National climate embarrassment

By |2014-05-07T12:09:05+00:00May 7th, 2014|Press Releases|8 Comments

Statement by CFACT’s Marc Morano

on the 2014

National Climate Assessment Report

Climate Depot's Marc Morano

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano

‘This report is a misdirection.

Obama has entered his second term lame duck status and with climate executive orders he does not need Congress to ‘do something’ about global warming.

This report is contrary to peer-reviewed studies and observations. By every measure, so called extreme weather is showing no trend or declining trends on 50-100 year timescales. Droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes are not increasing due to man-made global warming.

Why does the report now call ‘global warming’ a new name, so-called ‘climate disruption’? Simple answer: Due to earth’s failure to warm — no global warming for nearly 18 years – another name was necessary to attempt to gin up fear. Now every storm is offered up as some sort of ‘proof’ of global warming.

This report is pre-determined science. They chose scientists and activists who agreed with their climate narrative and they endorsed scary predictions of the future.’


John Coleman on climate assessment 2014

Share on Facebook


  1. adrianvance May 7, 2014 at 12:23 PM

    The truth is very simple:

    CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?

    The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased to make his “hockey stick” was several degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of great abundance for the world.

    The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. That makes temperature change cause and CO2 change effect; not the other way around.

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions eager to help government raise more money for them. And, they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

    Google “Two Minute Conservative,” and When you speak fine ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.

    • Doug Stearns May 8, 2014 at 1:28 PM

      I agree with everything you said except the terms “absorbing” and “capturing” of heat energy. Greenhouse gases are primarily radiation reflectors, not heat trappers. This is the basic untruth used by global warming/climate change/climate disruption fanatics. Cloud cover in the daytime reduces the solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface by reflecting it back out to space, lowering the temperature. Cloud cover at night reflects the warmth the earth received from the sun during the day, back to the earth, keeping it warmer.

      Major volcanic eruptions do the same thing. 1816 was known as the “year without a summer” because of the major eruption of Mt. Krakatoa in Indonesia.

      This is basic heat transfer science, not based on computer models developed to show a desired outcome.
      Doug Stearns, PE -BSME, MSME, Stanford University

      • adrianvance May 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM

        Sorry, but the absorption, or capture, of IR by CO2 is a basic tenet of physics. I have heard bad things about the basic science taught at Stanford, but this is the first documentation of it I have seen. The reflection of solar radiation is a reflection of water droplets in clouds and that is a surface reflection that has nothing to do with quantum absorption. The “…clouds reflecting at night is another Jim Hansen fantasy. Jim thinks “…man made CO2 stays in the air 400 to 1,000 years!” Ask Dr. Wohler about that one.

  2. jameshrust May 7, 2014 at 2:59 PM

    Climate change is clear and present danger, says landmark US report

    This is the title of an article in the May 5 Internet edition of The Guardian written by Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent. The article is about the release May 6 at the White House of the National Climate Assessment Report (NCA) with a great deal of fanfare.
    The article states “Climate change has moved from distant threat to present-day danger and no American will be left unscathed, according to a landmark report due to be unveiled on Tuesday. The National Climate Assessment, a 1,300-page report compiled by 300 leading scientists and experts, is meant to be the definitive account of the effects of climate change on the US.”

    The article further states “Gary Yohe, an economist at Wesleyan University and vice-chair of the NCA advisory committee, said the US report would be unequivocal that the effects of climate change were occurring in real-time and were evident in every region of the country. ‘One major take-home message is that just about every place in the country has observed that the climate has changed,’ he told the Guardian. ‘It is here and happening, and we are not cherrypicking or fearmongering.’ The draft report notes that average temperature in the US has increased by about 1.5F (0.8C) since 1895, with more than 80% of that rise since 1980. The last decade was the hottest on record in the US. Temperatures are projected to rise another 2F over the next few decades, the report says. In northern latitudes such as Alaska, temperatures are rising even faster.”
    It takes a very astute observer to note climate change is happening in the United States the past hundred years; or for that matter over the 4 billion year existence of the planet. The country is blessed to have such people working on the NCA. Surely these individuals will state climate change is the normal state of affairs for the nation.
    The U. S. Weather Service and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has been collecting data since the late 19th century on all types of weather events such as temperatures, rain fall, drought, snow fall, wild fires, sea level rise, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. The data shows little change in event occurrence over times of observation. If anything there is less frequency of some events the past twenty years when atmospheric carbon dioxide has been at its highest rate of increase.
    The graph that follows is the monthly average of all daily high and low temperatures at all NOAA U. S. Historical Climate Network stations.

    It is hard to visualize a continuous rise in U. S. temperatures from 1895 to 2013 in this data. The planet is in a global warming cycle called the Current Warming Period since about 1850. So it would be expected to see some warming over this 160-year period. This warming can’t be attributed to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Does the NCA report the pause in global warming since 1998?

    Based on The Guardian article, it appears the NCA is another report similar to the latest United Nations 5th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report forthcoming the past eight months. To counteract omissions, half-truths, and false statements in these reports, the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was formed in 2003. Since 2009, the NIPCC has released six reports that give authoritative, easily-read information about the vast amount of experimental data showing negligible influence of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels on climate, financial losses from mitigation, and proper role of adapting to climate change.
    If the material in the NCA contains the information cited in The Guardian, my only comment is a quote from attorney Joseph Welch protesting Joseph McCarthy actions June, 9, 1954, “Have you no sense of decency?” After Mr. Welch’s statement, Senator McCarthy’s credibility was ruined and he died a lonely man three years later.
    Let us hope the NCA will show the illogic reasoning for stopping use of the nation’s abundant, economical fossil fuel resources of coal, oil, and natural gas. The attempts so far are the reasons for the economic malaise besetting country the past 6 years. This agony must come to a halt, and the possible illogic NCA will awaken the public about the mass of false reasoning presented the past 25 years.
    James H. Rust, Professor of nuclear engineering and policy advisor The Heartland Institute

  3. Lennart Bilén May 7, 2014 at 3:02 PM

    What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?

    A sinister, evil collusion?

    CO2, it is clean,

    Makes for growth, makes it green,

    A transfer of wealth, a solution.

  4. Roland May 7, 2014 at 6:02 PM

    In reality it is not about climate change, it is how to implement UN Agenda 21.

    In regards to global warming and the IPCC, the fact is actually that there are a
    whole host of scientists out there who have a different point of view, who are
    highly respected, reputable scientists. So the 97% of WWF and Greenpeace
    approved scientists do not mean a lot in any case because science is not a
    consensus issue. Science is whatever the science is and the fact remains there
    is no empirical evidence to show that man-made CO2, man-made emissions are
    adding to the temperature on earth. There is no scientific evidence or prove
    that the greenhouse effect actually exits. We haven’t had any measurable
    increase in temperature on earth for at least 17 years despite the ever raising
    increase in CO2. If one looks back over history, there’s no evidence that CO2
    has driven the climate either however some fundamentalist try to twist science.
    A so called 99% probability is not science it is still a guess or hypothetical
    assumption and that is provided by the media as fact, well it is not. Changes
    in global temperature have little or nothing to do with CO2.

  5. Peter Alexander May 8, 2014 at 9:00 AM

    NY TIMES Front Page Map…touting data from 1991 to 2012 …not a peep about 90’s anomalies and longer present trend….

  6. Scottar May 11, 2014 at 1:35 AM

    Just who are these government bought scientists?

Comments are closed.