Last chance to comment on the National Climate Assessment

Midnight EST on Wednesday is the deadline for commenting on the wildly alarmist draft National Climate Assessment. As I explained earlier this month here, commenting is pretty easy. Registration is simple and the commenting website works well.

As far as I can tell, one need not give their real name or email address when registering. Given the vindictive nature of alarmists this may be useful. Comments are being collected by the US Global Change Research Program, which runs the National Climate Assessment. Supposedly all of the comments will be published an answered at some point.

The draft is divided into about 30 chapters and each is separately available to download for commenting. I recommend picking an interesting chapter then zeroing in on what are called the Key Messages. Each is just a few sentences and most chapters have just 3 to 6 of them. To comment on a Key Message one needs to use the “text region” button and include the page and line numbers.

Almost all of these Key Messages are based on questionable computer modeling and saying this is a good comment. Simply put, they are falsely stating alarmist speculation as though it were an established fact, which it is not. Computer projections are not physical facts and one can simply say this as a quick comment. No elaborate essay is needed.

Here are some examples of alarmist Key Messages:

Extreme precipitation events are projected to increase in a warming climate and may lead to more severe floods and greater risk of infrastructure failure in some regions.” Chapter 3: Water.

Increasingly, the energy system is affected by climate change and extreme weather events, threatening more frequent and longer-lasting power outages affecting critical energy infrastructure and creating fuel availability and shortage imbalances, with cascading impacts on other critical sectors, potentially affecting the Nation’s economic and national security.” Chapter 4: Energy.

Other examples of clearly alarmist Key Messages are given in my two previous articles:

Comment now on the draft National Climate Assessment (here)

Wild speculations stated as facts in the draft National Climate Assessment (here)

There are 118 Key Messages like this so finding a few to simply call out as alarmist should be easy. Most of the chapters are about either a sector of the economy or a region. Sectors include things like water, energy, transportation, etc. The geographical regions of America range from the Caribbean to Alaska and Hawaii, plus the contiguous ones of course. So just pick something that is personally interesting.

You do not have to be an expert or a scientist to comment, because the alarmism in these Key Messages is obvious. They are simply projecting catastrophe based on worthless computer models. Point that out in simple terms. Here is an example of a simple comment on a Key Message, one that I use repeatedly:

Comment: This entire message falsely states speculative attributions and projections of impacts as established physical facts. These attributions, projections and risks appear to be based primarily on the use of questionable computer models. That climate change will have negative impacts has yet to be determined and appears increasingly unlikely.

It is also worth mentioning that the draft NCA4 violates the Information Quality Act requirement that federal agencies ensure and maximize the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by the agency.” All 13 member agencies of the USGCRP are responsible for IQA compliance.

The draft NCA4 exhibits neither quality, objectivity, utility nor integrity. This needs to be said repeatedly. To begin with there is neither objectivity nor integrity, as these errors have been pointed out repeatedly during the Obama series of National Assessments, yet they persist. As a result there is no quality or utility; in fact this alarmism is worse than useless. It is downright dangerous.

All comments are going to be published, so the more the better. Now is the time to stand up to climate alarmism and be heard. Hopefully the Trump Administration will listen.


About the Author: David Wojick, Ph.D.

David Wojick is a journalist and policy analyst. He holds a doctorate in epistemology, specializing in the field of Mathematical Logic and Conceptual Analysis.

  • Gary Hall

    Traveling – can’t really construct this comment; however, I’d offer this – and pray that someone can focus on it; The NCA should always distinguish between GW, and AGW — as well as CC and ACC, or CACC. The terms GW and CC should never appear standing alone in any discussion within the NCA, unless it is intended to imply that all GW and CC is naturally occurring. If they intend to be speaking of a human footprint on GW, or CC, then it should always be defined.

    GW and AGW, as well as CC and ACC/CACC, are not the same thing.

    • David Wojick

      Good point. The NCA4 Key Messages constantly use the term climate change to mean bad human caused climate change. We need to call them on that bias.

      • Gary Hall

        Thanks David. Not just them – it’s most everyone. When someone asks me if I believe in GW, or in CC; you can just imagine my response. The absolute wrong answer (other than it being a Chinese Hoax – hehe) is to answer, “no;’ yet leading politicians often succumb to that trap.

        My response usually goes something like, ‘Well of course I do; however, I suspect you were intending to ask me if I believe (and to what extent) if the level of AGHG’s since, say the 1950’s-late 1970’s (consensus view of the earliest potential observable hint of any AGW) have added to naturally occurring global temperature changes (less cooling, or additional warming) – and to what degree – and if this potential additional warming, AGW, will eventually lead to any changes in our always dramatically changing natural climate variability. FTR – there certainly is none to scant evidence (and little consensus) that it has so far, at least.”

        Their response to that allows me to sense whether or not, any further discussion will have a chance of being meaningful.

        I submit that CFACT, Climate Depot, Curry, Tony – and everyone out there on the skeptical side of the debate confer and start the process of always being crystal clear on this.


        • David Wojick

          Yes, this semantic nonsense is everywhere, especially in the press and lay circles. But the NCA is being prepared by the 13 federal research agencies that collectively spend almost $3 billion a year on climate change research. They know better, making their mistake on purpose, hence not a mistake at all.

          • Gary Hall

            Let’s see if I get a chuckle out of this:

            See – ” that collectively spend almost $3 billion a year on climate change research.”

            . . on man-made (anthropogenic) climate change research.

            It’s a tough learning curve for all of us.

            I’d note – if they were spending all that money on researching “climate change;” that which is expected to be dolled out within the natural variability of our climate, they would have discovered that nothing unusual is going on.

            PS – Judith Curry actually wrote on this subject a couple years back. I took that to Lamar Smith’s committee (James Danford – not there any longer) – and while I received a great audience – never saw it materialize.

            • David Wojick
              • Gary Hall

                Hi – just checked back – will dive into that later. Here’s a bit that I bumped into back when Obama made his pathetic showing up at the Exit Glacier in Alaska. It’s been passed around a good bit since then. It’s such an easy layman’s read, so I often pass it off to contacts, and some in the media, suggesting that they spend a moment on Table 1;

                Table 1 has it’s history of retreat:

                1815 – 1950 4,892 feet, or 36 ft/yr

                1950 – 1999 1,657 feet, or 34 ft/yr.

                . . . and on this passage:

                The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a time of global cooling from approximately 1350 to 1870 AD. During this time glaciers expanded in the northern regions, moving down the mountains and scouring the vegetation that had been in the valleys below. Park Service personnel recently discovered evidence of a buried forest dating back to at least 1170 AD high in the Forelands near the current glacier’s edge.

                Exit Glacier advanced from the Harding Icefield during the Little Ice Age, burying this existing forest and advancing to a maximum marked by the terminal moraine dated to 1815.

                A forest was growing there 948 years ago – then mowed down by the advancing glacier – but even as the glacier has receded once again, today, it will take perhaps another 100 years of this wonderful warmth for the process of life to once again give us a forest at this place.


                It has all happened before – and quite recently.