June."

you can plan a pretty picnicNOAAThe assessment reviews "climate change impacts" for every region in the U.S.: the Northeast, for example, is reportedly getting more rain while the South is having water problems. The assessment claims "rising carbon dioxide levels increase yields of some crops" but stops short of listing that as a plus of climate change, insisting those benefits are being offset by "extreme events such as heat waves, droughts, and floods."

Climate change may be the last issue President Obama can use to build on his "legacy." In November, The Hill noted that save for the climate issue almost his entire second-term agenda had crumbled. Obama plans on trying to conscript television meteorologists to help push the climate change message.

In an op-ed declaring that the debate over climate change is over, a CNN anchor relays work done by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication:

The first group, "The Alarmed," is made up [of] 16% of the public. They believe climate change is an urgent problem but have no clear idea of how to fix it.

The second group (27%) is "The Concerned." They believe climate change is a problem but think it's more about polar bears and tiny islands than a problem that directly affects them.

The third group, "The Cautious" (23%), are people on the fence. They haven't made up their minds whether global warming is real or if it's a man-made problem.

The fourth group, "The Disengaged" (5%), doesn't know anything about climate change.

The fifth group, "The Doubtful" (12%), do not think climate change is man-made. They think it's natural and poses no long-term risk.

[Anthony] Leiserowitz [of the Yale Project] says it's the sixth group, "The Dismissives," that is the most problematic, even though it comprises just 15% of the public.

"They say it's a hoax, scientists are making up data, it's a U.N. conspiracy (or) Al Gore and his friends want to get rich." Leiserowitz goes on to say, "It's a really loud 15%. ... (It's a) pretty well-organized 15%."

Others pushing the idea that the “debate is over” would like to throw people who disagree in jail.

The Cato Institute, meanwhile, warns that the NCA skews toward pessimism and that that has negative consequences on regulations:

The bias in the National Climate Assessment (NCA) towards pessimism (which we have previously detailed here) has implications throughout the federal regulatory process because the NCA is cited (either directly or indirectly) as a primary source for the science of climate change for justifying federal regulation aimed towards mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Since the NCA gets it wrong, so does everyone else.

A good example of this can be found in how climate change is effecting the human response during heat waves.  The NCA foresees an increasing frequency and magnitude of heat waves leading to growing numbers of heat-related deaths. The leading science suggests just the opposite.

Just because those in power say they support the science and that the science supports them doesn’t make it so.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    But... but... but... hey, Roy Spencer is a christfag!

  • ||

    You have to admire the ingeniousness of it.

    Any time there is bad weather anywhere, they can blame it on "climate change" and say that it proves they were right.

    Also, the Keystone pipeline has ZERO chance of being approved while Obama is in office.

    One does not drum up alarmist fears about climate change if one does not intend to reject it.

  • Paul.||

    To wit:

    Seattle Times article shows a series of 'weather disasters' to bolster the reports veracity. Random pick:

    In this June 27, 2011 file photo, floodwaters from the Souris River surround homes near Minot State University in Minot, N.D. Global warming is rapidly turning America the beautiful into America the stormy, sneezy and dangerous, according to the National Climate Assessment report released Tuesday, May 6, 2014.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/p.....eport.html

    USGS history of flooding on Souris River:

    Year:

    1881 One of the largest historical floods to occur on the Souris River. The maximum stage thought to be about 26 feet(ft) or about 3 ft higher than the 1904 peak.

    Year:

    1904 April 20–Largest recorded flood on record; stage of 21.90 ft and discharge of 12,000 cubic feet per second (cfs).

    Year:

    2011 The highest peak stage for this year and the highest for USGS records was 24.37 feet on June 25. Discharge for this stage was 26,900 cubic feet per second. Only the flood of 1882 surpassed this stage record.

    http://nd.water.usgs.gov/centennial/srminot.html

    Because climate change!

  • Sevo||

    The Chron featured this on the front page with a photo of muddy water shot from a low angle suggesting it was flooding.
    You had to look; it was a file image from last year some time. Shades of Gore with random shots of glaciers calving!

  • Bruce Majors Libertarian4Mayor||

    If you watched the panelists yesterday on C-Span, as I did, they seemed to be middlebrow mediocrities with few impressive credentials. Some, like Bull Bennett, barely spoke grammatical English, though he had interesting piercings and a nice pony tail.

  • Dinerboy||

    And, of course, we're judging the history of the planet's weather on well under two centuries' recorded data.

  • kenezen||

    One interesting point most would agree with: "If there is Global Warming or changes in our atmospheric environment it is man made.
    Yet not one of these proponents will fight for or even suggest global rules restricting birth! After all it is the only sure way isn't it?
    Robert McNamara John Kennedy's defense secretary in the 60's later wrote that the greatest minds had stated 1 billion people was the limit on this Earth environmentally. He predicted famine war and pestilence as well as bad climate.

  • ||

    You have to admire the ingeniousness of it.

    Any time there is bad weather anywhere, they can blame it on "climate change" and say that it proves they were right.

    Also, the Keystone pipeline has ZERO chance of being approved while Obama is in office.

    One does not drum up alarmist fears about climate change if one does not intend to reject it.

  • Sevo||

    From the report:
    "Flooding alone may cost $325 billion by the year 2100 in one of the worst-case scenarios, with $130 billion of that in Florida, the report says."

    Note for starters, this is "one of the worst case scenarios", sorta like the FDR Dr. being flooded in NYC in 2004.
    Then note the cost and compare it to:
    "The Social Security program faces $9.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years, which is up $1 trillion from last year’s projection"
    Seems there are things which really need attention and others that, well, we can get to if ONE OF THE PREDICTIONS EVER COMES TRUE!

  • Dinerboy||

    How about the present value of that $325 billion? Knock a couple decimals off that number.

  • kmc212||

    Never let a crisis go to waste. Next up will be a massive anti-climate change spending bill. Climate "scientists" and Solyndra clean energy types will be licking their chops at the thought of the government funded windfall!

  • Charles Hurst Author||

    And why should we believe anything the White House has to say? He lied about a health care program telling people they could keep their insurance when they lost it. He creates a “war on women” when there isn’t one except in the minds of the professional victims guising as Progressives. He attacks business whenever he can.

    This is nothing but another attempt to take more control over the means of production in business which is the protocol of the Marxist sitting in the Oval office. These tactics are what Marxists do—create victim groups and create crisis and then step in with government control.

    Oh that’s right—the Progressive keeps telling me I don’t know what the definition of Marxism is. The definition isn’t trying to redistribute the wealth or having business run by government mandates. Marxism isn’t that at all. ACA and one man paying for another isn’t a Marxist concept at all. Nothing what Barry has done for the past few years represents Marxism. Where do I get all of that I wonder?
    As I have predicted in my own writings we are coming to collapse and tyranny in this country. You don’t have to believe me. Trying reading the tactics of other tyrannical nations. You’ll find they started with the same measures and strategy.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE

  • ||

    The first group, "The Alarmed," is made up [of] 16% of the public. They believe climate change is an urgent problem but have no clear idea of how to fix it.

    The second group (27%) is "The Concerned." They believe climate change is a problem but think it's more about polar bears and tiny islands than a problem that directly affects them.

    I propose that these people who have neither understanding of the science nor means of producing solutions be reclassified as 'The Useful Idiots'.

  • Sevo||

    "The first group, "The Alarmed," is made up [of] 16% of the public. They believe climate change is an urgent problem but have no clear idea of how to fix it."

    I doubt this is true. I think these people know the proposed "fix"; it's reverting to a pre-carbon-energy existence.
    I'm sure than some romanticize being Ugh and Ghu, scraping lichen off of rocks for dinner, but I'm sure the rest are more than pleased to see how humanity adapts to this without turning the clock back.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    They may be useful idiots who don't know Popper from Redenbacher, but they care about something, and that permits them to sleep well at night in the knowledge that they're better than you.

    Egos all the way down.

  • ||

    who don't know Popper from Redenbacher

    Very nice!

  • ||

    Why did this end up on the 24/7 news feed but not on H&R?

  • Bardas Phocas||

    climate change

  • Jackand Ace||

    The NCA does not skew toward pessimism. They're just more pessimistic now after each of the previous reports have in essence been ignored. Its not skewing...its responding to the results.

    Your citing of Cato is interesting Ed, and makes me wonder if its you and Cato doing the skewing. You do know I hope that when Cato says science tells you the threat from excess heat waves is declining, they're wrong. Its just their opinion. The study the authors refer to in Nature is one they themselves wrote along with denier Anthony Watts. Which was in response to another study that said that in fact heat waves were causing more deaths.

    http://www.pentagonpost.com/ex.....n/83414116

    Their second study that they cite says in fact the opposite of the conclusion Cato would like you to draw. This is what the authors of the heat wave study said at the end, and which Cato did not tell you:

    "Conclusions: The population has become more resilient to heat over time. YET even with this increased resilience, substantial risks of heat-related mortality remain. Based on 2005 estimates, an increase in average temperatures by 5°F (central climate projection) would lead to an ADDITIONAL 1,907 deaths per summer across all cities."

    http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307392/

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|5.6.14 @ 4:24PM|#
    "The NCA does not skew toward pessimism."

    "The National Climate Assessment released Tuesday says Washington state faces key challenges with water supply, rising sea level and changing forest landscapes."
    [...]
    "Some groups criticized the report as alarmist."
    http://www.sfgate.com/default/.....457980.php

    Some would disagree with you. Please tell us of the recent temperature rises, Jack. We all need a laugh.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Jackie, Jackie, Jackie. When the facts don't support you, just lie, right?

    http://www.epw.senate.gov/publ.....669df48b15

    "It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes,tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases."

    "Floods have not increased in the US in
    frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940."

    "Drought has "for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.” Globally,“there has been
    little change in drought over the
    past 60 years.”

    And let's not forget this goody:
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate.....ATE-201309

    Maybe the heat is still stuck registering for a subsidy on the BarryCare site...

  • Jackand Ace||

    Thanks for the link to the testimony of Roger Pielke Jr. He has a Ph.D. after all....too bad its in Political Science rather than Climate Science.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|5.6.14 @ 9:46PM|#
    "Thanks for the link to the testimony of Roger Pielke Jr. He has a Ph.D. after all....too bad its in Political Science rather than Climate Science."

    The claims are refuted by facts, but the guy who wrote the article doesn't have a degree you like? In spite of the fact that the issues have to do with political policy?
    So you specialize in appeal to authority rather than facts?
    Why is that not surprising of a lefty imbecile?
    Dipshit...

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Appeals to authority are a sign of a weak mind, but let's play your game.

    Pielke Jr.'s Bio:

    Roger A. Pielke, Jr. joined the faculty of the University of Colorado in 2001. He is currently Professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences (CIRES). At CIRES Roger serves as the Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. He also served as the Director of Graduate Studies for the University's Graduate Program in Environmental Studies from 2002-2004.
    ...
    Before joining the University of Colorado, from 1993-2001 Roger was a Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

    Now let's contrast with the gray literature publisher and your own personal hero, Pachuri:

    After a short managerial career at the Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, India, Dr. Pachauri enrolled in North Carolina State University (USA), where he earned a Master’s degree in Industrial Engineering in 1972 and a Ph.D. with co-majors in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974. He also served as Assistant Professor (August 1974-May 1975) and Visiting Faculty Member (Summer 1976 and 1977)in the University’s Department of Economics and Business.

    Stay down, bitch.

  • Jackand Ace||

    And yet, I didn't quote Pachauri and you quoted a Ph.D. in Political Science. But I am glad you checked out Pielke's credentials in order to verify...and of course you did find out that he is a Ph.D. in Political Science.

    Still standing.

  • Sevo||

    BTW, Jack, I looked at your link,
    Extremely strange there was no statement of the number of those who would die from cold to lend balance the claims of heat deaths.
    Why do you think that is, Jack? Why did Jack not notice that when Jack noticed facts presented by those whose degree he doesn't like?
    Maybe they're sort of biasing the statement like lefty imbeciles named Jack?

  • GamerFromJump||

    "Average temperatures by 5°F (central climate projection) would lead to an ADDITIONAL 1,907 deaths per summer across all cities..."

    You know what would prevent that?

    A non-shitty power grid to power sufficient A/C.

    But that would not impose the requisite suffering on the peasants, to make them surrender.

    This is a siege, of that there is no doubt.

  • I. B. McGinty||

    Climate, like weather, is cyclical. I predict in or around 10 years from now overall temperatures will gradually become cooler. But that's just me.

  • Carnival||

    Got any peer-reviewed studies with comprehensive works-cited and evidence sections to back that up?

  • BuSab Agent||

    Why does he need that? He's got a nifty model...

  • TheSmilingKnight||

    Not exactly peer reviewed, but "global cooling" was all the rage in pop/prog science back in the 1970's.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqsRD4HPtH0

    Time will vindicate you, I.B. McGinty.

  • I. B. McGinty||

    Nothing peer reviewed as that's beyond the scope of my work. Originally looked at drought frequency using observations of temperature and precipitation. When I took the historical average and compared each year I found some years were warmer than the average and some were cooler. No surprise there, but saw a definite trend with reversals at specific periodicities (about every 35 years). I have a PowerPoint presentation I can send you if you're really interested.

  • Dinerboy||

    As opposed to all the peer review that went into the alarmist studies? Echo chamber, that, with no room for dissenters.

  • Dinerboy||

    Not peer-reviewed, but some kernels to contemplate.

    http://www.middlebury.net/op-e.....ng-01.html

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I like this one. How about you?

  • I. B. McGinty||

    Couldn't get to the article without paying for a subscription. The above link by Dinerboy is pretty good.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    And it looks like tomorrow there will be a 100% chance of FYTW.

  • Dinerboy||

    Isn't there a part in there that claims the link to human activities isn't clear?

    How, then, does Obama justify changing human activities? Especially when the cost of those changes, in both money and lives, is so severe?

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    You're thinking like a normal person. Try to put yourself in the position of Obama, a person untroubled by the idea he could possibly be wrong about anything.

    Everybody just knows global warming is a catastrophe waiting to happen, and everyone knows that the state needs to do something dramatic about it. Everyone knows this is true because 97% of scientists believe it and all the science supports it. If you point out that this isn't so and that climate science isn't particularly scientific because it doesn't permit experimentation, you're ignorant and in need of education. Or re-education, as the case might be.

  • Jackand Ace||

    This is a statement from the report:

    "The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels."

    So, not much equivocation at all, particularly when you consider there always will be some natural variations that contribute to changing climate. And the report is trying to highlight the high costs of doing nothing.

  • Sevo||

    ..."And the report is trying to highlight the high costs of doing nothing."

    Yeah, well, THAT strawman really gets beat up, doesn't he?
    What you (and the report) really mean is 'the high cost of not letting us run the economy', and there is NEVER any evidence that it is higher than letting market signals drive the required changes.

  • I. B. McGinty||

    Fossil fuels primarily. What are the secondary contributions? (I didn't read the report).

    I'm guessing the report says changes in solar activity, development, and other factors have a minimal effect. And does the report just look at surface data? Or does it examine changes in the atmosphere at various levels?

  • Jackand Ace||

    The report goes into a fair amount of detail. Not sure if you have seen the highlights section, which is less detail than the actual report, but still comprehensive.

    http://nca2014.globalchange.go.....ng-climate

    The link I provided is only the highlights of what is causing changing climate, which they say also includes some natural variations.

    "All of these natural factors, and their interactions with each other, have altered global average temperature over periods ranging from months to thousands of years. For example, past glacial periods were initiated by shifts in the Earth’s orbit, and then amplified by resulting decreases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and subsequently by greater reflection of the sun’s energy by ice and snow as the Earth’s climate system responded to a cooler climate.

    Natural factors are still affecting the planet’s climate today. The difference is that, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, humans have been increasingly affecting global climate, to the point where we are now the primary cause of recent and projected future change."

  • Sevo||

    Yes, and you have yet to address my comments on what's being done compared to your strawman argument.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The report loves to cite the loss in arctic sea ice extent but conveniently fails to mention the record antarctic sea ice extent or the record major US landfalling drought. In short, it cherry picks the facts it likes, ignores the facts that falsify its premises. You know, exactly what every political document intends.

  • Trollificus||

    I'm just going with a premise that has proven sound in the past: Those who use the methods of propagandists are not telling the truth. Thus, I am not intimidated by 'appeal to authority' arguments, if:

    1) Opponents are shouted down, discredited, or subjected to ad hominem attacks rather than addressing their claims.
    2) The uninformed public is set up to identify non-proofs as proof, as, in the case of the climate, any severe weather event is to be asserted as proof of "the impending global warming crisis" even though severe weather events have always occurred.
    3) Exclusion of outcomes. As in, all changes in climate are portrayed as negative. Are there no areas that will benefit from warming? Will the 'redistribution of rainfall' benefit NO ONE?? It is suspicious these effects are presented with such slanted emphasis.
    4) Exclusion of Responses: Neither ameliorative steps nor the proven adaptability of mankind are ever presented as legitimate responses (even if anthropogenic forced warming is more conclusively proven than at present) to the problem. Why?

    The "Global Warming Crisis" is being presented in such a suspect, Chicken Little manner I cannot help but be skeptical.

    Somehow a governmental power grab to reduce the freedom of mobility currently enjoyed by the plebes seems more plausible. But maybe that's just me.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Who are propagandists? Every single major science organization the country? Such as National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society? They all are warning you about AGW.

    1. Who is shouted down? Skeptics have plenty of opportunity to voice dissent. Keeping with the American Physical Society (50,000 members), in their last climate statement they said:

    "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

    If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

    They are in the process of updating that statement. And out of 6 expert members taking part in the process, 3 of them are as follows: Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, and John Christy...climate skeptics all.

    2. Its never been an increase in storms as the proof positive about climate change...its just one of the noted effects.

  • Sevo||

    Do you read your links?
    "1. Who is shouted down? [...]
    And out of 6 expert members taking part in the process, 3 of them are as follows: Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, and John Christy...climate skeptics all."
    Those people HAD been "shouted down"; they're the reason for the 'update' according to http://judithcurry.com/2013/08.....cientists/

    "2. Its never been an increase in storms as the proof positive about climate change...its just one of the noted effects."

    I see those goal posts are mobile. And where's the cite on the "increase"?
    ""Floods have not increased in the US in
    frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940."

    "Drought has "for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.” Globally,“there has been
    little change in drought over the
    past 60 years.”
    (see above)
    Continued

  • Jackand Ace||

    3. You are probably right that some areas may benefit from warming. I can name one...Siberia. But you should remember that America was blessed with the best natural resources of any country, including its climate. Its why we became the bread basket to the world. I'm not sure why any American would want to roll the dice with changing that.

    4. The current report actually highlights steps that can be taken.

    By the way, just a link to what skeptic Judith Curry had to say about her inclusion in the framing of the new APS statement:

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/02.....statement/

    "I give the APS an A+ for the process in preparing their statement. The thoroughness and transparency is unprecedented. And I like the idea of having relatively objective people write the statement, people without a dog in this particular fight."

  • Sevo||

    "3. You are probably right that some areas may benefit from warming. I can name one...Siberia. But you should remember that America was blessed with the best natural resources of any country, including its climate. Its why we became the bread basket to the world. I'm not sure why any American would want to roll the dice with changing that."
    What do you propose as an alternative?

    "4. The current report actually highlights steps that can be taken."
    Cite missing

    "By the way, just a link to what skeptic Judith Curry had to say about her inclusion in the framing of the new APS statement:"
    By the way, it's obvious she had to scream and shout to get that transparency, and we've yet to see the corrected report.

  • Trollificus||

    Thanks for the (relatively) civil response. The inclusion of skeptics is nice and all, but to then proceed to scare tactics like "A 5° increase may cause..." which is not only speculative but at the extreme range of predicted increase, makes that inclusion irrelevant.

    As a 'propaganda tactic', things can be done properly and the result used improperly. A couple of IPCC reports ago they got over 1k scientists to sign off on a carefully vetted (MOSTLY carefully vetted) report with appropriate qualifiers and disclaimers...and then the summation was written by an alarmist, misrepresenting what the 'consensus' was a consenting about.

    I'll concede there are many sincere, honest and well-meaning scientists concerned by global warming. The problem is, there are also many manipulative, ill-intentioned, misanthropic people for whom the 'solution' is for future generations of Americans to have less, consume less, and in particular have their damn Gaia-poisoning vehicles taken away.

    The existence of the latter group is pretty well-confirmed by the actions and recommendations of the people in charge of the science, and, most importantly, the funding of the science.

    Sorry, my paranoia is not assuaged.

  • Jackand Ace||

    I have a good friend who always says "Trust your paranoia."

    Anyway, it was good to have a civil discussion.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|5.8.14 @ 12:06PM|#
    "Anyway, it was good to have a civil discussion."

    You mean one where you don't have to answer for your lies?
    Pretty slimy.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    If the APS was right to claim that CAGW was a clear and present danger that represented the opinion of its members, then why does it need to revise that statement now? Could it possibly be because (from your link),

    And why don't you post the other relevant parts of Curry's post? Could it possibly be because they clearly show that dissenters were gagged and that the APS is being pushed by its members to revise its alarmist statement?

    The text of the 2007 APS Climate Change statement is found [here].

    This statement resulted in the public resignations from the APS of several high profile physicists (this was followed closely at WUWT). These resignations prompted additional commentary to be appended to the statement, with some clarifications and mentions of uncertainty.

    And why did you miss this concluding paragraph from Judith:

    Finally, while speaking of the APS, I have an invited presentation at the forthcoming March APS meeting in Denver, Causes and implications of the growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations
  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    cont.

    From that abstract of that talk:

    For the past 15+ years, there has been no increase in global average surface temperature, which has been referred to as a 'hiatus' in global warming. By contrast, estimates of expected warming in the first several decades of 21st century made by the IPCC AR4 were 0.2C/decade. This talk summarizes the recent CMIP5 climate model simulation results and comparisons with observational data. The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% (!!!!) confidence level.
  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Many areas will benefit from warming since the areas that will warm are the coldest. That means longer growing seasons in the US, Canada, and some regions of Europe and Asia.

    The notion that the US has the "best" natural resources in the world is without quantification and in many regards laughable. Do you think we have the perfectest weather in the world? Care to guess which country has the most annual natural disasters? Yup, the US. A large fraction of that is due to tornadoes. And what drives tornadoes? Thermal gradients. What does global warming do to thermal gradients? It smooths them. Tell me having fewer tornadoes is a bad thing. Go on. Tell me.

    And finally, the entire global ecosystem is more productive today than it was 30 years ago thanks in part to CO@ fertilizing and slightly warmer temps. http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Me.....g-CO2.aspx

    The fact that the world's largest grain crop, rice, is a C3 plant which is highly sensitive to CO2 concentrations and the fact that pre-industrial CO2 levels of 280ppm are just marginally higher than that required to actually sustain plant life (~200ppm) also say that we've been lucky surviving in a CO2-starved world. No, this is NOT the best of all possible worlds, Dr. Pangloss.

    A layman's summary of the good things that warming brings: http://www.spectator.co.uk/fea.....n-warming/

  • I. B. McGinty||

    "Tell me having fewer tornadoes is a bad thing. Go on. Tell me."

    Having fewer tornadoes is a bad thing...for storm shelter sales!

    How's that?

  • Jackand Ace||

    I gave you the link to Curry's post so you could read it. Its longer than the above article here at Reason, and you wanted me to post that? Curry is one member of 50,000. But to you, she is the one who should be heard. They made a statement in 2007, and she made a stink, and they responded by letting her in on the process. That's good enough for her, but not you who would prefer whining. They always revisit statements every 5 or 6 years.

    Really, the whining from the skeptics about their voices not being heard is just that...whining. You have a major network that opines 24/7 about a global warming hoax (FOX), you've got the king of radio 24/7 saying its a hoax (Rush), and you have quite a few websites posting skepticism, including this one.

    You know what your problem is? Your just unhappy that the clear majority of science doesn't agree with you, therefore there just has to be a conspiracy. Really, its quite childish.

  • I. B. McGinty||

    "Your just unhappy that the clear majority of science doesn't agree with you...Really, its quite childish."

    Well I prefer to do my own research and not believe what some report says. My research has led me to believe climate change is a natural cycle brought on by changes in solar activity, which affects water vapor in the atmosphere, which affects the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. Since oceans make up 75% of the surface, the answer to long term climate change probably lies there.

    If I clear 100 acres of land and put in a mall, I have changed my local climate. Multiply this by the development that has occurred in the last 150 years, and you probably have enough of a heat island effect to alter the surface observations used to show warming. So does man alter the surface temperature? Sure. But does it alter temperatures at 850mb, 700mb, 500mb, and 300mb? I doubt it. That's where any warming can be found if there truly is a warming of the atmosphere. With the amount of energy involved with the ocean-atmosphere system, I'm skeptical of how much a little tweak of greenhouse gasses other water vapor has on it.

    So I'm not childish when I, as a scientist, form a different opinion than the "vast majority" of those polled. Keep in mind, funding of climate research is dependent on finding change so policy can be implemented. If they don't find anything, then the research was a big waste of time and money. And that wouldn't fly with big organizations like the U.N.

  • Jackand Ace||

    You see, I.B., this is how statements get conflated.

    My suggestion is to read carefully what I said. I never said anyone who is skeptical of AGW is childish...what I said is that anyone who is skeptical and then resorts to conspiracy theory in order to rebut the science is childish. I don't think Judith Curry, nor you for that matter, is childish.

    But you hint at the conspiracies. Please tell me why every single science organization was warning about AGW back when Bush was President, and Republicans controlled both Houses and funding. You do know that they were warning us about AGW back then as well. I'm not talking about the UN...I am speaking about National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science...every single one. If funding was the issue, they would be saying things all the GOP skeptics wanted them to say.

  • I. B. McGinty||

    I don't believe the organizations you list are federally funded as they are non-profits, so Bush being president and Republicans in control I think is irrelevant. Their money comes from donors and memberships and other sources, so I feel it's hard to remain neutral when you get your funding from someone else. Would the NRA fund a group that says guns kill children? I'm going to say no. You may still think I'm a conspiracy nut for believing they are pushing an agenda and that's fine. But I know when money is involved, and groups are making drastic calls for government action and policy change based on unsettled science, something is up.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Peace to you, I.B.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, yes, some passive aggressive crap from the guy who got caught lying!
    Sleaze be thy name, Jack.

  • I. B. McGinty||

    Double down.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|5.8.14 @ 9:06AM|#
    "You see, I.B., this is how statements get conflated."
    No, this is how you get called on your bullshit.

    "Please tell me why every single science organization was warning about AGW back when Bush was President, and Republicans controlled both Houses and funding."
    What in the world does this have to do with anything other than misdirection?

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|5.7.14 @ 9:27PM|#
    "I gave you the link to Curry's post so you could read it. Its longer than the above article here at Reason, and you wanted me to post that? yada, yada"
    Nice try at misdirection, slimeball, but the question was: "And why don't you post the other relevant parts of Curry's post?"
    ----------------
    "Really, the whining from the skeptics about their voices not being heard is just that...whining."
    And the whining from the catastrophists is just that; whining; they have the federal government, the state governments, the three broadcast networks and propagandists such as you.
    ---------------
    "You know what your problem is? Your just unhappy that the clear majority of science doesn't agree with you, therefore there just has to be a conspiracy. Really, its quite childish."
    You know what your problem is? You're a lying lefty who's been caught lying, cherry-picking, appealing to authority and being generally mendatious. Really, it's quite childish.

  • Trollificus||

    Not whining.

    Hell, I'll believe in warming, if 'experts' tell me it's happening; making the concession that my local and day-to-day observations are not representative of the global system.

    I'll even grant that release of carbon from fossil fuels is contributing to that warming. Makes sense.

    What I consider a 'hoax' (not nearly well-organized to be considered a conspiracy), is the CRISIS.

    In my sorta long lifetime, I have seen governments declare crises about every other year...from the civilization-threatening plague of "juvenile delinquency" in the 50's (and Comic Books! And Pinball Machines-though that one goes back to the 30s) to the child-brain-destroying evils of rock-and-roll to the War on Drugs (which war has ruined more lives than drugs ever have), to the public-orgy-inducing Sexual Revolution to the child-brain-destroying evils of video gaming...on and on the political class uses self-proclaimed "crises" to add departments, budget, "Czars" and power unto itself...and now this is different?

    Sorry. This is not 'childish whining'. What you are hearing is the operation of a hard-earned and well-honed cynicism about government claims of 'crisis'. This cynicism has proven to have powerful predictive and explanatory utility. Try it. Try disbelieving. Try not trusting the good intentions of politicians. You may be surprised and saddened how often it points to the truth.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Here is one more.

    About a year ago, the American Meteorological Society polled their members about climate, and the results were clear. They polled all of their members. And this is what the Executive Director of AMS said:

    "Only 4 percent of respondents said that global warming was not happening, and only 5 percent are convinced that global warming over the past 150 years is due mostly to natural causes.

    Jacoby also did not mention that the survey showed 93 percent of actively publishing climate scientists indicated that they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. This is consistent with prior studies’ findings that the climate science community is in agreement that humans are largely responsible for the climate change we have seen in recent decades."

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opi.....story.html

    Again, I posted the link so you can read it. I can't fit the entire letter here.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|5.7.14 @ 9:34PM|#
    "Here is one more.
    About a year ago, the American Meteorological Society polled their members about climate, and the results were clear. They polled all of their members. And this is what the Executive Director of AMS said:
    "Only 4 percent of respondents said that global warming was not happening, and only 5 percent are convinced that global warming over the past 150 years is due mostly to natural causes."

    Which doesn't answer even one of the objections raised.
    Did you major it misdiretion, or are you just learning?

  • Jackand Ace||

    And so, what does AMS say about climate? Here is there statement (they do poll their members, you know now):

    "Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation."

    www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

    Again, the link so you can read it.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|5.7.14 @ 9:38PM|#
    "And so, what does AMS say about climate? Here is there statement (they do poll their members, you know now):
    "Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation."
    www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
    Again, the link so you can read it."

    Why, thank you! Even more "authority".
    Since you are obviously incapable of answering any of the questions and doubts, can you find anyone smart enough to do so?

  • Mnestheus||

    Are meteorologists with big hair the best he can do ? The ones with crewcuts and moustaches on the contrarian side are a pretty rum lot to begin with .

  • Bob_R||

    How big is the fraction of the population that knows enough partial differential equations, numerical analysis, bifurcation theory, mathematical modelling, parameter estimation, stability analysis to have an intelligent opinion on this subject? .... I thought so.

  • Trollificus||

    Ah. I see we've rapidly proceeded to the "nit-picking in-post errors" and "talking past each other" stage. Good work.

    Look, the science is what it is. And for the sake of argument, let's say there IS AGW.

    There are people with differing motivations among the stakeholders here:

    1) People whose concern is the long-term health of Mother Gaia, because love. This includes environmentalists and people wealthy enough to not give a fuck what burdens 'saving the planet' imposes on the plebes.

    2) People whose concern is the long-term habitability of our planet FOR HUMANS. This includes most scientists and sane people.

    3) People who want to regulate the populace, impose taxes, create more permanent jobs in the federal bureaucracy and gain power and money. This is the group who are going to decide what actions should be taken in response to warming?? WTF??

    I do not want a Meteorology Czar. I don't want a Cabinet-level Department of Climate. I don't want an 'energy use tax' for the ostensible purpose of deterring fossil fuel usage and 'dealing with climate change', when experience shows any funds raised will be distributed to the companies, unions and groups employing the most effective lobbyists-climate be damned.

    This latter is not libertarian hysteria, or right-wing paranoia, or knee-jerk anti-government ranting. It is what past experience of how our government works predicts will be done. It is more certain than Global Warming (which I have, for argument's sake, conceded.).

  • kenezen||

    The president is destroying what little "Capitalism" we have left. Since 1870 thru 1970 America was an industrial giant that created the greatest middle class on Earth envied by all others. Now our industry has moved off shore and this President with his Agencies are making sure Industry never comes back. Our Blue Collar has been relegated to low paying "Services Jobs" with flattened wage. Private Sector wage and pension is one half 1/2 of Federal Worker wage and pension and yet we hire them to oversee ObamaCare.

    Can it be cost efficient? And yet few write about it or call for debate??

  • NickiEtheridgelyr||

    my neighbor's mother-in-law makes $81 /hr on the laptop . She has been laid off for six months but last month her payment was $18141 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you could look here.....
    http://www.Works23.us

advertisement