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’ – &
The report is under fire for its scientific claims: ‘EMBARRASSING’: CLIMATE EXPERT EXPLAINS WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE WHITE HOUSE’S NEW CLIMATE REPORT
But major scientific flaws were immediately discovered in this new federal climate report.
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
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.
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.
“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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.