MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Administrative State Strikes Back: Federal Climate Change Draft Report Leaked

It would be ridiculous for the Trump Administration to try to suppress it now.

BestThermmometerMeryllDreamstimeMeryll/DreamstimeA draft version of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report has been leaked to The New York Times.

Notwithstanding the Times' alarmist headline suggesting "drastic" climate impacts on the U.S., a glance through the 545-page report finds that it is essentially an aggregation of climate change studies that support the scientific consensus that man-made global warming is occurring.

According to the report, the global annual average temperature has increased by more than 1.6°F (0.9°C) from 1880 to 2015; the average annual temperature of the contiguous U.S. has increased by about 1.2°F (0.7°C) between 1901 and 2015. Climate models project increases of at least 2.5°F (1.4°C) over the next few decades, which means that recent record-setting years in the U.S. will be relatively "common" in the near future.

The report concurs with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's conclusion that it is "extremely likely that most of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on the climate." The report also finds that extremely cold days in the U.S. have become fewer while the number of extremely hot days has increased. In addition, extreme percipitation events have become more common in the U.S. The report notes that there is still considerable controversy among researchers when it comes to future trends in hurricane frequency and intensity.

Politicians, like most people, don't want to hear bad news that appears to contradict their views. The saga of how the the first National Climate Assessment fared under the George W. Bush administration is cautionary tale. Basically, Bush administration officials edited the report in ways that suggested greater uncertainty about scientific findings than the researchers who put together the report thought were warranted. That effort backfired when the administration's artful editing was leaked to and reported by the media.

The new report states that "it does not include an assessment of the literature on climate change mitigation, adaptation, economic valuation, or societal responses, nor does it include policy recommendations." This appears to be accurate, though the report does note that "significant reductions in global CO2 emissions relative to present-day emission rates" would be needed to meet the Paris Agreement on Climate Change's goal of limiting future warming to below 2°C.

Scientific data can identify a problem, but they do not tell policy makers the right way to handle a problem. Maybe the best thing to do is to let emissions increase while growing the economy as fast possible, so as to create the wealth and technologies that will enable future generations to deal with whatever problems climate change may generate. Or perhaps more research needs to be directed toward developing cheap low-carbon energy technologies.

The report was no doubt leaked by someone with an agenda, and I don't blame anyone in the Trump administration who thinks a shadow science group of Obama leftovers is trying to thwart what it perceives as the president's climate and energy policies. In any case, since that the draft report is available to anyone with an internet connection, it would be ridiculous for officials to try to "suppress" it now.

Update: Climate report found over at Internet Archive. Fox News cites several researchers who assert that that means it's been public for months. When the National Academy of Sciences released its report evaluating the process for how the draft Special Report was put together, I did a fairly extensive online search for the draft report and could not find it. Even now over at the official federal U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) website the link to any copy of the report appears to be absent - maybe because the comment period is over? Even so, why not leave the report available on the website for interested members of the public to read?

The final report is supposed to be released by August 18. Assuming that the deadline is met, it will be interesting to see what changes have been made in that version.

In any case, a #FakeNews tweet from the president is no doubt in the offing.

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.

  • SQRLSY One||

    PLEASE just go ahead and warm my globes! They are shivering, hanging tight and high... Warming my globes is just FINE, I tell ya!

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    You know what's perfect for warming one's globes?

  • BYODB||

    ...Hitler?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Eeeewwww!!!!

  • SQRLSY One||

    A beaver-fur coat, with embedded electrical resistance-wire heaters??

  • SQRLSY One||

    A plutonium-238 RTG heat generator? https://en.wikipedia.org . . . /wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator ...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Clubbing seals and polar bears and burning straight methane to warm, well, everything?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    A Death Star?

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    the average annual temperature of the contiguous U.S. has increased by about 1.2°F (0.7°C) between 1901 and 2015. Climate models project increases of at least 2.5°F (1.4°C) over the next few decades,


    The increase between the first satellite data and today does not coincidence at all with that rate of change. We're supposed to be in the upward trend of the infamous Hockey Stick and yet temps have not risen at the rate proposed by Mann et. al.

    I suspect the report wss leaked because a) the person who leaked (or persons) wanted to embarrass the Trump administration and b) he/she or they know the report is rubbish and debunkable but by leaking it, then any criticism would be seen as sour grapes.

  • Bill||

    Since it has been the rare decade that saw even a 0.3 C increase,
    that 1.4 C will take another 50-60 years. The models run hot.
    You'd think they would fix them.

  • renewableguy||

    The arctic will loose ice more and more. And the arctic ocean will absorb more and more energy at an increasing rate. Our earth due to changing albedo based in warming will slowly increase its absorption. This will not be linear.

  • Ariki||

    It "will"? It "may" at best. But the loss seems to have decelerated.
    Have the "scientists" altered the theory to allow for the increase in antarctic ice yet? Or are they yet to assign the "poles will warm the fastest" down the memory hole?

    We are suffering from a lack of data on this issue. 40 years of ice extent when climate cycles are around 60 years doesn't make for good science. When satellites began measuring it was during a high point in ice extent i.e "the ice age is coming", so a natural decline should have been expected.
    Historical evidence also points to a similar decrease in arctic ice during the first half of the 20th century and before. Yet the world didn't enter into a catastrophic feedback loop predicted because....we are still here.

    Something is seriously not right with CAGW theory and you have to have your head stuck in the sand or up your arse to not see it.
    But it does smell funny in here.....

  • jinxed13||

    When wind blows across melting ice, temperatures drop. If you don't believe that, put ice in a bowl and then have a fan blowing air over the ice and as the ice melts, the ambient temperature drops. This has been going on for centuries and that has been proven by drilling deep in the ice and getting a core sample. This planet has been experiencing warm cycles followed by cold cycles for centuries and long before human kind were more than animal hide wearing nomads wandering around on foot looking for animals to kill and greenery to eat. Since the human population remained fairly stable until Cesarean sections were invented in the mid-Twentieth Century. Prior to that, human populations didn't increase since women dying in childbirth was common and children not living long enough to reproduce was also very common. If it's hot, it's global warming. If you're shoveling snow, it was caused by global warming. Everything was supposed to cause global warming. I think people need to quit spouting bs as all the mouth action is adding to global warming, or climate change as it's now being called.

  • Finrod||

    That's what your model says.

    Models are often wrong. How many correct predictions has your model made?

  • CE||

    She usually doesn't try to predict anything. She just asks which kind of beer I want.

  • Bill||

    If you had ever looked at the distribution of ice
    in summer vs. winter or looked at the average
    temperatures throughout the year you would
    see that most of the year there is still plenty
    of ice. It only goes above the melting point
    of ice for a few months each summer.

    Ice loss in the winter has been about 2.5%
    per decade so it is only down by 10% total
    and the late 70s were a high point for ice.

    There are natural 60 year cycles and we
    have only had satellites for 1/2 of a cycle.

    They only use data from about 1979. Let's
    see what happens over the next 10-15 years.
    The ocean's heat capacity is immense and
    any changes will be very slow. The GCMs
    run too hot and exaggerate the rate of
    temperature increase. You can only use
    the output of a model safely if it has been
    proven to give reliable predictions.

  • ||

    And yet the artic ice seasonal extents vary year to year, but are not following any strong trend.
    Greenland was supposed to be on net losing ice and yet last year it gained.
    Antartic glaciers are growing.

    But most fundimentally the rate of sea level rise is either unchanged or slowing.

    This is critical as SLR captures both the melting of land ice and the heat capture of the oceans - Trendberth's so called "missing heat".

    The laws of physics establish that linear increases in temperature require exponentially more energy - basically Physics works the oposite of the tipping points that the warmist religion depends on.

    There is no exponential increase in energy capture. There will be no sudden increase in temperatures.

    The physics works the other way - but lets not let science get in the way of a good left wing religion.

  • Tankboy||

    As in real life, Hot Models cost extra. You get the models you pay for.

  • Bob Meyer||

    "Climate models project increases of at least 2.5°F (1.4°C) over the next few decades, which means that recent record-setting years in the U.S. will be relatively "common" in the near future."

    I don't know why Bailey put this in his article when he knows that the models are based on climate sensitivities of 2.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of CO2. The best measured values fall between 0.6°C and 1.8°C. It's an extremely difficult (and controversial) measurement so the wide range of values is to be expected.

    Combine this with the fact that NOAA has continually revised US temperature records with every single revision making the past cooler and the present hotter. They didn't do this just once or twice but at least 10 consecutive times. Random errors in past measurements should go in both directions but NOAA is so dominated by confirmation bias that they never see a measurement that might go the other way.

  • Alsø alsø wik||

    Of course, we don't actually know what the "global annual average temperature" was in 1880. I'm amazed that "garbage in, garbage out" isn't an argument used more often against the climate hysterics. It's bullet-proof if you force someone to engage you on it.

    I'm not bothering to look it up right now, but how many weather stations were there on the continents of Antarctica and Africa (and even North America) in the 17th century? Like 15 each? Data points that sparse would be as reliable as calculating the "global annual average temperature" of the Atlantic Ocean by randomly dipping buckets into the water at a couple points along the way and eyeballing a mercury thermometer...which happens to be precisely how climate scientists claim to know the so-called average temperature of the oceans back then.

    Couple absurdities like that with using a handful of Siberian tree rings as a proxy for the average temp of the entirety of the USSR (precise to tenths of a degree no less) and it's not hard to demonstrate that we have no clue what global temps were prior to our first weather satellites in 1975.

  • ||

    The probability is high that temperatures in 1880 were cooler.
    We do have data for the past - we just do not have data that is as good as that for the present.

    That said it does not matter. Only a few of the climate wack jobs beleive Human CO2 had any consequential impact before the 70's.

  • BYODB||


    The report concurs with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's conclusion that it is "extremely likely that most of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on the climate."


    And the warming prior to 1951 going back to perhaps the 1500's was of course the fault of a time travelling Al Gore.

  • Brandybuck||

    The search for ManBearPig has no time limit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Swoooooosh...

  • Billy Bones||

    Well, if this is what global warming looks like, I want more of it. Second week of August here in Atlanta and today's projected high temp is 77F.

  • Rhywun||

    We're experiencing a mini-ice age here on the east coast this week. I'm sure next week will be back to normal.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Maybe the best thing to do is to let emissions increase while growing the economy as fast possible, so as to create the wealth and technologies that will enable future generations to deal with whatever problems climate change may generate.

    I feel like this is probably the answer more and more often. I see people post articles basically saying, "it's too late, the environments fucked no matter what we do." At that point, we should not concern ourselves with emissions at all then. That's just wasting time. We should either focus on determining what the results will be, and how to deal with them or just have a huge orgy if we're all just going to die anyway.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Though in reality I fear that talking about things in such terms is why it has become so political and tense. From the very beginning, as with almost all environmental issues, it is phrased as a crisis beyond all others. The only options then become to act in a way that extremely fucks over huge amounts of people, or deny it exists.

    We'll notice that there is almost no discussion beyond does it exist or not. It seems that if you admit it exists then the only thing that can be done is to destroy all rights and the economy in the pursuit of saving us.

  • ||

    And what malthusian crisis since .... Malthus, has ever materialized.

    I have a copy of Silent Spring on my bookshelf, several wood peckers pounding on my house and I go to sleep to the sound of owls.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I also wonder how much of this is based in people in power viewing themselves as heroes. It certainly seems like this stuff is often an issue where those in power view themselves as the captain of the ship, who needs to crackdown and control the masses in order to save them. Why can't people understand that everything is for their own good? Take your fucking medicine.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Politicians, like most people, don't want to hear bad news that appears to contradict their views.

    That applies far more to the climastrologists as their models continue to fail. Deep cuts to the EPA can't come fast enough.

    Oh, and a link to a cook paper, Ron? Seriously?

  • zeroDay||

    Oh, and a link to a cook paper, Ron? Seriously?

    He's gotta be trolling.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Ron is a zealot who pretends to believe in the scientific method. Might as well link to the original Hockey Stick paper or the Karl, et al pile of nonsense.

  • mtrueman||

    "That applies far more to the climastrologists as their models continue to fail. Deep cuts to the EPA can't come fast enough."

    Better models don't grow on trees. Better models mean yet more spending, not less. Careful what you ask for.

  • Finrod||

    They don't want better models, they want models that fit their confirmation bias better.

  • mtrueman||

    "they want models"

    Models are for kids. Adults deal with reality.

  • Curt||

    Uh, Ron, are you going to throw some kind of update out there?

    "But those who worked on the report are pushing back against the claims, saying the version that was obtained and posted in full by the New York Times has actually been online and available to the public for months."

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....eport.html

    God, I hate linking to foxnews.

  • Gozer the Gozarian||

    Sad how everyone missed this fact. Not surprised that the NYT fucked up actually investigating something....AGAIN...

  • JWatts||

    Ouch that's fricking embarrassing. So, apparently someone sent the NYT's a copy of a document that's been publicly available since January, with a Subject Line: Top Secret Climate Report

    And the NYT's, clearly showing their commitment to thorough fact checking, just ran with the story As Is.

  • Longtobefree||

    "all the news that fits, we print"

  • Ron Bailey||

    C: Many thanks for the link. I will do an update. Interestingly, when the NAS released its report evaluating the process for how the draft Special Report was put together back in January, I did a fairly extensive online for the draft report and could not find it. If you head over now to the official USGCRP page you note that the link to it is absent - maybe because the comment period is over? Even so, why not leave the report available on the website?

  • Curt||

    Yeah, I suspect you'll probably get plenty of fodder when the administration does (or doesn't) provide comments. I expect they'll handle it in some unique and questionable way, but I assume that will be dismiss and downplay (as opposed to suppress and change). But, I just happened to see a couple different versions of the story in different tabs of my browser at the same time and was wary of what seemed like a conspiratorial, pre-crime tone (mainly the sub-headline).

    Anyway, just wanted to make sure you saw that. I consider myself a skeptic, but generally think your articles are worth reading because they're more concerned with science than faith. Most others seemed more concerned with mindless promotion of dogma and burning of heretics.

  • Sugarsail||

    Apocalyptic doomsday cults that believe the end-is-nigh always have a consensus among their ranks...unfortunately belief and consensus isn't what makes sound science...data does, and computer model prophecies are not data, they're speculation bordering on divination. People, know the difference between sound science and superstitious hysteria. No one knows what the climate is going to do and no one should even care considering things have done quite well the last 5 billion or so years. Nothing but a tax scam exploiting apocalyptic minds.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Scientific data can identify a problem, but they do not tell policy makers the right way to handle a problem.
    ... If that's how you really feel, there's a very simple solution.

    Talk to conservatives/Republicans, convince them that this is a problem, and encourage them to offer alternatives. Because so long as they refuse to even acknowledge that there is a problem, they can't be part of the solution.

  • JWatts||

    "Talk to conservatives/Republicans, convince them that this is a problem, and encourage them to offer alternatives. "

    Build nuclear power plants. There's no reason the US should be subsidizing wind and solar to a much, much higher level than nuclear if Global Warming is the true reason for subsidies.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Wait... WHY would it be a problem?

    Climate models and that, they can't show why global warming would be a *problem*. That's not what science is going to tell you. Scientists are not planet medical doctora, only researchers. Anybody who tells you he has the solution to this "problem" is most likely bullshitting you, to wit: Al Gore.

  • Finrod||

    We'll take your models of future disaster seriously when they actually predict something that's non-trivial correctly.

    That'll happen on the second Tuesday of next week.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Do they even know how they sound?

    It was 78 here today--tomorrow it's gonna be drastically warmer--almost 80!

    That's the 'drastic warming' Almost 2 degrees--almost 1 if you prefer Celsius. That's the drastic warming.

    We're all gonna die! The Earth warmed almost two degrees!!! I'm burning up!!

    We have to dismantle Western Civilization in favor of a centrally controlled world economy! That's the only way to mitigate the almost two degrees of warming we're suffering through--why, I needed an extra ice cube to keep my Dom Perignon perfectly chilled. One whole extra cube.

  • mtrueman||

    "That's the 'drastic warming' Almost 2 degrees--almost 1 if you prefer Celsius. "

    But consider this: it's also 1 degree Kelvin.

  • Bill||

    1.5 C +/- 0.3 C since 1880. (from memory of GISS and others)

    Since 1880!

  • Kenrm||

    Lay out ALL of the raw data and provide the sources and let other scientists evaluate it. That is how science was verified in the past.

  • Finrod||

    They've destroyed or altered all the raw data.

    This is why all global warming predictions are non-falsifiable.

  • AndrewJJ||

    Scientific data can identify a problem, but they do not tell policy makers the right way to handle a problem. Maybe the best thing to do is to let emissions increase while growing the economy as fast possible, so as to create the wealth and technologies that will enable future generations to deal with whatever problems climate change may generate. Or perhaps more research needs to be directed toward developing cheap low-carbon energy technologies.

    Well said.
    I don't understand why the right does not make this "their argument" instead contorting things to say "maybe, maybe not".
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    It leaves the "government don't do anything" side look like fact denying fools.

    Rubio kind of sort of was dancing on the edge of this--I don't know why it is not fully embraced. Just because man made global warming is almost certainly occurring--it does not follow that Paris type accords/ carbon taxes are remotely the best path. Nor does it follow that the government has the best plan to "fix" it.

    It all seems to sound familiar to the Malthusian/Neo-Malthusian arguments with people making unforeseen advances and "saving the day" time and time again.

    New power, power storage and likely clever geoengineering tech will likely make this seem a laughable concern 50 years from now (instead of the hand wringing worries about becoming Venus 2.0).

  • Kenrm||

    And Chicken Little said..."The sky is falling, the sky is falling".

  • Longtobefree||

    And the campus cops were put on stand down by the administration while chicken little was fried and served to the rioters protesting the fact that he was allowed to speak.

  • SQRLSY One||

    The fried-and-served Chicken Little ***WILL*** have her revenge, when she joins all of the other "Ghost Chickens in the Sky"!

    Listen up to this stark warning at ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkdci55adqk

  • Longtobefree||

    Not going to read anything from the Times; does the paper actually define how the change is actually a "problem"?
    Does the paper cite any change prediction models that have been proved to be accurate by the passage of time?
    Didn't think so.

  • mememine69||

    For decades REASON spewed the climate blame exaggeration.
    Nice to see you have finally used some reason.

    Are the climate change scientists also only 99% sure the planet isn't flat?

    It was not a crime for NASA to only agree a catastrophic crisis was "real" and never say it was as real as they say the planet isn't flat but it is a crime against Humanity for you fear mongering eager "believers" not to tell your children that the science gods only agreed it "could be" the end of days.

    36 more years of global denial is certain and unstoppable.

  • ||

    So, you're saying that once the Little Ice Age ended, we started a return to normal temperatures?

    EVERYONE PANIC!!!

  • Steve-O||

    Unfortunately, these relatively warm temperatures are not "normal" for the Quaternary. What is normal is a 100,000-year cryogenic hell with mile-thick ice sheets covering Manhattan. We will return to this inevitably in a few thousand years, and the cycle will repeat as it has 50 times before.

    If we wanted a big-government climate program, what would make a lot more sense would be trying to figure out how to stave off the next cycle, which is far more certain and far more destructive than the short-term anthropogenic global warming that we are speculating about.

  • Orf||

    Ronald Bailey seems to be unaware of all the evidence that the greatest fraud in history is based on phony computer models. So-called scientists get paid for finding "evidence" of global warming, which of course influences the outcome of their highly questionable research.

  • mtrueman||

    The heat trapping qualities of CO2 were discovered in the mid 19th century, years before computers or computer modelling. Scientists get paid for observing and measuring the climate. They've found it to be increasing, and I don't see why you find it highly questionable.

  • Finrod||

    Because not a single one of the fuckers will release their ORIGINAL UNALTERED data.

    What they're practicing is NOT SCIENCE, and you're a bloody idiot for believing them.

  • mtrueman||

    "you're a bloody idiot "

    I prefer Chi-com stooge if it's all the same to you.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "Climate models project increases of at least 2.5°F (1.4°C) over the next few decades, "

    HAHAHAHA. He said 'climate models'. HAHAHAHA.

    "The report notes that there is still considerable controversy among researchers when it comes to future trends in hurricane frequency and intensity."

    Translation: Jesus Christ, did we screw the pooch on this one.

  • Tony||

    Explain in detail your problem with models.

  • ace_m82||

    The purpose of a model is to accurately predict future readings. They don't succeed at this at all. I believe that would be his problem with the models.

  • Finrod||

    In fact, every attempt at using these models to predict anything has ended in epic failure.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "Climate models project increases of at least 2.5°F (1.4°C) over the next few decades, "

    'at least'... 'few decades'
    Can you guys be a little less precise in your 'science'?

  • Longtobefree||

    This is from so long ago I lost the citation:
    Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public's attention.
    There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
    "This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."
    Wrong then (1969), wrong now (2017). "Widespread" agreement does not constitute truth; see flat earth.
    I was taught that carbon dioxide was necessary for plant life; has that changed?

  • mtrueman||

    "Can you guys be a little less precise in your 'science'?"

    Science is about observing and measuring. And you want precise figures for the temperature a few decades in the future. You can't observe or measure something that hasn't happened yet. You can't do it precisely, either, it should go without saying.

  • Bill||

    No, like me, he wants to know what "a few" or "next few" decades means.

  • mtrueman||

    "No, like me, he wants to know what "a few" or "next few" decades means."

    How about days, then. Scientists have trouble precisely predicting the weather tomorrow. Yet you are somehow expecting them to achieve the monumental task of accurate predictions decades hence, at no extra cost, apparently.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Politicians, like most people, don't want to hear bad news that appears to contradict their views.

    And of course Bailey doesn't apply that to the politicians who want to use AGW as an excuse to increase their power and government control of the economy in general.

  • JeremyR||

    The second week of August has started and I have yet to turn on my AC this month. Normal temperature this time of year is 89 degrees. For the last week it's been around 80 and looks to be in the low 80s for the next 10 days.

    While obviously this is not proof against global warming, it's really hard to buy into the alarmist scenarios.

  • household 6||

    Ever notice they talk about Ice Ages & warming periods between them? I never seen any of these "scientists" refer to a historical period of excessive temperatures. Global warming seems illogical
    based on their own information.

  • mtrueman||

    "I never seen any of these "scientists" refer to a historical period of excessive temperatures. "

    No surprise there. Global climate vs. local weather.

  • Steve-O||

    Let's see . . . 1880 to 2015. 135 years. Not a significant enough data set from which to draw any conclusions. Constitutes less than 0.2% of one eccentricity Milankovich Cycle.

  • mtrueman||

    What data set would you prefer?

  • Steve-O||

    Since climate is cyclical, I would prefer a data set that encompasses at least the last few glacial cycles of the current ice age. I don't see how you can draw any conclusions with anything less. Therefore, about 300,000 years of data would be good. About 6 million would be ideal.

  • mtrueman||

    How do you propose to come up with a number for the average global temperature 300,000 years ago and each year since. How much are you willing to pay for this massive undertaking. How much more are you willing to pay to go back 6 million years? Don't the ice cores from the Antarctic go back quite a while? What do they tell you?

  • Steve-O||

    I believe that ice core and ocean sediment data shed some light on global temperatures for that period. Although the farther you go back, the greater the margin of error; certainly nothing approaching the actual recorded temperatures beginning in the 1880s.

    But what the data do tell us is that climate is cyclical; the relatively warm interglacial period we are in now, and have been for as long as human civilization existed, is just a blip on the geological timescale. In a few thousand years, we will return to "normal" for the Quaternary, i.e. freezing summers and glaciers covering much of the continental U.S. Makes the whole global warming scare seem kind of silly.

  • Tony||

    Did you have your thumbs under your suspenders when you made this pronouncement?

  • Steve-O||

    Yes. And I was rocking back and forth on my heels.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    A link to the Cook paper in the first paragraph. Ron, you are a true believer aren't you?

  • tlapp||

    I see all those dates thrown around and it looks like cherry picking of data. Science has discovered the earth has been through 4 ice ages and subsequent warmings. At times the earth has been much warmer than today. Is 1.2 degrees more than normal over 100 period? While the alarmists talk about areas that will have higher sea levels how about areas that will become capable of growing crops, have more fresh water, be more inhabitable. Are we sure all the effects due to man or nature or more likely both only bad? Not likely.
    Does anyone believe the government will gain both the ability to determine the best temperature for the earth and be able to control it if we just raise billions in new taxes? Puhleeeze..........

  • mtrueman||

    "how about areas that will become capable of growing crops"

    You need more than pleasant climate to grow crops. Soil is also essential. Soil is not going to magically appear on the Canadian tundra just because it warms up a bit.

  • ThomasD||

    No, soil will not magically appear. But the soil already there will support other forms of vegetation than those currently there.

  • mtrueman||

    I've always wanted to raise moss on the Canadian Tundra. This global warming business is my big chance.

  • Tony||

    According to most of the people here, the Bushies were right in suppressing and editing the scientist' findings because Republican politicians are just more knowledgeable about climate science than climate scientists.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Shut the fuck up, you are way out of your league here. Learn to solve a PDE, then come back and talk to us.

  • Tony||

    Oh please. What is with you aspie math geeks and your gullibility when it comes to real science? I've met more engineers and computer nerds who were creationists than weren't. So I think you need to retake 5th grade science for retards before I need to dick around with your equations.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Early in my career I did quite a bit of atmospheric science. Scattering, polarization, IR/Visible sensor simulation/field test, etc. I know what a planck function is, we have a black body source here at work for calibrating sensors, etc. I've actually run Lowtran and Modtran for real work stuff. Of course, you wouldn't know what those applications are w/o googling them. I've even compiled and run ModelE...an early GCM.

    Go away and let the big boys talk about this complicated stuff.

  • Finrod||

    I daresay you've forgotten more about that subject than asshat Tony will ever know.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    A black body source for Tony is probably a pimp with mostly you black men for hire.

  • Finrod||

    Look at the asshat Tony, trying to say that math isn't real science.

    Go fuck yourself with a rusty running chainsaw, Tony.

  • Tony||

    And go ahead and deny that you think that Republican politicians, alone in the world, have climate science more right even than the experts in the field, all the world over. Deny it by saying you don't believe it.

  • Finrod||

    Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Tony?

  • jinxed13||

    Al Gore's so worried about climate change and how we need to leave a smaller carbon footprint, yet he flies all over the world in a private jet and lives in a mansion that uses more electricity in a day than do major metropolitan cities. George Bush, Jr.; however, has a home that's environmentally friendly or renewable as environmentalists and climate change, global warming, global freezing, holes in the ozone alarmists call reusing resources rather than throwing them away or sending them down the sewer. Now that's an "inconvenient truth" that Al Gore doesn't want you to discover. If you do, Gore, the man who says he doesn't profit from his environmental activism (but suddenly was able to not only build himself a huge new mansion, but make sure that Tipper had her own huge mansion and he wants you to believe he was able to build his empire on what he was paid as an elected official), will have to find another scam and subject for alarm to make money off of. By the way, how do you get a windmill to make electricity when it's in an area that rarely gets windy, or solar panels that are in areas where the sun rarely shines or where daylight lasts only several hours in a 24 hr. period?

  • tommyguns2||

    Just curious, can someone tell me what the global temperature is supposed to be? Every time I ask that question, people look at me as if I'm trying to be some type of smart ass, but it's a legitimate question.

    If the global temperature is supposed to X, and it's presently .99X, then warming would be a good thing. If the temperature is presently 1.01X then warming would be a bad thing.

    So, my question is: what is the optimal global temperature? Are we warmer than that, or cooler than that? What factors or considerations are provided in deciding what is the optimal global temperature.

    Looks to me like climate changes, like it always has. And it will continue changing even if carbon emissions drop, just like it always has. As the warming has leveled over the past 20 years, despite an increase in carbon emissions by about 30%, I'd say that our present climate models need a little bit of work. If they're not right, then why do we have any faith in those people who built the models when they tell us they know what is going to happen to the climate going forward?

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    There is no correct temperature. The global temps have never been static. Even the term "global temp" is a loaded term. Day temps?, night temps?, winter lows or summer highs?, land/sea/air, rural only, maybe a temperature field across the surface instead of some sort of ludicrous average, etc.

  • Longtobefree||

    Most published climate scientists use some polynomial function of the average grant money received relative to the number of promotions granted.
    Or they grab a couple of dice and roll them. Either way, the grant money keeps coming, as do they.

  • mtrueman||

    We want more accurate models and statistics, it's all gotta be paid for.

  • jjjjj||

    We all know that science doesn't tell us what to do about global warming, but SCIENCE! is great for setting policy.

  • Longtobefree||

    Second only to saving the children

  • jinxed13||

    About twenty years ago, the same environmental scientists (alarmists) were telling us that we were heading into another Ice Age. It didn't happen, so they changed their alarm and told us that there would be worldwide drought because of global warming. There were droughts in some places in the world, but they were places where drought is common. Since the global warming alarmists' data and predictions were again proven wrong, they changed the message to climate change. I live in Colorado where if you don't like the weather, you can wait a few minutes and it'll change. It's not unusual to wake up in the morning in December and be able to sun bathe and by noon, be cranking up your snow blower to shovel snow. Yes climate changes, it's called weather. It won't be long until the alarmists start harping on holes in the ozone again and admonishing us to eat less meat because the animals we eat emit too much gas and cause holes in the ozone. Remember that nonsense. However, California has a bill that calls upon farmers in the state to lessen the flatulence of their cows.

  • Chrisstewart||

    ok got it.

  • p3orion||

    Extraordinary claims, and especially those that call for extraordinary responses, require extraordinary evidence. It just ain't there yet.

  • mysmartstuffs||

    Apocalyptic doomsday cults that believe the end-is-nigh always have a consensus among their ranks...unfortunately belief and consensus isn't what makes sound science...data does, and computer model prophecies are not data, they're speculation bordering on divination. People, know the difference between sound science and superstitious hysteria. No one knows what the climate is going to do and no one should even care considering things have done quite well the last 5 billion or so years. Nothing but a tax scam exploiting apocalyptic minds.
    My recent post: Insta Cash Machine 2.0 Review
    My recent post: Website Profit Monster Review

  • tinder download||

    very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online