National Climate Assessment and the Trump administration

The National Climate Assessment must be redirected or terminated

by Patrick J. Michaels

Periodic National Assessments of the effects of climate change on the U.S. are mandated by the 1990 Global Change Research Act. The next Assessment Report is scheduled to be published in late 2018.

The Assessment Report will be produced by civil servants in the federal government (mainly unfireable GS15’s reporting to Obama Administration bosses), many of whom handle large amounts of climate research money. It has always been in their interest to portray global warming as alarming, and therefore in need of even more federal research dollars.

The easiest path for the Trump administration would be to simply not produce a Report. The first Report didn’t appear until 2000, in the dying days of the Clinton Administration, and there were none during George W. Bush’s time. The Obama Administration produced the second (2009) and third (2014). Obviously there was no penalty handed out to the Bush Administration.

The 2000 edition—I am not making this up because I discovered it—used climate models that performed worse than a table of random numbers when simulating simple ten year running averages of coterminous U.S. temperatures. The track record of these reports shows if there is going to be a 2018 version, it had better be at least a “red team/blue team report,” as each predecessor report has been comically bad.

The second (2009) indeed did prompt a non-governmental “red team” response in the form of a palimpsest containing more references than the government’s “blue team” version. The third was billed by its creators specifically as a “key deliverable in President Obama’s Climate Action Plan;” no politics there, just science (sarc).

The latest Assessment — NCA4 — is in full swing. NCA4 promises to be as bad or worse than its predecessors unless the Trump Administration intervenes.

The National Climate Assessment is a huge federal interagency effort, meaning it belongs to no particular agency. It is run by the U.S. Global Change Research Program USGCRP, which is tasked with coordinating the climate research efforts of thirteen federal agencies.

The Assessments have ballooned into massive thousand-page tomes, rivaling the IPCC Assessment Reports in length. The third National Assessment Report in 2014 (NCA3) had a 60-person federal advisory committee, over 300 authors, plus input from over 1000 scientists. It featured this scary introduction: “Evidence of climate change appears in every region and impacts are visible in every state. Explore how climate is already affecting and will continue to affect your region.”

The supposed climate change impacts are almost all bad and projected to get much worse. Actual climate change in the United States is small and what little we see is largely beneficial. Satellite data show virtually all landmasses are becoming greener. Bad weather is not climate change, but you would never know this from reading the National Assessments. Extreme weather in the U.S. was much worse in the 1930’s and 1950’s than in recent decades.

In fact, the authors are specifically required to focus on wild worst-case scenarios. The NCA4 instructions say “It will be especially critical for authors to consider low-probability, high-consequence, climate futures…” Thus the National Assessment promises to be nothing but a big book of scares.

In each Assessment Report, virtually no effort was made by the authors to include any dissenting opinion to their declarative statements, despite the peer-reviewed scientific literature being full of legitimate and applicable reports and observations that provide contrasting findings.

Now is the time for the Trump Administration to act. The direction of NCA4 is supposed to come from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, but that job is vacant pending the appointment of a Science Advisor. Director of the NCA4 is David Reidmiller, now with the USGCRP. According to the USGCRP, he “led U.S. negotiations related to science and technology in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that played a central role in the development and adoption of the Paris Agreement.” More on Reidmiller’s profoundly bad fit with Trump’s Admiminstration is here.

Given that Trump just extricated the U.S. from Paris, maybe it’s time to replace Reidmiller with someone who is not associated with President Obama’s climate policies.

The Draft NCA4 chapters are about to go out to agencies for review. Here the Trump people are in charge and they need make the National Assessment realistic and in line with the best and newest data. EPA in particular should take a hard look at these draft chapters, since risk assessment is a big part of their mission.

If there has been regional climate change, let’s see what it is, good and bad. I suspect it is mostly good, like longer growing seasons and warmer winter nights. If this cannot be done objectively, then NCA4 should simply be delayed while a “red team” produces a palimpsest similar to the one done for the second Assessment, providing balance that the federal agencies have lost. The pervasive climate of exaggeration must change in order for federal climatology to maintain at least a shred of credibility.

JC comments: I think that the idea of a National Climate Assessment Report is a good one. Documentation of regional climate change and variability, and interpretation of this change in context of land use changes, natural variability and external forcing would be a valuable exercise. Historical records as far back as we can go, and the regional paleoclimate analyses are necessary to provide context for any recent changes. Interpretation of these changes in context of local and regional vulnerabilities would be valuable.

What is NOT needed is naïve attribution of everything ‘bad’ to human-caused CO2 emissions, and projections using climate models that are most definitely not fit for the purpose.

Let’s see what the Report looks like (I wonder if there will be ‘leaks’ so we can see what it is like), but I am not optimistic given the problems with the previous Assessment Reports. My suspicion is that the Trump administration will find that it needs to push the ‘reset’ button on National Climate Assessment process.

Or, this could be the perfect opportunity to implement the red team/blue team approach that has been advocated by Steve Koonin, John Christy and myself.

Moderation note:  As with all guest posts, please keep your comments civil and relevant.

352 responses to “National Climate Assessment and the Trump administration

  1. Or, this could be the perfect opportunity to implement the red team/blue team approach that has been advocated by Steve Koonin, John Christy and myself.

    I do know John Christy. I have listened to him and talked to him and I have exchanged emails with him since.

    I found a book that was mostly alarmist, but had a center section that featured an interview with Christy and an alamrist from Penn State.

    He sent me an email for the second grade that I made a climate presentation to.

    I do like John Christy.

  2. Stephen Heins

    “A conference is a gathering of people who singly can do nothing and together decide that nothing can be done.”

    W. Knudsen

    Stephen Heins The Word Merchant, LLC Energy Writer and Activist Suite 3, 530 Wilson Avenue Sheboygan, WI. 53081 920-918-8098

    “A conference is a gathering of people who singly can do nothing and together decide that nothing can be done.”

    W. Knudsen

    Stephen Heins The Word Merchant, LLC Energy Writer and Activist Suite 3, 530 Wilson Avenue Sheboygan, WI. 53081 920-918-8098


  3. What can and should be done is for everyone reading this post to email President Trump, Secretary (EPA) Pruitt, Secretary (Interior) Zinke and Secretary (Energy) Perry, for openers, telling them to can the whole exercise. Links to do so are available on WH and agency websites.

    George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA

    • Got some email addresses? Not finding them real accessible, as of this time.

    • (EPA is not a cabinet position so Pruitt is the Administrator, not the Secretary.) A red team approach would be much better than cancellation, but the hundreds of alarmist authors have already been selected and trained, so a serious restructuring is needed. (I nominate Pat Michaels for that job.) We can let them have their scary blue version, as long as the red version gets equal weight. This will make the debate official, where it needs to be.

    • Well, George, Secretary Zinke is already doing something. He has sent letters to up to 50 members of Interior’s Senior Executive Service (SES), announcing his intention to move them to other positions in Interior, effective at its earliest legal date of June 28, 2017, 120 days into his term.

      This sort of move was anticipated when the SES system was created in 1978. I was a new and young manager in the new Department Energy (Western Area Power Administration) at the time. I watched as the existing torpid GS15 and GS16 ex-Department of Interior drones were made into “executives.” Over the next several years they worked out a system to grant each other “performance” bonuses in turn. I assume the whole system is still as phony, since only 8 percent of career SES employees ever change agencies.

      The great part? Current top climate policy official, Joel Clement, Director of the Office of Policy Analysis, has been informed he will be moved to the Office of Natural Resources and Revenue, where he will be involved in collecting royalty payments.

      There are other interesting tidbits concerning some of Secretary Zinke’s actions. President Trump sure can pick them, can’t he?

    • “What’s up with the predisposition of hispanics believing that AGW will harm them personally?”

      Don’t you know? They have been told they are all victims. Postmodernism, identity politics, “temperature inequality”. Just ask Oreskes. We must divide everyone into Oppressed and Oppressors, postmodernist culturel Marxism.

      So you are responsible for any minority group individual who sweats on a hot day.

  4. I think that the idea of a National Climate Assessment Report is a good one.

    Not unless you make changes to who is doing the report.

  5. I agree with Judith. This is not a time to bury your heads in the sand. See what the report comes up with and then produce a dissenting one with a few selected authors and reviewers like the NIPCC. The IPCC report had about 1000 contributors, and the NIPCC had about 30. That’s your 97% there. People can use both reports to weigh the consensus.

    • How many people (a) understand, and (b) agree with, Energy Secretary Rick “Oops” Perry’s view on CO2 as stated here? The AMS takes him to task.

      • Well, climate models have only simulated a small part of the temperature changes in out of sample data. Most of the variability is not picked up by the models.

        So, in that sense, Perry is right. CO2 is not the primary control knob.

        Also, despite what is in this article, nobody knows how much is “natural” and how much is from GHG. We just don’t know.

        But, the vast majority of politicians don’t know squat about the issue so I really don’t care what Rick Perry says or Al Gore or some Republican from Oklahoma.

      • We have had a long-term rise of 1 C. That is not natural because the sun and volcanoes have not had anything like the change that can account for this. The sun is even in a relative lull.

    • The first three were horrible–and do be sure to click on the link “second” and “palimpsest” for a wonderful example.. My favorite in the third one was that global warming will increase mental illness in the U.S.–like people in Richmond are crazier than they are in Washington?

      No, the new draft will be awful, being produced by pretty much the same cast of folks and their intellectual progeny as the first three.

      • There needs to be a Not the NCA (NNCA) by the usual suspects from the NIPCC. Round them up. They’ll think of something.

      • Patrick, the reports were piles of unfounded assumptions and wild speculation. They were of no use to their intended audience: infrastructure managers at the Federal, state and local levels.

      • “If the other side had any equivalent academics”
        Wow, this must be a new spin on pier (as in stuck in the mud) review.

      • russellseitz

        Pat shold get real by adding some ex Sec Nav’s and Oceanographers of the Navy to his list.

    • The IPCC budget is many millions of dollars a year, much of it paid by the US. Let’s give the NIPCC the same budget and see what comes out.

      • I don’t think the fossil fuel industry were willing to pay that much even though they were clearly able. Perhaps they saw it would be pointless given the cast led by the likes of Monckton and conspiracy ideas promoted by the Alex Jones types. It was wise of them to stay clear of that.

      • Jim D: You have missed the point entirely. The government needs to pay both sides. This makes the debate official. It is as simple as that.

      • If the other side had any equivalent academics, they could gather together, probably in a small room, and put something together at little expense. There’s a lot of cost-savings in only having 3% support.

      • Jim D: You are seriously pushing the 97% nonsense? (I am actually not surprised.) There is no lack of skeptical talent. Mind you it is true that academics are mostly alarmists, because they are mostly liberals. Polls suggest that over 80% are Democrats.

        If I were recruiting a 300 person red team I would get a lot of engineers, since the NCA is mostly data analysis. The infrastructure engineers do this stuff all the time, in real situations, not academic fantasies. I did it as a water federal water resources engineer. The academics have taken themselves out of the Trump loop. Fine by me.

      • Steven Mosher

        They didn’t even open up their process to outside review.
        Heck the ipcc took my comments. .
        Amateur bs.

      • 97% is just where the numbers fell when considering how many people contributed to those reports. The NCA had 300 contributors and 70 workshops being mostly a US effort. What can the NCA dismissers pull together?

    • We elected Trump partly because the IPCC reports were worse than useless.

      • There should not be two reports. That gives the media the option to report on one and ignore the other. The cost of previous reports must be prohibitive with that many “authors” putting in time. Why not employ the 30 NIPCC authors and 30 from the alarmist side and produce a single, much shorter version That includes all viewpoints and makes the media read and report both sides. That would start the debate.

      • Don Monfort

        It doesn’t matter whether it’s one or two reports. The media will only report what suits their agenda. They will stick with the 97% consensus BS. Let them have their fun. We don’t need to worry about any BS reports. Trump Rules!

    • This is a link to the shortest version of the last assessment in 2014, 20-page summary.
      The skeptics had no noticeable response that time. Why would it be different this time? I think the tricky part for skeptics is getting stakeholders involved because they want to know what will happen to their interests as things get hotter and wetter, especially as they already see effects starting.

      • Judith would call that “weak tea”. It is largely agreeing with the Key Messages and adding points around the edges of it. No substantive disagreement or evidence thereof. As seen in the title, it doesn’t set out to refute the key statements, which therefore doesn’t affect policy decisions based on those Key Messages. The Overview I linked summarizes 13 Key Findings, and those were not refuted. Without that, you don’t affect policy.

      • One wonders if our Cato Freedom Fighters are really familiar with “Karl Popper’s famous essay on the nature of science and its distinction from “pseudoscience.””

        Citing it would have been nice.

        One can also wonder if our Cato Freedom Fighters are familiar with A quick ‘n dirty guide to falsifying AGW.

      • Their intro talks about life expectancy and income being better than in 1900 but fails to mention that these are both worse in warmer countries than cooler ones today. Why are warmer countries less healthy and wealthy? We don’t know for sure, but there are many ideas. It just is that way. Here’s a recent pertinent article.

      • Popper is all over my 2016 book Lukewarming. Jim D, I haven’t a clue what you are talking about. It was a pretty serious takedown. How many pages did you read?

      • It wasn’t a take down at all. The points made were not denied and also would be very hard to. This may be why the rebuttal never got any traction. I assume you started with the most important ones, but the ones at the beginning were not a takedown, and nor was your preamble about how nice things have gotten during the 20th century which you apparently have attributed to climate change rather than technological advancement. Technological advancement will continue, and will need to in order to counter the effects of climate change.

      • What climate change, Jim D?

      • Minor temperature changes is not climate change, Jim D. Again, what climate change?

      • One degree is five standard deviations compared to natural variability. How many more standard deviations do you need?

      • One last time, Jim D: What climate change? Show me any differences in today’s climate vs the observed and paleo data.

      • How about the last Ice Age? What are you talking about?

      • > Popper is all over my 2016 book […]

        Then I’m sure it has this quote:

        Handwaving to a book doesn’t a citation replace.

        There’s a reason why I’m asking for that “famous essay,” you know.

        Hint: I’m calling your bluff.

      • Don Monfort

        You are squandering your talents here, willito. I bet you could make a buck writing pap for one of those smarmy little left loon hosts on late night TV. The later the better.

      • aporiac1960

        Jim D: “Their intro talks about life expectancy and income being better than in 1900 but fails to mention that these are both worse in warmer countries than cooler ones today.”

        You really do have a pathological impulse to find doom and gloom in everything, no matter how good.

        There are inequalities between life expectancy according to where you live on the planet, but these inequalities have never been smaller. More importantly, at least by the reckoning of those benefitting from a longer life, life expectancy has been increasing everywhere, driven by modernisation and industrialisation powered almost entirely by fossil fuels. This is great news, Jim!

        One of the problems of getting older is that you are more likely to be killed by things that adversely affect old people. I suspect if you canvassed opinion, however, most people would rather die at 75 from heat stress than at 45 from the cumulative effects of poverty.

        You badly need to get some perspective, but this will never be possible until you reduce your exposure to the various millenarian cult groups you associate with.

        Here is a good site with lots of life expectancy information: –

      • You miss the point, Find life expectancy against mean temperature, and also GDP per capita against mean temperature. Warmer is worse for both. Warmer countries have had less development on average.

      • Jim D, if you are trying to equate projected future AGW with the negatives of warmer countries, you fail. That paltry 2 to 4 degrees C of projected AGW warming pales in comparison of the temperature difference between warmer and cooler countries. Orders of magnitude, hey?

      • No, I am saying that what trends we know about are not positive. If global temperatures rise 4 C, land temperatures rise 6 C in a transient climate because land warms faster. Six degrees may not seem much to you, but it does make a difference, which is why I also linked the recent Nat Geo article.

      • Wrong-o, Jim D. The projected (speculated) warming occurs in cooler countries. Net benefits so far. Net benefits in the future.

      • Here it is again for your perusal. there have been heatwaves in what you would call cool countries (France, Russia, state of Texas), and expect worse ones to come.

      • B.S., Jim D. All those places experienced heat waves in the past. Show me proof that they expect worse in the future. Anyway, thank weather patterns, not climate, for heat waves, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, …..

      • How do I prove the future? What would be your method for that? Time machine?

      • Poor wee willie casts a Popperian red herring and expects to catch a whale. Our poor man’s Captain Ahab babbles on so persistently that it induces in me a queasy vertigo. It takes far to much energy to divine a content beyond the low level contempt that is his sole purpose here. Linguistically the ground falls out from under one. When a meaning ultimately appears – albeit fleetingly – it is the one where elites rule over a planned economy. What a novel and intriguing idea.

        You see I have made it my life’s work to study poor wee willie – well at least the blogospheric equivalent of poking a stick at something vaguely distasteful on a seashore.

      • Perhaps Don Don prefers Vaughan:

        Reminds me when PatM put a foot in his mouth the last time he met him.

        Since Cato’s crap fumbles the falsificationist framework to reject what everyone but Freedom Fighters does, Chief might need to study a bit more.

      • I do prefer Vaughn, willito. He has his screwball moments but he is always interesting and not incessantly preachy and tedious. What’s up with the doc?

      • It seems a laboured gotcha to posit falsification in the context of AGW. The question that some physicists ask is whether string theory can be called science in the absence of falsification. The modern concept is science as investigation sacrifices certainty for a property of uberty – or fruitfulness. I am not able to comment on the uberty of string theory except to say that – apparently – the answer to life, death and everything is not 42. It is 456.

        There is a similar discussion in our less exalted field of global hydrology.

        Modern hydrology places nearly all its emphasis on science-as-knowledge, the hypotheses of which are increasingly expressed as physical models, whose predictions are tested by correspondence to quantitative data sets. Though arguably appropriate for applications of theory to engineering and applied science, the associated emphases on truth and degrees of certainty are not optimal for the productive and creative processes that facilitate the fundamental advancement of science as a process of discovery. The latter requires an investigative approach, where the goal is uberty, a kind of fruitfulness of inquiry, in which the abductive mode of inference adds to the much more commonly acknowledged modes of deduction and induction. The resulting world-directed approach to hydrology provides a valuable complement to the prevailing hypothesis- (theory-) directed paradigm.

        Not surprisingly – hydrology is a sub-set of climate – there are parallels with the way that climate science proceeds. When not playing computer games with no prospect of validation. Certainty devolves to almost complete uncertainty and the fruitfulness of much of it is questionable. But the reality of it is that falsification in the strict sense is not possible – despite the deluded aspirations of skeptics.

        But poor wee willies content less game of wits – based as it is on low level sophistry – is lost before it starts. He just doesn’t have the amperage.

      • AGW fits Popper’s idea by being falsifiable. It states that doubling CO2 raises the global surface temperature by 2 and eventually 3 C. At half a doubling we are still on track. Popper also says that something that has passed all tests so far should not be rejected.

      • > I do prefer Vaughn

        Then you may appreciate this flashback:

        Willard, Michaels is a denier. Since when has a denier ever offered a straight answer to anything? I’m only interested in rational discussion of climate change, not in arguing with deniers.

        That’s just a bit after PatM asked who was Vaughan. Would you like me to find that one?

        It’s nice to see you here. It means the world is safe again.


        > It seems a laboured gotcha to posit falsification in the context of AGW.

        Tell that to PatM:

        One wonders how familiar the 240 authors of the 2013 draft National Assessment are with Karl Popper’s famous essay on the nature of science and its distinction from “pseudoscience.” The essential difference is that science only explains some things and that its hypotheses forbid others, while a theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event — i.e., one that is universally and comprehensively explanatory — is pseudoscience.

        The demarcation problem is still an open problem.

      • The greenhouse effect is falsifiable even at a global scale.

        Jimmy D’s divinations are not remotely likely to be true.

      • The greenhouse effect would be hard to falsify because it explains too many things we observe, but Popperian skeptics don’t accept it as science for exactly the reason that it is hard to falsify. Go figure.

      • What we have is a simple hypothesis that greenhouse gases increase photon scattering in the atmosphere. Radiant energy is then measured through a narrow aperture before and after gases are added to the atmosphere.

        What it explains of changes in Earth systems is entirely a problem of a different order of magnitude. Science in the world abductive inferences are questionable and uncertain. Science based on assumptions is pseudo science. Science based on Jimmy D’s divinations is utterly ludicrous.

        I think I have the demarcation about right.

      • I think your main problem is that you don’t understand the physics, so you project that to the actual scientists who know this stuff. The behavior of photons and gases is basic physics and well understood.

      • Jimmy – the physics of photon scattering is fairly obvious – but your understanding of it is rudimentary at best. We can add to that a lack of any knowledge of natural sciences that would temper your obsessional and pedantic certainties.

      • Maybe you don’;t think the greenhouse effect is established in which case I don’t have time to argue that point with you.

      • I don’t know what you are talking about. There is global scale evidence for photon scattering that I linked to above. The greenhouse effect is falsifiable is what I said. Are you thinking that this means that it has been falsified? In that case you are really just a scatterbrained annoyance.

      • So the point I made is that, yes, it is falsifiable. There is so much evidence for the greenhouse effect that it makes falsifying it very hard to do. Popperian skeptics interpret that as not science by virtue of not being falsifiable. Which part did you dispute?

      • Practically all of it Jimmy D – the experimental proof says nothing about the action of the greenhouse effect in the real world. You then assume that climate observations equates to falsification by experiment. It does not – it amounts to abductive reasoning at best and pseudoscience based on questionable assumptions more commonly. But you then substitute narrative for both – it is all utter nonsense.

      • OK, try making the Popperian argument that Michaels does. Does he say AGW is not falsifiable? Do you say it is falsifiable? Do you agree with Michaels, or am I having two different arguments here. How about if we add 100 ppm (or a much larger forcing signal than natural solar or volcanic variation) and the temperature goes down instead of up. Would that constitute falsification of AGW to you?

      • Which bit don’t you understand? Go back to the hydrology reference I cited first up. Much of the real climate science is not falsifiable as such – much is based on assumption and is pseudoscience.

        Your assumptions are a lost cause.

      • How about the assumption that adding 4 W/m2 of forcing, by any means, warms the earth? Is this one of those things you can’t accept? Where does Milankovitch stand if you don’t? Pseudoscience too? Distinguish Milankovitch and AGW, both based on forcing changes. How about volcanoes or aerosols or the sun which cause measurable changes of temperature through changes of forcing? Have you dismissed all of this as pseudoscience?

      • Glacials and interglacials are the result of internal, chaotic feedbacks in the Earth system. The change is about 25W/m2 squared. The important internal factors you have assumed out of existence – so yes when the bigger picture is sytematically neglected and replaced by easy and dubious assumption – the result is pseudoscience. In your case it is even less than that – it is just narrative babble in which you invent straw men and imagine you have demonstrated a point.

      • I still don’t know where you draw the line between the various effects of forcing. Doubling CO2 is equivalent to a solar increase of 1%. Both contribute nearly a 4 W/m2 imbalance. Warming or pseudoscience to even expect that?

      • Bigger picture Jimbo.

      • Big picture: forcing leads to warming. Yes, no, pseudoscience? Think of Milankovitch as an example to help you.

      • Climate is a wild beast – and your assumption of net warming in the real world is less than pseudoscience. Think dragon-king.

      • Climate may be a wild beast and we are poking it with a stick. Not a good idea.

      • There may be that – as I keep saying. But your simplistic nonsense is not that reality.

      • Tipping points occur mostly during rapid climate change. Some happened just after the last Ice Age. The forcing change rate now is faster. One example is the Meltwater Pulses which can be produced if Greenland’s melt accelerates.

      • There we go again with the less than pseudoscience babbling narrative. The more relevant climate shifts are those at 20 to 30 years. This has implications for hydrology and climate at a scale a little closer to home.

      • I think you don’t know what Popper was talking about. When he says something that can’t be falsified is pseudoscience, he doesn’t include in that category things that are so true that they are difficult to falsify.

      • It is a term for the inherent testability of a hypothesis. Not falsifiable means that it is not testable. Not being falsifiable in this sense means that it is not science. But there are different approaches to science – based on observation of phenomenon – that are less certain – but are productive and creative processes that facilitate the fundamental advancement of science as a process of discovery. Then there is climate science.

        Thanks for the laugh over my morning coffee. .

      • On the flip side, Popper also says hypotheses cannot be dismissed unless they are falsified. This part doesn’t play so well with the Popperian skeptics. Skeptics have dismissed the hypothesis that CO2 forcing changes leads to warming despite all the evidence supporting it. That is not Popperian.

      • Jimmy D’s appalling weirdness. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is testable – but that says nothing about the how great the impact is in the real climate system. Very few ‘skeptics’ say that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

      • How large the effect is, is also testable. It is not pseudoscience to posit a value of the sensitivity any more than it is to suggest a distance to the Moon. This is how science work. You have to quantify, otherwise you can’t falsify. Right?

      • How large the effect is is not testable. It is provisional and profoundly uncertain. Just because you call it science probably means it isn’t.

      • What?

      • We-don’t-know-how-much-anthropogenic-warming-was-last-century.

      • To paraphrase Einstein, twit, all it takes is one to disprove it.

      • Trolls use ad-homs. That’s how you can tell them apart. On this thread one person fits this. Improve.

      • It’s not an ad-hom; it’s an accurate representation of the behavior you exhibit here. Why don’t you read and try to understand the replies your inanities generate on this Thread?

      • I think you can improve because it only makes you look angry, which is a sign of weakness in an argument.

      • Breaking my prior intent to ignore your B.S., Jim D, you twit: Equating the “forcing” of CO2 longwave “effect” to the sun’s shortwave penetration of and warming of the oceans is parroting nonsense.

      • Forcing is forcing regardless of source. Warming is warming likewise.

      • Yeah, twit. Tell “forcing” to the 21st Century temperatures and models that so freely use it.

      • Thanks for your input.

      • It isn’t input; it’s sarcasm. You deserve no more, Jim D.

      • Sarcasm is a non-serious statement, and that is how I take all yours.

      • aporiac1960

        Jim D: “Warmer countries have had less development on average.”

        OK, let’s test your hypothesis that there is a causal link between how warm a county is and the level of development, rather than a loose correlation that is probably down to other factors.

        If we take a region in South Asia in a latitude band, say, between 20 and 30 degrees North we are going to encounter average annual temperatures in the 15-20 Celsius range.

        Within India alone this band encompasses around 15 federal states.

        Here is the annual GDP per capita of a dozen of them (2012-13):
        Bihar $418
        Manipur $568
        Jharkhand $619
        Assam $623
        Madhya Pradesh $692
        Rajasthan $909
        West Bengal $944
        Arunachal Pradesh $1173
        Himachal Pradesh $1291
        Gujarat $1492
        Haryana $1833
        Sikkim $2329

        $2329/$418 = 6

        That’s quite a lot of economic variability for not much climate variability.

        How about if we go to Texas or Quatar, both with average annual temperatures of around 20 celsius: –

        Texas $50,000
        Qatar $130,000

        So from Bihar to Qatar we have around 300 times the GDP/capita, and from the wealthiest Indian state in this latitude band, Sikkim, we have more than 50 times!

        I’m thinking there are factors in play here other than the weather. I suggest you look at history rather than geography to understand why some places are more developed than others.

      • I have seen scatterplots, country by country, and it is true that the developed countries are on average further from the equator than the less developed ones. This affects both health and wealth correlations. Just coincidence? You decide.

      • Don Monfort

        That is blatantly rayciss, yimmy. You are obvisously implying the dark folks can’t get their doo doo together. Tsk tsk.

      • It doesn’t have to be race. Within the US population look where the rednecks live versus the location of the Ivy League colleges. OK, so we can eliminate race. What else have you got?

      • Let’s eliminate the race factor that you are obsessed with, yimmy. Look at China, on a per capita GDP basis still very poor. Singapore is mostly Chinese folks. Very rich and it is far to the South of China proper, 1 degree North of the Equator. Then you got Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao much richer and all closer to the Equator than China proper. Then you got the Carib Islands. Those with a colonial history other than British are dirt poor. Former British colonies doing much better. Africa same story. The scatter plots you been looking at have scattered your brains. Try thinking logically. You are blinded by climate catastrophe ideology.

      • I could give you ten pairings for any one you propose? How about Germany versus Peru, Latvia versus Angola? Scatterplots tell the story. Exceptions only prove the rule.

      • Well, there you go again with the rayciss stuff. Germany white vs. Peru brown. Latvia very white vs. the black Angolans. Pathetic, yimmy. Shame on you.

      • That’s where your mind goes, not mine.

      • It’s not me, yimmy. The examples I gave eliminated your rayciss factor. You keep making it look like the white folks are hardworking and smart and the folks of color are the opposite. It’s your theory, yimmy. You provided the examples. I am trying to help you understand your issues, yimmy. Try to use your head.

      • See my answer about rednecks above. I don’t give their whiteness any credit.

      • That’s just some more bigoted crap, yimmy. Based on your rayciss-closer to the Equator theory you could just as easily have pointed out that Detroit is a formerly safe and prosperous Northern city that is now a war zone and has gone bust because of the migration of those Southern types. You just dig the hole deeper, jimmy.

      • You can cherrypick all you want. The general data shows less health and less wealth as it gets warmer. I don’t know why, but there it is.

      • You are being very disingenuous, yimmy. I am not cherry-picking. I gave several specific examples that eliminated the racial issue and you retaliated with white vs. brown and white vs. black. You said you could give me ten examples for every one I provided. You cherry-picked two examples, (1) white vs. brown and (2)white vs. black. You came up a little short there, yimmy. And you can’t get away from race. Your theory is racial, period.

      • It looks like you have reading comprehension issues and don’t realize that the whole thread is there for others to read for themselves. I stand by the purely statistical point I raised. I didn’t claim to have an interpretation. It just is.

      • What is evident for all to see is that you are promoting a theory of economic development that says white folk are smart and industrious and colored folk ain’t. I gave you several examples that eliminated the race issue and you gave TWO that pitted white against color. That irrelevant redneck BS is just another of your stinky red herrings. Very pathetic performance, yimmy. You are not going to save the world from burning up with this foolishness.

      • I gave you one example where everyone was white, but you didn’t accept it, and that is your problem not mine.

      • Your “rednecks” example is absurd and bigoted. You said you could give me ten examples for every one. You are full of BS.

        I am going to help you. The reason that the native populations in the tropics have not developed economies similar to those of the people in temperate climates is that life is easier in their neighborhoods. Life thrives in the tropics. They don’t freeze and starve to death in the winter, if they fail to work their butts off in the summer. They don’t have to invent a lot of stuff to survive. Grass hut, grass skirt and coconut trees, fish, fresh fruits, the occasional elephant.

        Experiment: 1000 years ago move the population of Tahiti to the islands that are now Iceland. Or African pygmies. They would have had to work their little behinds off to survive. They would have had to create new tools and methods of growing and storing food, etc. etc. Use your freaking head for a change, yimmy. And does economic activity in the temperate climates stop in the summer? –snipping– NO, yimmy. Make hay while the sun shines! Cold is the enemy of human kind. Try to –snipping– catch up, yimmy.

      • I am just pointing out that the statistics are robust. I have no explanation why warmer countries are less healthy and less wealthy. Disease? Lifespan? Other factors? I don’t know. You seem to be trying to explain it too.

      • aporiac1960

        Jim D: “Just coincidence? You decide.”

        Thanks for the invitation. I decide as follows: –

        The modern world – philosophically, technically, legally, politically, etc., was made in Europe. The European climate is on average fairly mild. Your ignorance is staggering.

        But leaving all of this aside, why has the difference between an annual GDP per capita of $2,000 versus $400 not pricked your curiosity?

        So what makes the difference between $400 p.a. and $2,000 p.a?

        The ‘Jim D’ density.

      • Interesting. Please explain your theory further. I mentioned that wealth decreases with warmer temperatures and that is effectively measured by GDP per capita, so all you have done so far is repeated what I said.

      • aporiac1960

        Jim D: “so all you have done so far is repeated what I said.”

        All I have done so far is contradicted everything you’ve said, but you must seek credibility where you can.

      • I read it as support, but you didn’t mention the temperature part, so it is incomplete as an idea. Try some more.

      • Don Monfort

        According to yimme dee’s theory, people get poorer in the Summer.

      • Must be the AC cost. Is this more your speed, Don?

      • Don Monfort

        You are forgetting about the cost of heating in winter, yimmy. And the necessity for more and heavier clothing, boots, mittens, snow shoes, snow tires, snow plows etc. Your theory sucks, yimmy.

      • It’s not a theory, just statistics that says warmer is worse. I don’t know why.

      • Don Monfort

        You are making up a theory you claim is based on statistics. It’s just CAGW BS. And repeating it a thousand times won’t make it believable. Life has flourished in the Tropical Paradise for many millions of years. Have you ever heard of a Temperate Paradise? Or an Arctic Paradise? Make hay while the sun shines, or you will starve to death in he winter. If you don’t freeze first. End of story.

    • While I kinda agree with you and Judith, Jim. Consider the following.

      Your team provides a yearly report for your company.
      The accuracy of your report misleads the company to make bad decisions

      What should happen as a result?
      *The whole team gets canned and you get fired.

      Keep the report process, get rid of the people.

      That is how it works in the real world

      • Warming is at 1 C for half a doubling. So far the scientists have been right, and the skeptics are still wondering where all this warming is coming from. That’s the current situation.

    • David Springer

      Moscher writes: “Heck the ipcc took my comments.”

      Hardly an endorsement of either party.

  6. “When Greenpeace says we shouldn’t capture and bury CO2 because it encourages the use of coal, I say it’s not that we are encouraging it. Desperate people who want energy are going to use the coal they have and there’s no way in hell that we are going to stop them.” Wally Broecker

    What we need is a synthesis. There are obvious, chaotic risks – biological, hydrological and climatic – from changing the composition of the atmosphere. But there are equally obvious risks in many of the supply side solutions proposed. The best synthesis I know of is Wally Broecker’s wild beast at which we are poking sticks.

    The idea that greening or warming is an unmitigated good is nonsense – and hoping for things to turn out for the best is magical thinking.

    There are practical alternatives that add to economic growth and increase human dignity. We can restore ecosystems and farmlands – taking 360 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. We can transition to 21st century energy sources within decades.

    Rattan Lal says “that bringing carbon back into soils has to be done not only to offset fossil fuels, but also to feed our growing global population. “We cannot feed people if soil is degraded,” he says.

    “Supply-side approaches, centered on CO2 sources, amount to reshuffling the Titanic deck chairs if we overlook demand-side solutions: where that carbon can and should go,” says Thomas J. Goreau, a biogeochemist and expert on carbon and nitrogen cycles who now serves as president of the Global Coral Reef Alliance. Goreau says we need to seek opportunities to increase soil carbon in all ecosystems — from tropical forests to pasture to wetlands — by replanting degraded areas, increased mulching of biomass instead of burning, large-scale use of biochar, improved pasture management, effective erosion control, and restoration of mangroves, salt marshes, and sea grasses.”

    The purpose of climate science is to distill a base on which policy responses can be built. This will not emerge with any clarity from copious red and blue team quibbling about climate minutiae. It can only come from a simple, pragmatic assessment of complexity and scientific uncertainty – feeding into development scenarios that enhance human dignity and foster economic growth.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      When you put more carbon in soils to get higher crop yields, those yields come partly or mostly from consuming said carbon. If you do not replenish lost carbon, the yields drop.
      So in a way you are talking about carbon fertilization through soils. Yet you call carbon fertilization through the atmosphere not “an unmitigated good”.

      BTW, the paths are more complicated than I have described, with several complex matters like the dynamics of half lives of fertilization involved. And as a former soil Chemist, it is patently incorrect to use the word ” carbon” in this modern way.

    • I have linked to descriptions of the complexities of the soil carbon pools at other times and on this page.

      You assume that carbon inputs – and primarily by plant carbon fixation – balance the removal through cropping and grazing. It is not true – there are a number of other processes in agricultural systems that determine soil carbon pools. And again – the information is in links that I provide. But equally – the internet facilitates research on this or any other topic it seems. Not like the days when years were spent photocopying articles on biogeochemical cycling in libraries.

      This link – provided above – provides an excellent introduction by the global leader in the field.

    • “On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example,” Dr Donohue said.

      There are clearly unknown risks that cant’s rationally be dismissed out of hand. Not knowing the effects of changes we are causing in chaotic Earth systems is not an unmitigated good.

  7. russellseitz

    While the lack of a State of the Climate report may represent the easiest path for the clientele of the Institute that employs Dr. Michaels, one has duty to assert that their interests and those of the nation may not be identical. Much as Cato should be valued as a bulwark against the erosion of liberty, when it comes to the deliberate politicization of science, it has long been more a part of the problem than its solution. Two Joe Romms do not make a right.

    • As someone who has done climate issue analysis for Cato (and Pat) I think your comment is the usual silly green stuff. We did not politicize the science. You alarmists did that. If it were not for this alarmist nonsense, climate change would not be a political issue and the science would not have been corrupted. We just object to the politicization, in detail when necessary.

      For example:

      • That PatM needed DavidW from the Hearland Institute to do “climate issue analysis” tells you all you need to know about think tanks’ capacity for “intellectual progeny”.

      • russellseitz

        ” You alarmists did that”

        David Wojick would be on firmer epistemological and political ground pointing at a squirrel.

        I am obliged to him for confirming the common sense of my first comment by directing his rant at someone whose criticism of climate hype – and data denial, began in Reagan’s day in such alarmist journals as National Review, The National Interest, and The Wall Street Journal, and has continued un-interrupted in the scientific literature , to the public dismay of such as Carl Sagan, John Holdren and Naomi Oreskes to this day.

      • I am obliged to him for confirming the common sense of my first comment by directing his rant at someone whose criticism of climate hype – and data denial, began in Reagan’s day in such alarmist journals as National Review, The National Interest, and The Wall Street Journal, and has continued un-interrupted in the scientific literature , to the public dismay of such as Carl Sagan, John Holdren and Naomi Oreskes to this day.

        Remember, Margaret Thatcher began most of the hysteria as a tool to bust the coal miner’s strike back in the middle of the Reagan administration. As is usually the case, the left saw the effectiveness of the political hammer and took it up, so conservatives have only themselves to blame.

        The issue has been political ever since. The UN’s programs ( UNEP, IPCC ) are political institutions of course. It’s no secret that the UNEP founder, the criminal fugitive Maurice Strong, was a self-described socialist. It’s also no secret that Strong gave influence to the Club of Rome who told us in their documents:

        “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”

        We also know that Stephen Schneider was a member of the Club of Rome and he told us:
        “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

        Global warming also became a follow on hysteria for the notoriously failed “predictions” of Paul Ehrlich.

        So, no, there probably hasn’t been any politics free science since 1979.

  8. Steven Mosher

    There are no players for the red team.
    That is why Pat suggests killing the science with political power.

    At every turn Trump is given a choice. Follow the scientific method and do better science or kill the science we have.
    Better science or the Republican version of using political power to influence science. That’s the choice.

    • That is laughable. The “scientific-method” was abandoned years ago by the green-religion”. Flush the whole dopey scheme down the toilet as a monumental waste of money.

      • Steven Mosher

        Errr no..You correct bad science with better science. .
        Unless you have a political agenda. .

      • David Springer

        Climate change is a religious cult. What do you correct bad religion with?

      • Mosher and russellseitz need to have that Climate Demon exorcised from their cranial cavity! Call in a scientist!

    • Steve
      As I suggested, did you click on “second” and the appropriate “palimpsest”? The latter was executed by a fairly small team, so your gratuitous comment is not informed by reality.

      • Steven Mosher

        I did a long time ago pat.
        It’s junk.

        First finding:

        Climate change is unequivocal, and human activity plays some part in it.
        There are two periods of warming in the 20th century that are statistically indistinguishable in magnitude.
        The first had little if any relation to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, while the second has characteris-
        tics that are consistent in part with a changed greenhouse effect. (p. 17)”

        The first period of warming is about 1/2 due to all GHGs and land use..1/2 consistent with natural forcing.

        Nothing burger.

        Also as a document there was no open comments peroid and zero transparency and traceability.

        Worse process than the ipcc and you had to TRY hard to be worse than they are.


    • Don Monfort

      I am with Steven on this one. It is the moral and intellectual duty of the current administration to continue the policy of the Obama regime. Pen and phone science. Trump Rules!

      • Steven Mosher

        I argued long ago that Republican’s would also politicize science. .defund..rather than improve. .
        That they would do their own version of post normal science.

        Heck they assembled a dozen skeptics to look at temperature records and produced …zip.

        Lazy no nothings out done by a english major.

      • Don Monfort

        How could the Republicans possibly improve on a 97% consensus settled science? No matter how much money they spent and no matter what they came up with it would have been derided as the anti-science product of deniers. If I recall correctly your BEST stuff had to be published in a fly by night, pay for play, journal of last resort, because the consensus goons don’t like Muller. Climategate, etc. Your ‘debate is over’ crowd ruined climate science. Now it is Trump Rules! The pen and phone is on the other foot.

    • “There are no players for the red team.”

      Do you think Judith Curry doesn’t exist, or do you think she’s done no science?

      • russellseitz

        The trouble is that Pat’s cohort less represents the methodology of a JASON-style Red Team, than the bombast of Lewis Carrol’s Red Queen:

        “Science means what I say it means, neither more or less.”

        The whole point of such an exercise is not to pretend to know the answer beforehand– thou shalt not covet thine own hypothesis.

    • How about these guys
      Benjamin D. Santer, John C. Fyfe, Giuliana Pallotta, Gregory M. Flato, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Ed Hawkins, Michael E. Mann, Jeffrey F. Painter, Céline Bonfils, Ivana Cvijanovic, Carl Mears, Frank J. Wentz, Stephen Po-Chedley, Qiang Fu & Cheng-Zhi Zou Given their new paper touting the failure of the models “Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates”

    • There are no players for the red team.

      Good scientists play for the red-orange-yellow-green-blue-indigo-violet teams on their own to challenge their own assumptions. Do you know any good scientists?

      It’s human nature to lock on to a specific team, especially if you think you’re savin’ the effin’ planet.

    • Oh Mossshhher the once Great and Powerful, your descent into madness is quite sad.

      If you were a scientist you would understand that what your team claims is science is not and those your team holds out as scientists are not worthy of the name.

      The alarmist team is greatly outnumbered when it comes to scientists.

    • Steve

      You raise valid points but oversimplify.

      1. The “financial environment” – The US federal government is spending 35% more than it is generating in revenue and spending needs will increase greatly over the next 10years as our population ages. Point being given that there is huge pressure to ensure spending on climate studies are meaningful and not biased towards a conclusion that CO2 is harmful to the climate for the USA.

      2. What specifically is the “better science” that needs to be funded? -(in your opinion) . Personally, I would like to see better science on the determination of net benefits vs. harms of CO2 emissions. Specifically, I’d like a much better understanding of probable changes to rainfall patterns as a function of CO2 changes over time.

      Funding a study or wanting information does not equate to getting a model that works effectively. When we are spending so much more than we are generating; cuts in spending are essential if one does not want their taxes raised by huge margins.

    • ” Interdecadal 20th century temperature deviations, such as the accelerated observed 1910–1940 warming that has been attributed to an unverifiable increase in solar irradiance (4, 7, 19, 20), appear to instead be due to natural variability. The same is true for the observed mid-40s to mid-70s cooling, previously attributed to enhanced sulfate aerosol activity (4, 6, 7, 12). Finally, a fraction of the post-1970s warming also appears to be attributable to natural variability. ”

      Moshpits unlikely attribution narrative aside – there is a wealth of science that is outside of his very limited competence. There are many elements of climate that remain unknown if not unknowable.

      Complexity and uncertainty are lost on these people – they may read again and again that surprises are quite likely. But there is never a point where this can be cognitively processes.

    • Steven: “There are no players for the red team.” … Follow the scientific method and do better science or kill the science we have.”

      There are many players for a red team exercise if one were to materialize. When skeptical scientists (broadly defined) express the need for a red team many are merely seeking relief from the politicization of climate science which facilitates group think; they are among those who question the credulity of certain works produced under the auspice of the scientific method. So if a red team comes about it will ironically be made up of a sizable number who fall among the 97% of AGW believers. While implicitly the 97% are considered the blue team in argument, they’re not; for example the 97% includes Dr. Curry and any other lukewarmer. At face value the 97% meme simply means that most scientists believe humans contributed towards some portion of GW.

      At some point, between the politicization of the science and media yellow journalism on the issue, the 97% meme was redefined to mean that most scientists believe in CAGW; otherwise they’re a denier, or a skeptic if generous. A red team mechanism gets past this charade. On a macro level, there’s a significant red team if the demarcation line is represented as between those who believe in CAGW, and those who don’t. And on a micro level; there’s a broader demarcation line when referencing scientific sub specialties and a desire to push back on group think orthodoxy on specific issues (a blue teamer can conceivably join or create a red team argument); also possibly included on a micro level are scientific disciplines that may be under represented in climate science circles who have something they can and want to contribute. The red team is potentially very large.

      My definition of a red team/blue team exercise isn’t about politics, just the opposite, it’s about destroying the politics in climate science; to deny political and media scaffolding around the issues attempting to iron clad propaganda or buttress weak arguments by means of coercive pressure through appeal to the masses. The irony is that it’s the blue team that embraces the before mentioned tactics, these tactics used to advance advocacy have nothing to do with the scientific method. Transparency by nature reveals truth, a red team exercise could deny closing the books on questions that are clearly not settled science, and open up new questions.

  9. The pervasive climate of exaggeration must change in order for federal climatology to maintain at least a shred of credibility.

    The Left already changed the name of the ‘science’ from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change.’ How about we change the name again to something less inferential and redundant, e.g., climatology, a subspecialty of meteorology.

  10. “if there is going to be a 2018 version, it had better be at least a “red team/blue team report”

    According to Santer, Emanuel, and Oreskes, in today’s Washington Post,

    “Red teams and blue teams are no way to conduct climate science”

    So see, you’re already off on the wrong foot according to them.

    In the comment sections, Santer replies to a physicist taking them to task. Santer says, in part,

    “I’ve spent much of my career addressing “minority opinions”. I’ve addressed incorrect claims that the troposphere is not warming, that all warming is due to natural cycles, that satellite data show no significant warming over the last 18 years, that warming has leveled off off over the past two decades, etc., etc. I have not engaged in “science by eminence of position”. I have not dismissed these incorrect claims out of hand. Together with my colleagues, I’ve done the research required to determine test the claims. I’ve published that research in several dozen peer-reviewed publications.”


    “It is expected – but still somewhat frustrating – to witness the continued misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the research my colleagues and I have published. It is expected – but still somewhat frustrating – to be lectured on “robust satellite data” after having spent years quantifying uncertainties in satellite data.”

    • The point of the red team is not to conduct climate science. It is to make clear what the scientific debate is about. Santer’s absurd claim to know the truth, such that others should not speak, is precisely why the red team is sorely needed.

      • russellseitz

        ” Santer’s absurd claim to know the truth, such that others should not speak, is precisely why the red team is sorely needed.”

        Conspicuous as Santer’s political partisanship may be, his published knowledge of the field of climate change and geophysice would make him no less useful to either team than say, out host. The same cannot be said of bibliographic blanks on the climate science map, David alas included.

        In my limited experience, the success of past Red & Blue exercises has arisen from having an ample pool of scientists authentically disintersted enough to be switched from one team to another as a reality check

      • David Wojick

        Santer would certainly be worse than useless on the red team. His scientific writings are pure alarmism.

        I am beginning to think that you do not grasp the reality of the debate. Santer engages in what Kuhn might have called “paradigm protection” (a term that I have coined). His scientific work is primarily designed to rhetorically counter skeptical arguments. Like most alarmists, he has done very little actual science. He has however published a great many journal articles.

      • David Wojick

        My list of the top alarmist scientists would start with Hansen, Santer, Karl and Trenberth. You figure these are good for the red team?

      • Steven Mosher

        You guys cant even agree on what a red team is..

        science is not changed by red teams.
        Science is not challenged by red teams or debate.
        Science is changed by better science..

        Not by issue trees
        Not by red teams
        Not by debate on TV
        Not by funding cranks who are barely breathing.

      • Steven Mosher:
        “Science is changed by better science..”

        So we need to get to better science. Science in some cases is funded by governments and also tax preferred institutions like universities. This public money comes with some (0.1 to 0.9) strings attached.
        Government >> Science
        While we are told:
        Science >> Government policy
        Separating the two while a lofty goal, is pretty hard to do.
        With a University there’s some separation.
        My son was fortunate enough to get a nice research assistant offer. The next project he’ll hopefully be a part of is dependent on funding of maybe $500,000 and I think they’re going to the government for that. He’s at a State University so there may be few research endowments. We can ask, do the grant decision makers steer? Maybe. Caution, this is a sample size of 1.
        With NGOs, there’s more separation. NGOs can improve the science. They can be funded only partially by the Federal government by allowing donors a write off. A 501(c)(3) is regulated by the Feds, but only broadly. Don’t steal the money, file your returns on time, don’t do politics.

        Triangulation. Not your way, not our way too much, this better way. The status quo may say, we’ll we can’t work over in the new place now. Nor can we adapt. But you may find young people that can. Research is done for corporations. It doesn’t have to just be about climate change. The world is changing. The change provides opportunities.

    • Roger Knights

      Santer says: “I’ve addressed incorrect claims that the troposphere is not warming, that all warming is due to natural cycles, . . . ”

      Strawmen. It’s not “the troposphere” that is not warming as predicted, but the upper tropical troposphere. And skeptics generally don’t claim that “all” warming is due to natural cycles, but rather that maybe half of it is or that we can’t really know much about it.

  11. The only thing less trustworthy than the current narrative of the past are predictions of the future.
    I came to this issue in an attempt to learn if rumors of a global warming ‘pause’ were true.
    I found what amounts to over educated kids fighting over a toy.
    Not you Judith, it’s those bad kids.
    Two new posts in a few days, I’m just giddy.

  12. In regards to the 2014 report, didn’t Roger Pielke, Jr find these footnotes within?

    “There has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900″

    “Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity & frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain”

    “lack of any clear trend in [hurricane] landfall frequency along the U.S. eastern and Gulf coasts”

    “when averaging over the entire contiguous U.S., there is no overall trend in flood magnitudes”

    Or, as Obama tells us:

    “. . we also know that in a world that’s getting warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by it – more extreme droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes. . . and Americans across the country are already paying the price of inaction in higher food costs, insurance premiums, and the tab for rebuilding.”

  13. Way back in 1996 I approached some top people in the Energy Department about doing an issue tree of the climate debate. I was told flatly that the official position, dictated by VP Gore, was that there was no debate. Twenty years later that may finally be about to change. Woohoo! Red teaming the NCA may be the best way to do it. But the red team needs the same budget, leadership and structure.

    • Who would you nominate to lead the climate projection effort?

      • Don Monfort

        Eric Trump. Trump Rules!

      • What climate projection effort? We do not know enough about climate to make meaningful projections. Bogus projections are the basic policy problem. Trump has banned the use of SCC in federal decision making. I would ban the use of speculative projections.

        I would also do research on the implications of the chaotic nature of climate. It is likely that climate is intrinsically unpredictable. The money presently being wasted on the fantasy of decarbonization should be spent on improving resilience.

      • The point of these assessments is to know whether adding another 5000-10000 GtCO2 to the atmosphere is a safe thing to do. With no projection of that, given that we have so far emitted nearly 2000 GtCO2 and are assessing its effects as of now, it is quite worthless. Do you think adding another 5k-10k GtCO2 is safe? These are the policy questions. Assessment of changes as they happen helps with answering that question.

      • Assessment of changes over the last two decades indicate that CO2 does not significantly affect global temperatures. Add in over 35% of total CO2 emissions during that period and what did we get? The hiatus.

      • Do I really have to show this again? It goes against everything you just stated, just using easily available global data for the last 60 years. Anything less than 30 years is not climate. You have to take the long view.

      • Well, Jim D, let’s just go back another 60 years; explain obvious variations with CO2.

      • 75% of the CO2 effect has been in the last 60 years, and also 75% of the temperature rise. Coincidence? I think not.

      • Again, Jim D, the 21st Century results. And relying on climate models for random statistics wins you no points.

      • It is not models. It is observations that show 75% of the forcing and temperature increases since 1950.

      • > I would ban the use of speculative projections.

        DavidW does not always appreciate projections, but when he does, they are absolutely certain.

      • Eric Trump knows about climate. He is really tall. He’s got hair too. All of Obama’s alleged climate sighintists were short, bald little gnomes.

      • How about Dr Curry, Dr Singer and Dr STeve Koonin?


      • What would they project are the effects of 5000 GtCO2 more emissions and the resulting 700+ ppm CO2 level? I have yet to see what they think about this specific issue. How would they even come to an answer? Even the thought process would be interesting to see, but all we see is avoidance.

      • russellseitz

        “David Wojick | June 22, 2017 at 7:08 am |
        What climate projection effort? We do not know enough about climate to make meaningful projections. ”

        Please keep this man away from The Federal Reserve- if that’s the way he thinks about radiative forcing and temperature inflation by CO2, God help us if he gets his hands on the money supply.

      • Steven Mosher

        ‘How about Dr Curry, Dr Singer and Dr STeve Koonin?”

        To lead a team on projections?


        What the heck did I tell you about the red team?

        Here is your star singer

        He cant even figure out that it actually HAS WARMED.

    • “I approached some top people in the Energy Department about doing an issue tree of the climate debate. ”

      I like the idea. Currently most so called red team tactics are reactionary, this is primarily due to official doors being closed to anything that threatens CAGW orthodoxy, including funding for any research that threatens “settled science”. To crack the impasse policy must obviously be much more than reactionary. Closing propaganda doors to political zealotry, while important, needs follow-up with proactive education to drive an honest discussion on climate. What’s needed first is the leadership, someone who has the weight to channel resources to make a robust debate possible, allowing dissenting views to be heard.

      Pruitt fired half the scientists on EPA’s science review board recently, this is an example of reactionary. But so far these sorts of actions invite the inevitable “anti science” drivel, the press doesn’t waste a minute to levy that accusation. The red team needs bats that can take left handed pitches, the red team has those, but importantly they must have a large crowd to witness that the lefts best pitches are hittable if only a red team challenger is allowed to get to the plate.

      • What is really needed is to display the full debate, not one side or the other in different documents. This is precisely the advantage of the issue tree diagram. It is neutral. In fact each side can control their part of the issue tree content. But each side responds to the other in detail. This detailed debate is what is missing when huge one sided reports are issued by both sides.

      • I understand, and completely agree in theory. I only use the red team adversarial perspective because mostly only one side of the debate, as it currently stands, is presented comprehensively to both the politicians and public, it’s by design. Your position of neutrality is as is should be, but you know that’s not going to be appreciated or allowed at face value. I suggest to you that to get your idea to be recognized, as an eloquent educational touch point to advance the debate, that it would require a tactical adversarial approach, unfortunately, or it will never see the light of day. The left wants to deny discourse, not allow a detailed debate, they’re done for if they allow that.

      • David Wojick

        Neutral (that is, systematic) issue analysis is a hard sell. No one wants to pay to make their opponent’s arguments clear, even though that is the only way to make their own arguments clear. I have toyed with an author pays model where everyone just pays to put their points on the public issue tree diagram. That might be fun.

      • It might be as simple as a Trump administration official coordinating with a red team liaison to develop a simple government web page template of the “issue tree” you have in mind. Let the red team seed the site with various dissent arguments juxtaposed to warmists arguments to get the ball rolling; then announce to the world the branded government backed site is open and ready for business; that the warmists are welcome to counter with further arguments, how could they resist, their heads would be exploding. Have several individuals on both sides of the debate moderate who can be trusted for fair, even handedness.

        Just a thought, perhaps Dr. Curry could contact Senator Cruz to discuss the idea if she were willing, then simply delegate the project to a select inner circle to jumpstart the project. Drag in Mark Steyn/various media talking heads to stir the pot. All you need then is popcorn.

      • One more thought; the “issue tree” could replace the next formal National Climate Assessment report. A great way to co-opt and derail a monolithic piece of corruption, and replace it with a real-time analysis of the issue. Another way for Trump to exploit new media.

      • The technical challenges how to display and navigate a tree diagram with say 10,000 nodes, each of which is just a sentence or so? I know of no software that does this, perhaps because no one has tried to do it. It would be great fun.

      • David L. Hagen

        Accuracy in reporting:?
        “the EPA has told nine members of its 18-member Board of Scientific Counselors that their terms will not be renewed.”
        “The members serve three-year terms, which can be terminated or renewed at the will of the administrator. Notifications began going out Friday to nine of the members that their terms wouldn’t be renewed.”
        “Agency officials on Monday strongly disputed reports that Mr. Richardson and others had been “fired” or “dismissed,” stressing that their terms simply were not renewed

      • A really good example of an issue tree is the way Skeptical Science lays out the skeptical arguments. They sort them into 195 branches of the climate change issue as links to further information. That would be a starting point.

      • David L. Hagen, Obviously there’s spin on the story depending on the source, no surprise that some will portray Pruitt as draconian. I suspect the source you provide is most accurate. Although the net result is the same, Pruitt thinned the ranks of scientific counselors. Terms not being renewed sure looks better on the resume though.

    • David Wojick

      I approached some top people in the Energy Department about doing an issue tree of the climate debate.

      Could I suggest you write a post on it with guidance on how we should go about building the issue tree of the climate debate. Provide a start and then invite other CE denizens to contribute to build it. Perhaps you could set up the framework in a publicly available tool that we can all see and access (free, but with a password) so we can provide input, you accept, and reject contributions and advise how to make rejected contributions acceptable.

  14. The report might be steered to advance no regrets resilient and adapting answers. Look at what we did for Louisiana and rising sea levels. Look what we did for Midwest farmers and the productivity of their land, for the habitat and for their watersheds by restoring carbon to the soil and helping with aquifer depletion. Of course this will cost money. But perhaps not as much as solar subsidies while stuffing CO2 into the soil and raising land values in the long term. I do like Ellison’s idea. We could cut back on some of the wind and solar subsidies, and some of the related problems, while removing CO2. We are banking the some of the money into the soil, for use in maybe 15 years.

    • “What happens to carbon storage in ecosystems when their photosynthetic biodiversity declines, as biological communities become simplified (3)? Syntheses of experiments across different ecosystems indicate that biomass accumulation tends to decline as local species richness decreases (4). This decline can occur because species differ in resource use in space or time, leading to greater use of total available resources (niche complementarity), facilitation of some species by others, or greater probability of the presence of highly effective species as the number of total species increases (sampling, or selection, effects). Observations in forests also indicate that local species richness contributes to carbon gain across broad gradients of climate and soil conditions (5–7). Reduced carbon gain as species diversity declines reduces carbon input to soil and, in some longer-term experiments, reduces soil carbon stocks (8). Thus, species richness may influence climate regulation, a service provided by natural ecosystems upon which humans strongly rely.”

      Climate scientists have got a taste for being repressed somebodies in the public arena. Perhaps it’s climate scientists we should get rid of – as there is not the remotest chance that climate science can inform pragmatic policy on either side. We need a new science – one that is not climate science as they know it.

      They are arguing climate minutiae when the opportunities are so great. Yes – it can be paid for – at about $10/tonne of carbon sequestered in developed countries. Or development aid can be used to increase farm productivity – which is one of the Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals – in developing countries by 40% by 2040. But all over the world there are farmers and communities doing it for themselves and their children.

      “Soil, a natural four-dimensional body at the atmosphere–lithosphere interface, is organic-carbon-mediated realm in which solid, liquid, and gaseous phases interact at a range of scales and generate numerous ecosystem goods and services. Soil organic carbon (SOC) strongly impacts soil quality, functionality and health. Terms soil quality and soil health should not be used interchangeable. Soil quality is related to what it does (functions), whereas soil health treats soil as a living biological entity that affects plant health. Through plant growth, soil health is also connected with the health of animals, humans, and ecosystems within its domain. Through supply of macro- and micronutrients, soil health, mediated by SOC dynamics is a strong determinant of global food and nutritional security. Soil C pool consists of two related but distinct components: SOC and soil inorganic C (SIC). The SIC pool comprises of primary and secondary carbonates, and the latter consists of calcitic (no net sequestration of atmospheric CO2) and silicatic (net sequestration). While SOC is highly dynamic, its mean residence time depends on the degree of protection (physical, chemical, biological, and ecological) within the soil matrix. Formation of stable microaggregates and of organo–mineral complexes can protect SOC against microbial processes for millennia. In addition to formation of silicatic type of secondary carbonates, leaching of bicarbonates into the subsoil or shallow water table is also an important mechanism of sequestration of CO2 as SIC. Numerous soil functions and ecosystem services depend on SOC and its dynamics. Improvements in soil health, along with increase in availability of water and nutrients, increases soil’s resilience against extreme climate events (e.g., drought, heat wave) and imparts disease-suppressive attributes. Enhancing and sustaining soil health is also pertinent to advancing Sustainable Development Goals of the U.N. such as alleviating poverty, reducing hunger, improving health, and promoting economic development.”

      And yes it is happening on American rangelands.

      I do like you too – Ragnaar.

      • We might also re-badge Obama’s energy transition plan – which is essentially a gas to nuclear strategy.

        The trajectory starts with preventing closures of existing plant – 4 Gen 3+ reactors underway – to modular light water reactors in the early 2020’s – to non-water cooled reactors soon after. If you are worried about subsidies – there is always a gas to modular path.

      • How about we just let uneconomic machines (current nuclear fleet) fade away as more competitive machines move into the marketplace? That also means we do not prop-up reincarnations (e.g. Small Modular Reactors) that are themselves uncompetitive.

      • Curious George

        “Reduced carbon gain as species diversity declines reduces carbon input to soil and, in some longer-term experiments, reduces soil carbon stocks.” An extreme example of a reduced species diversity is a monoculture, be it of soy, potatoes, corn, or almonds. Long-term increases in agriculture production do not support that conclusion.

      • You assume that the carbon content of cropland soil is maintained. That may or may not be the case.

        “In Australia, soil carbon levels have dropped by up to half of pre-agricultural levels in many areas because of activities such as fallowing, cultivation, stubble burning or removal and overgrazing.2

        Increasing soil organic carbon has two benefits – as well as helping to mitigate climate change, it improves soil health and fertility. Many management practices that increase soil organic carbon also improve crop and pasture yields.”

        Farmers all over the world are learning the lessons of soil health.

      • An aging fleet of nuclear plants that should never have been built in the first place competing against natural gas? Low gas prices cannot last very long in the scheme of things.

        “To provide [electricity] in today’s world, an ‘advanced reactor’ must improve over existing reactors in the following 4-core objectives. It must produce significantly less costly, cost-competitive clean electricity, be safer, produce significantly less waste and reduce proliferation risk. It is not sufficient to excel at one without regard to the others.” Dr. Christina Back, Vice President, Nuclear Technologies and Materials for General Atomics, May 2016 testimony before the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the status of advanced nuclear technologies.

        But the first of the modular reactors – within a decade – seems likely to be NuScale – which is a smaller and simpler light water reactor.

        I think EM2 is a much better idea. And it is already leading to development of accident tolerant fuels – that are more generally applicable in different designs.

      • George – there is a whole ecology in soils – if this is lost it is a death spiral. it is a truism that a healthy soil ecology supports agriculture.

    • What have we done for Midwestern farmers as they battle aqua filter depletion? I may have missed it but nit much. And why is building wind farms more expensive than whatever we are going to do for the depletion of the Ogalalla aqua filter?

      • We want to pick up all expenses of wind turbines. New powerlines, non-dispatchable, backing them up and grid stability. Idling farmland and growing prairie grass while sealing drain tile will retain water. There are other spin off benefits. Less mono-culture, more habitat, better river water quality, less flooding.

        It the economics of wind turbines aren’t there, it’s a waste of money but with some reduction in CO2. One can argue the economics of converting farmland to grassland intermediate term are poor. But there are a number of benefits listed above including adding carbon to the soil which increases its value and productivity long term.

  15. Jimmy D was asking who sceptics would put in charge of modelling. We can save some money here and just use the establishment – it would make little difference as Jimmy, Mosh and ilk would still not understand climate model dynamics.

    • No one is in charge of modeling. All 13 USGCRP agencies, plus DOD, do it. But the modeling needs to be redirected away from the “CMIP serving the IPCC by assuming AGW” mode and into exploring real climate and natural variability. It is that simple.
      See my

      • I think it is all utter nonsense David.

        “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

        They are talking here about perturbed ensembles – and the methods of diagnosis are still rudimentary. And we are still a little from modelling chaotic Earth systems.

        “The winds change the ocean currents which in turn affect the climate. In our study, we were able to identify and realistically reproduce the key processes for the two abrupt climate shifts,” says Prof. Latif. “We have taken a major step forward in terms of short-term climate forecasting, especially with regard to the development of global warming. However, we are still miles away from any reliable answers to the question whether the coming winter in Germany will be rather warm or cold.” Prof. Latif cautions against too much optimism regarding short-term regional climate predictions: “Since the reliability of those predictions is still at about 50%, you might as well flip a coin.”

        You have far from a realistic expectation of what is possible.

        Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.

      • Steven Mosher

        Climate models already explore natural variability.

      • catweazle666

        “Climate models already explore natural variability.”


        “Stochastic” modelling techniques AKA Random number generators as used in your silly computer games do nothing of the kind.

      • “A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. ”

        They just don’t do it very well.

  16. I would suggest President Trump:

    1. request the National Council of Economic advisors to estimate the actual trend in worldwide emissions growth versus economic growth (use the data over the last 25 years), project world wide economic growth ranges over the next 50 years, and project the CO2 emissions using these ranges.

    2. Request that NOAA provide a range of co2 concentrations and climate change parameters based on a variety of well documented carbon sink and climate models with a TCR range accepted by the scientific community (say 1 to 3 deg C per doubling?).

    3. Order the report be delayed until these preliminary steps are complete, and then the work be renewed using the climate change ranges resulting from steps 1 and 2.

    The idea is to change the exaggerated co2 concentration projections we have seen in the past, and have the actual trends we are observing used to extrapolate future conditions. I don’t see why not use the same procedures they use to derive a much better product.

    • This is not what the NCA is about. It is supposed to be about the extent to which climate change is affecting the USA. Nor can #2 be done because there are no credible climate models at this time.

      • Please refer to the 2014 report overview found here:

        You will notice they used a graph which shows projected temperature anomaly increases of 4 to 7 plus degrees C by 2100. The report is full of references to their goal: describe current as well as future impacts.

        In my professional career I found quite a few teams, governments, and companies use of the technique used in this report. The answer I found most effective was to use a jujitsu move and request that it be redone using asumptions I thought were more honest or sound. But in this life we have to know which battles to fight. For example, if you use a GCM or climate model with the Russell ocean dynamics code, it yields a better answer. And nobody can say Russell is a denier.

    • russellseitz

      I would suggest the former president of Venezuela, as the dead have fewer axes to grind.

      • Chavez is too far gone. Maduro is now trying to replace the Chavez inspired 1999 constitution with a Cuban style version which enshrines human rights abuses as a right the dictatorship has to defend itself against the people’s will. But I digress. Do you think my proposal makes sense? I have a lot of respect for you because you wear a bow tie.

  17. > The second (2009) indeed did prompt a non-governmental “red team” response in the form of a palimpsest

    Called an Addendum by our favourite Freedom Fighters.

    You can’t make this up.

    Imposture as “intellectual progeny” is par for our think tank’s course.

    • Don Monfort

      But, willito. We have been sprung the Paris trap. Victory for the Freedom Fighters!

      • Just like Freedom Fighters with Theresa “strong and stable”

      • aporiac1960

        Willard: “Just like Freedom Fighters with Theresa ‘strong and stable'”

        Theresa blundered – just one of those things. There are freedom fighters and then there are freedom fighters: –

      • russellseitz

        Meanwhile, on the other side of the K-Street warpath, this loud whoop was heard:

        Bombshell papers have just hit the refereed literature that knock the stuffing out of the United Nations, and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In two research papers in…Geophysical Research Letters…we have a quarter-century of concurrent balloon and satellite data, both screaming that the U.N.’s climate models have failed, as well as indicating its surface record is simply too hot.”

        Authors Singer & Michaels were dead wrong—the satellite data they cited was seriously in error—Christy & Spencer quite properly agreed to its retraction in Science in 2005 and told Newsweek in 2006:
        “our satellite trend has been positive.”

      • You’re confusing the issue.

        Both “our satellite trend has been positive” and “U.N.’s climate models have failed” appear to be valid.

        The models have failed, since 1979, by predicting a hot spot which has not appeared. That is consistent with the models failing to accurately predict tropical precipitation, a failure which has gotten worse from CMIP3 to CMPI5.

      • Don Monfort

        Theresa is a sheep in wolf’s clothing, willito. One of yours. She needs to go.

      • Don Monfort

        But, russ. Who cares? Elections have consequences. Get to the back of the bus. There is a new bus driver in town. Live by the phone and pen, die by the phone and pen. Paris is dead! Trump Rules!

      • russellseitz

        If Don can get Heartland to hold its next palaver in a blimp parked at the equator just under the tropoause, he may be able to point to a flying squirrel for a change. The problem of the turbulence and vertical instability of the ITC occuring on a scale too small for GCM’s to resolve has been freely acknowledged by modelers since 43 was in office. As suely as Trump reigns, Bayes rules.

      • The problem of the turbulence and vertical instability of the ITC occuring on a scale too small for GCM’s to resolve has been freely acknowledged by modelers…

        Yes and even the IPCC, so why the denial that:

      • Their B.S., TE, is that their projections, using numerous models and model runs, gives a realistic idea of what a particular scenario would result. Hogwash.

      • Don Monfort

        I bet 95% of the earth’s population wouldn’t know the tropopause from menopause and they wouldn’t know Bayes from a hole in the ground. Nearly that many folks are not losing sleep over alleged CAGW. They got bigger worries. Paris is D-E-A-D!

        You are in denial, rustlesitz. Bayes doesn’t rule. Trump Rules!

      • By the way, the hotspot is part of the negative lapse rate feedback. Its absence is not good news. It is a sign that the warming in the tropics is land dominated and not primarily responding to ocean warming that is slower.

      • How much is that warming in the tropics, Jim D?

      • The east Pacific cooled in that period because 1979 was dominated by El Nino conditions making it a poor choice as a starting point unless you also end with an El Nino which 2010 was definitely not. Someone needs to tell Christy about end-point effects.

      • And using 1950 doesn’t lead to end-point effects, Jim D?

      • The sun was stronger in 1950 than now, so the sun going warmer to cooler would underestimate the warming if anything. I call it a conservative starting point.

      • Oh, and 2010 was definitely an El Nino year.

      • Check the graphic. It was cooler than 1979. The El Ninos between 1998 and 2016, like 2010, hardly were in the same league. Even 2016’s East Pacific seems to be cooler than 1979’s which is a bit of a surprise to me. He has a doozy of a starting year.

      • Don Monfort

        Nobody cares about the freaking tropopause, yimmy. Most people never heard of it. You are not doing the cause any good here with your incessant preaching. Why don’t you take willito and rustle and go out and do something that takes courage? Chain yourselves to the White House gate, or better yet to a moving coal car death train. We’ll be watching the news.

      • Tell that to Christie. He seems to think it is important. If there ever was a one-issue person, it is Christie with his satellite data and his concern that this negative feedback has not materialized in his date range of 1979-2010 in which the tropical Pacific net cooled.

      • But … but … Jim D, you said the tropics are warming!

      • The land did, where the balloon data used by Christy is. But land warming doesn’t give the hot spot for reasons of thermodynamics. That requires the ocean to warm.

      • Uh, my understanding is that CO2 operates in the atmosphere, and its effects are reflected to the surface, land or not.

      • More on land. Thermal inertia.

      • Let me know if there is something else you don’t understand about climate change. Glad to help.

      • Don Monfort

        You are hard headed, yimmy. Nobody cares about Christy. You are just thumbing through your little red climate apocalypse bible and reciting random verses, sometimes with colorful illustrations. I bet you have not converted one heretic in all the years you have been haunting this blog.

        You believe with all your soul that the world is going to burn up, yet you sit here for years and years incessantly preaching the same lame sermon. You are all talk and no action. Think about the coal train thing. It could work for you. The media is on your side.

      • > Nobody cares about Christy.

        Sure, Don Don:

        [T]his could be the perfect opportunity to implement the red team/blue team approach that has been advocated by Steve Koonin, John Christy and myself.

        You’ll never guess who wrote this.

      • Don Monfort

        That’s lame, willito. You are getting to be as boring as jimmy dee.

    • Then there’s this for NH summer mean land temperature if you want to see something that is statistically significant.
      By 2100 the shift will be several more standard deviations, and extreme warm summers of now will be cooler than average by then.

      • Well, gee. The NH has warmed since 1980. Who wuddha thunk?

      • Now you are starting to see. Good. I hope TE also notices this because his post seemed to indicate a lack of awareness on this issue.

      • But the 21st Century temperatures leveled off. I’m not getting into a semantics argument as to what “leveled off” means, Jim D. IPCC climate models showed accelerated warming. Bunk.

      • I don’t consider 2016 as an example of leveled off. Trends in 30-year temperatures show no sign of stopping.

      • From around 1960 through the present, there is an increase of extreme high temperatures. Put that in the context of the decrease since 1905:

        One might think Hansen would be interested in with what happened to extreme temperatures over the longer term, but since that is contradictory to alarm, he does not acknowledge this, and instead gravitates to the shorter term which supports his pre-existing goal. This is an example of confirmation bias. As humans, we are all subject to this, but outsiders can point out bias in others.

      • Extreme temperatures are too rare and statistically noisy to detect signals so far. Where the statistics are robust is seasonal temperatures. The summer mean temperature is changing by several standard deviations per century in many continental areas. This is already easily detectable, and it has implications for the probabilities of extremes. With a shift of a standard deviation a one in a hundred year extreme event may become a one in ten year event, for example.

      • Most “by 2100” statements are based on models using RCP8.5 which by now i suppose most of you realize was bogus. I suggest you calibrate your statements using a more reasonable case, say RCP4.5

      • Fernando, every scenario is fed through bogus IPCC climate models. They all use exaggerated levels of ECS.

      • 5000 GtCO2 is about half of the RCP8.5 projection. Use that one if you are more comfortable with it. RCP8.5 does use a lot of coal while stopping renewable development, and there are some politicians who want that to happen. It’s just for them.

      • With a shift of a standard deviation…

        Could be the change is a decrease of standard deviation, leading to fewer extremes.

        Peer reviewed modelers seem to think variability will decline:

        1979, Manabe and Wetherald: “The reduction of meridional temperature gradient appears to reduce not only the eddy kinetic energy, but also the variance of temperature in the lower model troposphere.”

        1995, “Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change”, the IPCC cites numerous examples of decreasing variability with increasing greenhouse gasses.

        2013, Huntingford, et. al. also demonstrated the decrease of temperature variability from an increase in greenhouse gas induced warming in CMIP5 models.

        2014, Screen found: Arctic amplification decreases temperature variance in northern mid- to high-latitudes

        2015, Schneider, Bischoff and Plotka found: “Scaling arguments show that the reduction of meridional potential temperature gradients that accompanies polar amplification of global warming leads to a reduction of the synoptic temperature variance near the surface.”

      • That is not what Hansen found. In fact the spread in recent decades increases because of the background trend. Hansen detrended some of his data to get a fairer measure of how the distribution was shifting without this broadening effect.

      • “That is not what Hansen found. “

        That is what Hansen would find if he looked at the century long record.
        But Hansen may not want to find it, because it implies a benign result not catastrophe, so perhaps Hansen only looked at the shorter term record to sell catastrophe instead.

      • TE, it is also not true that weaker temperature gradients lead to smaller extremes. The hottest heatwaves and coldest winters are from sluggish or stationary weather systems that would increase in frequency under a weaker temperature gradient. Stationary patterns have less storms but more temperature extremes.

      • TE, it is also not true that weaker temperature gradients lead to smaller extremes. The hottest heatwaves and coldest winters are from sluggish or stationary weather systems that would increase in frequency under a weaker temperature gradient. Stationary patterns have less storms but more temperature extremes.

        On this, you are not arguing against me, but with multiple peer reviewed papers and the GCMs cited above.

      • There have been papers suggesting that slower weather systems lead to more stationary events, which lead to long-term freezes and droughts by obvious means.

    • Jim, the analysis of the impact of an emission of X tons of CO2 must include the distribution over time, because the carbon sinks as well as adaptation and feedbacks come into play.

      For example, let’s say I wave my magic wand and cut emissions to 40 % of the 2014-15-16 average by 2050, and to 30% of the same average by 2100. I venture the guess that CO2 concentration and therefore forcing will be going down by 2100. This implies the impact will be very manageable.

      On the other hand, if I were to dump the same amount in one hour the impact will be very different….correct?

      The way I’m seeing this, we have a looming fossil fuel shortage. It’s really interesting to see the cornucopians who debate this issue come from both sides of the political spectrum. On one side we have those whose mantra is drill baby drill, but don’t seem to understand the oil and gas industry. On the other side we have the socialist de-developers whose aim seems to be to use this issue to advocate “climate justice” and turning the world into a copy of red China.

      If we take the politics out of this controversy, it may be useful to introduce some sort of carbon tax, which would be designed to enhance energy security. The USA appears to be fairly safe in energy security, but Europe is literally committing suicide with rather inept policies. Hopefully this problem will eventually be tackled so it satisfies the worries of those who worry about climate change as well as those who worry about energy security.

      • I agree. We don’t have to cut emissions to zero to stabilize the climate because nature helps absorb CO2. Cutting them 50% reasonably quickly would be sufficient. In any case we should not emit much in excess of 2000 GtCO2 through 2100 to achieve stabilization at about 2 C, and this does require a ramping down of emissions going forwards. Bottom line: Nature helps us if we help ourselves.

  18. Curious George

    Regarding the ‘reset’ button on National Climate Assessment process, I hope that they will have more skills than Secretary Clinton’s ‘reboot the relations with Russia’ team. They came to a meeting with a big red button labeled in Russian to illustrate the concept. Unfortunately they mixed up Russian words ‘perenagruzka’ and ‘peregruzka’ and Hillary actually pushed a button reading ‘overload’. I wonder if there was any Russian interference there.

  19. US national assessment are problematic for advocates, because the best long term measurements are from the US and concurrent with a century’s global warming, those US measurements indicate:

    * fewer extreme temperatures ( as above )
    * no trend in CONUS drought
    * fewer strong tornadoes since 1950
    * no trend in US landfall hurricane frequency or energy
    * fewer intense fires than 1,000 years ago

    The US record indicates the nonsense of climate hysteria.

    • David Wojick

      Yes, but that is not what they say in the Assessments, far from it. The question is how to get them to tell the truth? This is not an easy one to answer, because alarmism is deeply entrenched in the federal system.

      • russellseitz

        It is hard to break this cycle because the most predictable contrarians long ago self-destructed on TV. In contrast, environmentalists have long stayed on message — it’s not just postmodern media like Wired –Frank Capra turned from Cold War propaganda to televise global warming in 1958.

        The reluctance of the fringes in the Science Wars to come out and fight tends to polarize the apolitical scientific center. The AAAS is in Democrtaic captivity from the top down, and absent intellectually serious Republicans, scientific professionals on climate websites like have only Democrats with whom to discuss policy.

      • The facts remain, for the US, mean warming has occurred, but commensurate with that warming, changes to extreme temperature, extreme weather, droughts, and fires are non-existent or benign.

      • Don Monfort

        But, russ. Paris is Dead!

    • TE, the U.S. (and globe) has warmed slightly. The warmista trick is to begin with 1950 temperatures, a relatively low point, to exaggerate CONUS (Continental U.S.) warming; due to CO2, they say.

      Should one start with 1930-1940 temperatures, current U.S. temperatures wouldn’t look so bad at all.

  20. “The reluctance of the fringes in the Science Wars to come out and fight tends to polarize the apolitical scientific center.”

    Not sure what you mean here. Who would you consider to be on the fringes? The ones I can think of seem to fight all the time.

    And who would you consider to be in the “apolitical scientific center”? This sounds like lukewarmers to me but you may mean something else.

    • russellseitz

      The scientific center ought to serve not faction, but the naton by, advancing the science that underpins realistic national policy.

      • What science is that Russell? Be as specific as you can.

      • “The scientific center ought to serve no(t) faction, but the nation by, advancing the science that underpins realistic national policy.”

        Now apply this to defense. I know an engineer who is working on the Trident missile guidance system. The difference between smart engineers and dumb ones is missiles being ineffective. And failed national policies.

        The engineer here is helping to hit the targets. Build machine A, deliver X to Y with 95% certainty.

        The scientific center has built what? Prediction machines. If we do this, what happens? They’ve built blame machines. It’s our fault.

  21. russellseitz

    That which is both objective and disinterested, and thus highly unlikely to be encountered in blog comments or the environs of Capitol Hill

  22. russellseitz

    Stop making up things, or you may end up as a Deputy Administrator.

  23. Donald Trump, Most Powerful Man in the World, is the red team. He doesn’t always think about climate, but when he does, he ditches Paris.

  24. russellseitz

    It’s hard to imagine Don in Paris , given his pervious posts:

    • Don Monfort

      Don’t you have anything better to do, rustle? Go chain yourself to something, chant, break windows. The world is burning and you are just yammering on a blog.

      • russellseitz

        The video is the one Don put up here when he nominated Belushi for the Red Team:
        Don Monfort | February 1, 2016 at 1:48 pm |
        … Here are some of our skeptic team, also on a mission. Hockeypuck and Springer

      • Don Monfort

        That is a gross misrepresentation, rustle. But we don’t expect you jokers to be honest. Do you think you have any chance of saving the world from burning up with this type of BS?

    • russellseitz

      Who am I to ague when Don calls his own post
      ” a gross misrepresentaion “?

      As a certain Frenchman said :
      N’interrompez jamais un ennemi qui est en train de faire une erreur.

      • Russell

        Great quote by Napoleon, but we all know how that ended in disaster, so perhaps he should not have dismissed his enemies so readily and perhaps they weren’t making as many mistakes as he was?


      • Napoleon 1812 over-shoot. Thought he could predict
        our see-saw weather, among other things…

      • That is slimy, rustle. I didn’t nominate Belushi for the red team. Stop the disingenuous BS. It’s not going to save the world from burning up. Why would you think anybody is going to take you fools seriously?

  25. Another OECD country falls to the advancing tide of the Loony Left.

    “At the closing ceremony for Kori 1, the new South Korean president said he would “review the policy on nuclear power plants entirely. We will abandon the development policy centred on nuclear power plants and exit the era of nuclear energy.” He said plans for new power reactors would be cancelled and the operating periods of existing units will not be extended beyond their design life. He said he would reach a “social consensus” as soon as possible on whether two planned reactors with construction licence would proceed – site works are well advanced. Apparently Shin Kori 4, now ready for fuel loading, and Shin Hanul 1 & 2, now 94% complete, will proceed to operation.”

    • Peter,

      New president Moon Jae-in has been honest in at least some of his remarks (although most of his comments about nuclear power are fact-free). As quoted in the Guardian a few days ago: –

      “So far, South Korea’s energy policy pursued cheap prices and efficiency….. But it’s time for a change.”

    • Don Monfort

      That clown has also suspended the deployment of the THAD missile defense system that we had started to install to protect those ingrates from their murderous neighbors. What we should do is to tell that little fool that THAD is also protecting our forces that have been in his country for many decades keeping the murdering neighbors at bay. If he doesn’t want the missiles, then they no longer need out troops. We pull out, they become slaves. Would that little clown change his mind?

    • Don Montford,

      Good point. Perhaps point out to the Koreans they can have reunification of the Korean Peninsula – under Kim rule!

    • aporiac1960,

      “So far, South Korea’s energy policy pursued cheap prices and efficiency….. But it’s time for a change.”

      Yea. A change to higher and ever increasing prices like most of the rest of the “Developed” world. How totally irrational and irresponsible has the worl become now that everyone know s best based on information delivered in 14 characters or less.

      • aporiac1960

        “How totally irrational and irresponsible”

        Cheap prices and efficiency are capitalist conspiracies. Expensive prices and inefficiencies are the only possible progressive response!

  26. Yes, a full Restart of Climate Science, probably through a major Red Team/Blue Team exercise appears imperative — without one CliSci be will continue to be chained to the rock of enforced consensus.
    EPA and NOAA need to replace The Enforcers with scientists and administrators interested only in the scientific truth and “let the chips fall where they may”.

    • ….without one CliSci will continue to be chained to the rock of enforced consensus. ….

  27. Bring Dr Steve Koonin, Dr Judith Curry and Dr Fred Singer back from exile.

    Plus Dr. Lindzen as an older wise man.

    Let the red team roll. Let the blue team make their case.

    Put them down on paper and let the rest evaluate.


  28. The National Climate Assessment sounds like a big waste of time and money to me. This is the first I’ve heard of it and makes me wonder how many people know about it or care? It must be of the bureaucrats by the bureaucrats and for the bureaucrats.

  29. AGW will be over before the decade is out as I have been saying for years.
    AGW is just not true or present.

    • Salvatore del Prete,

      There is far too much focus on temperatures. Temperature change is not a measure of impacts. What is relevant for justifying climate policies, or no climate policies, is the impacts, not the temperature change. There is no valid evidence to support the belief that impacts of global warming, if it does happen, would be negative. However there is strong evidence that the impacts of global cooling would be negative. This is the important point we should be focusing on, not continually being diverted by the climate alarmists to their preferred talking-point – i.e. temperature changes, trends, etc.


    This video supports my views.

    All the time and discussions about AGW are a waste of time and that will be realized as we move forward and the global temperature decline which has started continues.

  31. I have just spent some time at ATTP – and a more drooling collective of twits-in-a-goldfish-bowl is harder to imagine.

    But they did dredge this up.

    Global tempertures have slipped sideways since 1998 as part of a coherent global climate signal. They will continue to shift sideways and trend downwards over the next few decades – as in the trend seen between 1946 and 1975.

    Some of the conections between the IPO and climate are emerging from Australian hydrological analysis.

    Some interesting aspects of this can be seen at:
    – there is a recording of a presentation

    [Response:A nice thing about confident predictions like this (which aren’t made in the cited abstract by the way!) is that we can wait and see what happens. I’m not holding my breath. -eric]

    So who the f..k is eric? I wonder if he is yet to make the connection between Pacific climate states and global temperature trends?

    Except in the bizarro universe inhabited by these people – where a 2016 spike in a metric that is both ENSO and drought influenced and that captures just 4% of the global energy content vindicates rising global temperatures – I am doing pretty well.

    ENSO at scales of less than a decade shifts to random factors and resonant mechanisms in the Pacific Ocean basin. At decadal and longer scales a solar UV/ozone modulation of the polar annular modes is posited – which influence wind, currents and cold water upwelling.

    So with the sun – and El Nino frequency and intensity – coming off a 1000 year high – can a new cooling influence be far off?

    More salt in the Law Dome ice core is La Nina dominance – and more rainfall in Australia.

    • I wanted to say something about certainty. The regime shifts have been happening for so long – it’s a bit like the sun rising. You can’t be absolutely certain – but the odds re pretty good.

      My comment was back in 2006 – and these people still don’t have a freaking clue.

      • Steven Mosher

        Maybe you overestimate the clarity of your exposition and underestimate the importance of showing your work…

      • “This study uses proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data to investigate the long-term behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.”

        The link between Pacific climate states and temperature trends is something that has been obvious for decades. But some familiarity with the system dynamics is necessary.

        But time has passed and my ‘prediction’ has been vindicated. Here’s an article from 2007.

        It is not a difficult prediction. These regimes have been occurring for so long that it is quite likely that 20 to 30 year climate shifts will continue into the future. Nor are these regimes necessarily alternating warm and cool states.

        I have spent a long time trying to find ways to more clearly and broadly communicate these ideas – that are mainstream science. But ideas are difficult – they require effort. At the least trying to understand the video link provided. More often there is just a blanket rejection of ideas at odds with their cognitive biases.

        Moshpits aim is to fight a culture war. It is not about science – at which he is no great shakes.

    • aporiac1960

      Robert: “it’s a bit like the sun rising. You can’t be absolutely certain – but the odds are pretty good.”

      The reciprocal bind being that the sun also sets, which cuts off the solar-powered lights.

      The solution is obvious:-

      We need to resume intensive research into getting sunbeams out of cucumbers, which showed such early promise but was killed at birth by the machinations of the fossil fuel lobby.

      Indeed, the technical challenges are greatly simplified by the advent of photovoltaics because the cucumbers only need to emit sunlight during the night or when a cloud is passing. Has anyone realised that this makes the problem a full 50% easier (phi sigma piss arc conformity factor = 0.993)! Thankfully, the age of the philosopher-scientist seems to be returning and so I anticipate a paper from Stanford very shortly.

  32. Harry Twinotter

    “The Assessment Report will be produced by civil servants in the federal government (mainly unfireable GS15’s reporting to Obama Administration bosses), many of whom handle large amounts of climate research money. It has always been in their interest to portray global warming as alarming, and therefore in need of even more federal research dollars.”

    Defamation from someone who works for a lobby group.

  33. 4TimesAYear

    Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.

  34. 4TimesAYear

    Agree – it needs to end.

  35. and projections using climate models that are most definitely not fit for the purpose.

    The uncertainty monster appears to have gone missing?

    • Actually if you read that whole paragraph. The climate models are very very fit for the purpose of naive attribution for everything bad from human caused CO2 emissions. So I’m afraid JC own goaled that one. Now THAT IS certainty! Now you could have a lot of fun with that. Willard comes to mind as a perfect candidate perhaps he’ll blue team that statement as well.

    • “Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.”

      At least thus goes the decades old narrative for overcoming the instability of nonlinear equations at the core of climate models. This is about as certain mathematically as it gets. It is the origin of that 3rd great idea in 20th century physics – chaos theory.

      “Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.”

      The reality is that the diverging solutions – thousands of feasible solutions for any specific model configuration – are the mooted ‘simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families’.

      “Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.” op. cit.

      Of course I don’t understand anything I read – and these scientists I selectively cut and paste would be horrified. But it’s nice to see Ken Rice rising above the level of cheap snark.

  36. Judith: FWIW, I wouldn’t waste a Red Team on the NCA. There are too few of you to invest time anything but the most policy-relevant subjects. From my perspective, that would be the climate science involved in calculating a social cost of carbon and related topics involving climate sensitivity. A low or negligible SCC (and low climate sensitivity) means there is no excuse for costly regulation. (Or, idealists could impose modest carbon tax – rebated or balanced by tax cuts elsewhere – to cover modest negative externalities. They could assert that the problem had been properly addressed without all the wasteful mandates and incentives.)

    Didn’t the CMIP5 project demonstrate that models have no ability to hindcast regional climate change on a decade timescale? If AOGCMs can’t make useful decadal regional hindcasts, then their forecasts are useless. If so, these could be used to take an axe to large portions of the NCA:

    a) Eliminate all short-range forecasts based on AOGCMs from the report. Instead, characterize observed trends over last 30-50 years. Informed customers of the report that the best estimate we have today is that current trends are likely to continue for the next few decades.

    b) Eliminate all studies attributing past extreme weather to rising GCMs because these are based on short-range regional forecasts. Cut future predictions about extreme weather in the near future based on models. Rare extreme events are more challenging to project than central estimates like mean temperature.

    c) Climate models make very different projections about regional climate change on a centennial time scale. Eliminate any long-range projections made with only one or a few models as inappropriate because such projections don’t come with a useful confidence interval.

    d) Material from grey sources only with special permission.

    To avoid “censorship”, it could be reasonable to leave references to studies that don’t meet these standards in a special section at the end of any chapter with appropriate warnings. Just don’t cite any conclusions from such reports.

  37. This part of what Pat Michaels says is wrong.
    “The Assessment Report will be produced by civil servants in the federal government (mainly unfireable GS15’s reporting to Obama Administration bosses), many of whom handle large amounts of climate research money. ”
    You can look at the last committee. It was a mixture of academics, stakeholders, industry, environmental groups with exofficio representation from government agencies who were not part of the committee. Even the academics were not the big-name ones you would think of, but lesser known people that are more linked to assessments of change and its effects.

    • David Wojick

      Pat is referring to the Feds who produce the report, from specifying the content (such as focusing on extreme events) and picking the authors, to writing and approving the final text. The committee is a showboat Federal Advisory Committee with no authority. The show is run by OSTP, USGCRP and agency feds.

      • The report comes from the committee and the results of the input at their workshops. If you want a red team you also have to have them listen to stakeholders, academics, environmentalists, local governments, insurance, and industry, and also not ignore their concerns. They need to hold those workshops or respond to the same input as the blue team did.

      • OMG, Jim D! What a flaming twit you are!

        And to just mention one of your fantasies: Insurance. Ask Dr. Pielke Jr. Ask Warren Buffet. Insurance companies worried about global warming? Ha!

      • Reinsurance specifically are a major customer of climate services. They are concerned for obvious reasons.

      • No, they are concerned about weather, twit.

      • Google search reinsurance and climate change. Some reading there for you.

      • David Wojick

        That is not even close to how the drafting process works. But if I am running the red team I will be happy to have a 60 person FAC and hold a bunch of workshops, plus having 300 authors. No problem.

        What really counts is, as Pat mentions, the draft is going out to the USGCRP member agencies for comment. Those comments will tell because the agencies pay the bills. The USGCRP has no budget of its own.

      • Would you listen to the stakeholders at those workshops? Would the red team take all concerns into account or just ignore them. This process isn’t just people closing themselves off in a room and coming up with a report. It is driven very much by listening to a wide range of perspectives. Ideally the red and blue teams would have shared workshops getting the same input from these diverse academic and stakeholder communities.

  38. I just point to statistical facts. Warmer doesn’t appear to be better from the humanity perspective.

    • That was apparently a response to deleted Don.

      • Don Monfort

        Whatever. Make hay while the sun shines, or starve to death in the winter. Warm nurtures. Cold kills. When they talk about adventures in paradise, they are not talking about Minnesota or Mongolia.

    • We could ask, does productivity up North increase more than it decreases in the equatorial regions. But then, that’s a redistribution.

    • What statistical facts, fool?

      Show me any “statistical facts” that show the minor warming from the Little Ice Age has had any deleterious effects on humanity.

      Of course, being the twit you are, you will probably quote those experts, Obama and Holdren.

  39. Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  40. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #274 | Watts Up With That?

  41. Pingback: Stopping the ‘National Climate Scare’ | Watts Up With That?

  42. Pingback: Federal Climate Science Special Report Leaked: CSPW Investigation Reveals Intent to Undermine National Assessment | Climate Science Watch

  43. Pingback: Trump Has Broad Power to Block Climate Change Report - CWN Report

  44. Pingback: Trump Has Broad Power to Block Climate Change Report | Complete World News

  45. Pingback: Trump has broad power to block climate change report | | The Rock River Times

  46. Pingback: Trump Has Broad Power to Block Climate Change Report | We Seek the Truth!