'Scaremongering': Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report

Climate Depot ^ | Tuesday, June 16, 2009 | Marc Morano

[Delacon]

Below is a small sampling of first reactions to the President Obama's new global warming report. (See: Obama issues global warming report -- 'Detailed picture of the worst case scenarios' -- 'Poised for its most forceful confrontation with American public' )

Sampling of Scientific Reactions to report:

Meteorologist: 'This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA' - June 16, 2009
By Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. D'Aleo publishes www.IceCap.US

Excerpt: The report issued was the Hollywood supported NOAA CCSP report which after two rounds of comments by many scientists citing peer review reasons to change, largely ignored the comments and delivered a document even more alarmist than the UN IPCC. It starts out DAY ONE being wrong on many of its claims but goes much further to rely on climate models for 2050 and 2100 to make even more dire prognoses. This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA. They gave the administration the cover to push the unwise cap-and-tax agenda. For D'Aleo's complete reaction, go here.

U.S. Government Scientist: 'I disagree strongly with the hurricane-related conclusions of this report!' - June 16, 2009
Excerpt: U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. Goldenberg is expressing his personal views on the report, not those of any organization. Goldenberg: I saw the news story on this and looked up the report. I have a pretty good grasp of the hurricane and AGW issues. I have skimmed over the hurricane findings (by the way --- I didn't notice a single recognized hurricane climate expert in the list of authors) and they definitely ignore a large body of the published hurricane research. There are a number of hurricane climate experts (including myself) that would disagree strongly with the hurricane-related conclusions of this report! [...] I can only imagine how slanted the other portions of the report might be as well. (For Full Goldenberg reaction, go here:

Prof. Pielke Jr.: Report 'misrepresents the science' -- 'ignores relevant work in peer-reviewed literature' - June 16, 2009
By Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Excerpt: Imagine if an industry-funded government contractor had a hand in writing a major federal report on climate change. And imagine if that person used his position to misrepresent the science, to cite his own non-peer reviewed work, and to ignore relevant work in the peer-reviewed literature. There would be an outrage, surely . . . The Obama Administration has re-released a report (PDF) first issued in draft form by the Bush Administration last July (still online PDF). The substance of the report is essentially the same as last year's version, with a bit more professionalism in the delivery. For instance, the photo-shopped picture of a flood appears to be removed and the embarrassing executive summary has been replaced by something more appropriate. This post is about how the report summarizes the issue of disasters and climate change, including several references to my work, which is misrepresented. This post is long and detailed, which is necessary to support my claims. But stick with it, or skip to the end if you've seen the details before (and long-time readers will have seen them often), there is a surprise at the end. [...] So to summarize: sentence one is not supported by the citations provided, which lead in both cases to selectively chosen non-peer reviewed sources, and the citations that are peer reviewed on this subject come to an opposite conclusion and are ignored.

'So Much For That Whole Commitment To Science We Were Promised' - June 16, 2009
Excerpt: Wow, that's sure how I learned to handle a scientific report back when I was studying physics - scrub it of the science and give it to an activist PR firm! Do you need any more evidence that climate science has become substantially dominated by post-modernist scientists, where ideological purity and staying on message is more important than actually having the science right? [...] Apparently the report will make up for having all the science stripped out by spending a lot of time on gaudy worst case scenarios.

Obama 'hires PR firm to embellish past scaremongering generated exclusively from virtual climate computer models' - June 16, 2009
Excerpt: Despite the scientific evidence that the globe has been cooling (land, atmosphere and oceans) over the last 10+ years, Obama chooses to publish his first "science" report void of any recent, real-world climate science. Instead, his administration hires a PR firm to embellish the past scaremongering generated exclusively from virtual climate computer models. Unfortunately for real science and America, he has sided with the pseudo science of "virtual lies" and hysterical climate claims in order to get his badly needed revenue-generation engine, 'Cap & Trade,' passed in Congress.

Sen. Inhofe: 'No surprise report released just in time for Climate bill vote' - June 16, 2009
Excerpt: “That the federal bureaucracy in Washington has produced yet another alarmist report on global warming is nothing new,” Sen. Inhofe said. It's also no surprise that such a report was released just in time for the House vote on Waxman-Markey. [...] I would suggest that, given a little time, the world's preeminent scientists will quickly and thoroughly debunk this study. As has been clearly demonstrated by the Senate Minority report of over 700 scientists questioning global warming hysteria, the debate on the science remains wide open.”

[Delacon]

note to Moderator: This was already posted on FR yesterday by username "Climate Depot". For all I know that could be someone who works on the Climate Depot staff. But they neglected to include the 7 links to the actual articles from which this summary was derived. I think some what like to follow the links to the original articles and see what the rest of the articles as well as the sites themselves have to offer.

[Delacon]

ping

[LeonardFMason]

It is OVER. There is nothing left to do my fellow liberals but commit mass suicide. Only our extinction will help the planet recover.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[LLoyd George]

URL for full report download:
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/download-the-report

[Delacon]

Thanks Lloyd and for everyone else, I especially like Roger Pielke’s breakdown of the report which is linked to in the summary above but here it is again: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/obamas-phil-cooney-and-new-ccsp-report.html

[cake_crumb]

Thanks for posting because I wasn’t online yesterday :- ) The language being used is getting stronger and stronger, as the real experts get angrier and angrier...I hope Mr Goldberg isn’t sacked from NOAA for deviating from The World As Stated by His Obama-ness.

[Always Right]

It took two decades, but more and more scientists are finally starting to stand up to this sham.

[dead]

Thanks for picking that excellent one out of the bunch. I didn't have time to read them all.

This point verges on comical:

For example, during the time period covered in the figure to the right, population increased by a factor of 1.3 while losses increased by a factor of 15 to 20 in inflation-corrected dollars.

That figure appears to the right and its problems are many.

1. The figure includes a major earthquake and 9/11.
2. The figure and the text neglect the effects of increasing wealth.
3. Published peer reviewed studies show no long-term trends in flood or hurricane losses once adjusted for societal change, yet those data are included.

They prove global warming has increased "insured losses from catastrophes" over the last twenty years, while including 911 and an earthquake and ignoring societal changes!

Retarded science.

[Sgt_Schultze]

More and more real scientists are worried about their own credibility. Backing an unobservable, unverifiable and untestable theory as fact flies in the face of actual science.

[Always Right]

More and more real scientists are worried about their own credibility. Backing an unobservable, unverifiable and untestable theory as fact flies in the face of actual science.

I am kind of disgusted it took so long though. Computer models which don't even model 10% of factors which effect climate and represent mostly guesses at that, are not science. It is ridiculous as to what has passed as science for decades without every scientific organization raising hell. Most of the organizations backed the sham.

[Sgt_Schultze]

There might be a reason to believe their “models” if any of them had predicted the cooling that happened in 1998. Do you know of any model that frets of ghastly heating while depicting the cooling - even today's “improved” models?

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Excellence]

When the “minority” of “skeptics” outnumbers the “majority” of these scaremongering scientists, will it matter? Will it make a difference? Will the skeptics be sent to Siberia?

[Kandy Atz]

Obama has to find some way to pay for is health care, car companies, acorn and the rest of his liberal nightmares.

[Always Right]

There might be a reason to believe their “models” if any of them had predicted the cooling that happened in 1998. Do you know of any model that frets of ghastly heating while depicting the cooling - even today's “improved” models?

They are still in denial there has been a cooling trend. ALL the models used the year 1998 to prove that global warming is exponentially accelerating. Exponential growth is the favorite weapon of fear-mongers which goes back many centuries. From what I can tell, none of them have backed off those outlandish predictions. It is like 1998 was an accurate data point and everything since is just an anomaly. It is unbelievable how bias these fear-mongers are and how gullible the media is to swallow up the lies.