CFACT releases a new report on the eve of the New York UN climate summit.
The report is authored by Paul Driessen with contributions from Marc Morano.
Executive Summary
Launched in 1988 at the urging of activists opposed to hydrocarbon energy, economic growth, and modern living standards, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was originally charged with assessing possible human influences on global warming and potential risks of human-induced warming. Over the subsequent decades, however, the IPCC increasingly minimized non-human factors, to the extent that it now claims only human influences matter – and any climate changes would “threaten our planet.”
The climate change scientist-government-industrialist complex has grown increasingly wealthy and powerful. It now spends billions of dollars annually on climate and weather research, focusing almost exclusively on carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases, and many billions more on renewable energy research and subsidies that raise energy prices, cost jobs, and reduce living standards.
Indeed, laws and regulations implemented in the name of preventing climate change have increased the cost of virtually everything people make, grow, ship, drive, eat, and do. They affect our lives, liberties, livelihoods, living standards, health, and welfare. Expert analysts calculate that climate-related rules will cost U.S. families and businesses almost $51 billion and 224,000 U.S. jobs every year through 2030 – on top of the $1.9 trillion in regulatory costs that Americans already pay every year.
With so much at stake, it is essential that climate research is honest, accurate and credible, and that the resultant energy and climate policies are based on sound, replicable science. Instead, the studies and reports are consistently defective and even deceitful. They incorporate every study financed by this multi-billion-dollar system that supports the “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis – no matter how far-fetched and indefensible their claims might be – and ignore all contrary studies and experts. They rely on faulty, manipulated data, secretive working sessions that revise the “science” to reflect political “summaries,” and computer models that completely fail to predict actual real-world climate trends.
Because average global temperatures have not risen for 18 years (and have even cooled slightly), even the terminology has shifted: from global warming to climate change, climate disruption, and extreme weather.
Relying on the IPCC work, the $2.5-billlion-a-year U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP) issued a 2014 National Climate Assessment (NCA) that claimed climate change “is already affecting” the lives of Americans in a “multitude of ways.” President Obama said its effects “are already being felt in every corner of the United States.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies use IPCC studies to justify costly vehicle mileage standards, delays and bans on oil and gas drilling and pipelines, and rules that are closing hundreds of coal-fired power plants and preventing new ones from being built.
As ClimateDepot.com director Marc Morano explains, the IPCC is “a political body masquerading as a science body.” It makes its pseudo-science fit its political agenda. The GCRP and the EPA do likewise. Their actions violate information quality laws and basic standards of sound science and peer review – to drive an anti-growth, anti-fossil fuel agenda. They exaggerate every conceivable cost associated with hydrocarbons, but completely ignore even the most obvious and enormous benefits of using fossil fuels.
Now the White House wants to commit the United States to a new international “agreement” on climate change, energy use, economic growth, and wealth redistribution – without presenting it to Congress, in violation of constitutional requirements that any treaty receive the “advice and consent” of the Senate.
Every American concerned about our nation’s future should read this report, to understand what is happening and what is at stake. They should resist these actions by unelected, unaccountable regulators, challenge them in courts and legislatures, and demand that every study, report, and proposed rule be presented for review by citizens, legislators, and independent experts outside the closed circles of the climate change scientist-government-industrialist complex. If the climate alarmists are truly confident in their claims and have nothing to hide, they should be happy to participate in this honest, common sense approach.
Keeping with the governments efforts to hype up the news this time of year, a scare letter appeared in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution this morning by alarmist writer Seth Borenstein. I sent this letter to the paper immediately afterwards.
Editor:
The September 19th AJC featured an article by Associated Press writer Seth Borenstein “NOAA: More heat records set in Aug.” The article said August 2014 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) global temperatures beat the record for 1998 and the months of June, July, and August also beat the record for 1998.
NOAA’s temperatures are based on stations spread around the planet that are subject to local influences like nearby air conditioning units. More accurate measurements are obtained from NASA satellite data from the University of Alabama (Huntsville) that is available on the Internet. Satellite data shows August years of 1998, 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2012 were warmer than 2014. In addition, for June, July, and August the years 1998, 2010, and 2011 were warmer than 2014.
Borenstein’s article was timed to support President Obama’s climate program.
James H. Rust, Professor and policy advisor The Heartland Institute
It seems like these liberals know no shame and will go to any lengths to try to achieve their goals. Lying to the public has become common place in journalism. I doubt if they will bother to mention that very few leaders of developed countries will attend. This is all about wealth redistribution rather than the climate.
Furthermore it show a well defined bias in the media that only goes to prove that the main… I mean lame stream media is merely the voluntary propaganda branch of the democrat party.
Don’t get your science from the media. Get it from primary peer reviewed sources.
Wasn’t referring to science, I was referring to the media that supposedly reports on science, but is so biased that any reports of anything cannot be taken seriously. That’s where nearly all of the misinformation comes from that the climate alarmists cite as evidence of global warming under the pseudonym of climate change.
You’ll get no argument from me that the media is doing an increasingly worse job at reporting science news. One of the worst issues is that a new report is treated like a final nail in some coffin. That’s not how science works. We incrementally advance in groping stops and starts. When our data sets from various sub disciplines all incrementally converge on the same answer, we give it a lot more weight.
They all need to be Jimmy Hoffa’d
When it was pointed out that summers were getting milder and winters colder, they looked down their pseudo-intellectual noses and admonished that we couldn’t confuse weather with climate. They are two different things. Now they use severe weather events as evidence of global warmi…er climate change. This fear based, end of days scenario, is fed like pablum to the public school students in order to breed a 50% plus 1 voting majority. Once that is accomplished we can bend over and kiss the middle class goodbye.
Can the school administrators and teachers be sued for teaching lies?
Sure try and sue the “GovMINT” see how far that gets you.
Use primary peer reviewed sources. That gets you much farther.
The Peer in Peer Reviewed are that group of college graduates that pay their mortgages with paychecks funded by the channeling of tax dollars to GovMint funded studies, organizations, and Universities for the purpose of duping the great unwashed American public into buying this load of cwap we manufactured out of whole cloth. The Group that would not have the money to publish if the GovMint stopped funding them. Peer Reviewed is code for Political Correct Position on the GovMint scam.
So we shouldn’t believe the experts because it’s their profession and not just a hobby? Ok. That makes no sense. You really don’t know how grant money is used. Your whole post makes up accusations of good people with no concrete cases or evidence. That might be perceived as just being a crappy person. Is peer review perfect? No. Is it better than secondary sources that have a horse in the race. Um . . . hell yes.
Sure, a Back handed slap accusing me indirectly of being a crappy person. I predicted you would go on the attack. I make no judgements about individuals. And why don’t you enlighten us on how
grant money works rather than assuming that I don’t. Especially those Billions of taxpayer dollars.
You and people advancing this doomsday scenario are the ones wielding peer review, along with a number of other soundbites, as if they were a cudgel to bludgeon all of us “Non-believers” (“Peer reviewers” words not mine). All I ask is that when you and your side make their pronouncements of “settled science” they present the facts to prove it rather than try to silence those who ask questions by declaring that the “debate is over” so STFU! Real science is never “settled” and always welcomes questions and “debate”. Cshorey I am still waiting for your proof of the claims. Something tells me I have a long wait. I will gird myself for another personal attack from you.
It wasn’t back handed. I’m telling you to your face that accusing people without proof is being a crappy person. That’s generally accepted in polite society. I also never advanced a doomsday scenario. That’s in your head only. Quite a few things appear to grow from your sensuous mind. You see, when a scientist gets a grant, they must justify the use of that money to the granting agency. It can not be kept for personal gain. The PI uses it to pay helpers and get equipment, travel to field sites, etc.
What proof do you want? Have you looked into the post WWII experiments on thermal IR imaging? Do you know why band 6 of thematic image mapper is so blurry? There is plenty of proof in those to points to start with, but your asking for a quick sound bite proof just lets us know that you don’t understand how science is done. We need a convergence of evidence on a complex issue like climate change and that is exactly what we have. Look into the paper in 1938 by Guy Calendar and see how many predictions came true. Look into the work of Smagorinsky and Manabee and see how greenhouse gas warming has certain distinct “fingerprints” and we actually do see those markers in the system. I’ve dealt with people who claim what you have claimed and I know you’re immune to this evidence anyway. I really post here for future generations to see the machinations of CFACT and its followers.
You are missing some very important points. Your side of this argument is calling for Government interference in our live. My side of the debate is not making any claims nor calling for action. We are questioning your side of the argument and being told shut up and disparaged in the media. Your side is making unproven claims and calling for the Government to step in with new rules and regulations that will effect us all. You are being disingenuous by saying that you personally make no doomsday claims knowing full well that you support the side of this debate that is. Do you deny the media is promoting the doomsday scenarios? Do you deny that they claim to have proof without presentation of same? I understand the Scientific Method and understand it is not being adhered to in the process of advancing the religious dogma of AGW.
What you miss is that “your side” (which is not really opposite) will have to pay with the rest of us for this willful ignorance of what the experts in this field are telling us. I do not cite Al Gore. I cite climate scientists who have been trained in this field and can discuss the devils in the details which are mighty indeed. I acknowledge many more versed than I. I guess I can’t say Media is proposing “doomsday” scenarios as that often refers to the end of the world. I sure don’t know any sane person saying climate change = end of the world. If we tone down your verbiage and use the “alarmist” term often thrown about here, I guess that’s more my ilk. I’m alarmed when I see a persistent drought of CA that was predicted by models back in the 70’s, and people there only now passing laws regulating groundwater extraction. I’m alarmed when a higher sea level and warmer seas caused Sandy to inflict more damage to that section of coastline then ever before, and the response by Gov. Christie is to get the ACE to build fragile berms at huge expense which will do nothing with the next “Sandy”. He’s allowing redevelopment on the shore, and huge sums of money for that come from the Federal Flood Insurance that you and I pay into. That bodes that I am going to pay more and more for other people’s dumb choices, and that alarms me. I’m alarmed that rising seas also mean sea water intrusion into aquifers and that for every 1 foot you draw down the water table at coastal aquifers, you draw the salt water boundary up to your well 16 ft.
I have two daughters, 16 and 11, and from the studies I’ve made, I no longer wonder about this matter. I know this only gets worse for them. I will not stand by and say I didn’t call out an alarm. I call out an alarm. To my daughters and to the future generations that will come. I do call out the alarm and pray these people can hear.
Cshorey: How terribly sad that you can never take the
time learn anything, very sad indeed but constant for people with your affliction. Did any MODELS predict this
10 year persistent drought?
“Over the 11-year span from 1930-1940, a large
part of the region saw 15% to 25% less precipitation than normal. This is very significant to see such a large deficit over such a long period of time. This translates to 50 to 60 inches of much needed moisture which never arrived that
decade.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ama/?n=dust_bowl_verses_today
“In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit
heat. We didn’t come anywhere close to that this summer.”
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/062/mwr-062-06-0212.pdf
What does this do for your concern about sea levels?
Updated Mean Sea Level Trends 1611400
Nawiliwili, Hawaii
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.shtml?stnid=1611400
Or this one for where I use to live.
9451600 Sitka, Alaska
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9451600
Being so stupid must cause you to have a very interesting life, AKA, but not one where you can see through using your real name in these exchanges.
Hi John,
There’s a test going on with you since we met. I’m waiting to see if you pass it. (Hint, it’s about one of your main obsessions). Um, yes, individual model runs often show persistent drought. I remember the first GCMs of Smagorinsky and Manabe had drought over CA and the SW to TX. But do remember that all models are wrong, but some models are useful. Just as a map is a model of the world, and isn’t perfect, and can be pointed out to be wrong in many areas, it is still very useful for seeing where you may currently be heading, and where you might want to be going.
No not Willful ignorance you are asking for mindless obeisance. There are, contrary to the media spin, many experts such as Dr. Roy Spencer who will refute most of the claims about the Anthropogenic aspect of YOUR so called experts. And again this isn’t a consensus issue. That would make it political. This is about science and empirical data not what the majority hypothesize. Again Doomsday is my poor choice of wording Sorry for using sarcasm. Your side is using words such as Catastrophic, dire, deadly so let’s stop changing the subject by arguing terminology. A recent study, since you like them so well, points to the heat and drought of CA and suggests that 90% of the problem is due to the alteration of Winds by, at the risk of sounding repetitive, shifts in the jet stream. You can google it (see too can play at the game of homework assignments). Again, hurricanes happen and people who live near the shore are sleepwalking if they think the Government and the scientists can immunize them from hurricanes and flooding. Your side argues that Climate Change cannot be conflated with weather but apparently that is not true if the weather supports your argument. but my final point to that is that if your side could finitely control the percentage of CO2 in the Atmo you still couldn’t save Sandy, New Orleans or any other coastal properties from the tragic effects of Hurricanes. So enough about hurricanes and other weather events. I agree with you that using taxpayers money to subsidize other people’s dumb choices is a horrible idea. We can at last agree on something. Let us both demand more from the politicians of both parties or agree to vote out the incumbents at every election (again of both parties). Congratulation on your daughters. Tell them I said hi and let them know they have much more to fear, regarding their futures, from the potential collapse of the U.S. economy and erosion of the middle class, thanks in large part to the onerous cost and restrictions being suggested by your side, than collapse of the climate and the erosion of beach front property. Unless of course you own beach front in which case good luck with that next hurricane that heads your way. All the spending on all the studies by all the scientist beholden to the GovMINt for their funding will not turn aside the gail force winds and subsequent flooding. But, A $17 TRILLION DEBT AND GROWING is not a hypothetical problem but a very real one that could destroy the quality of life for your children and make the American Dream a history lesson for you to teach.
I’m asking for mindful discretion. I do know Roy Spencer. His career is not sterling. I recall when he and Christy did that paper that said satellite measurements showed a cooling trend, but then it was pointed out that in correcting satellite drift they put in the wrong sign. The result was the measurement they used drifted earlier and earlier in the day and that made it look like a cooling trend. Once they corrected the sign error, they got the same warming trend everyone else did. But Roy didn’t stop there, but time is precious so let me just say that Roy Spencer disagreeing with me doesn’t really say much, and I’d prefer to stick to evidential matters here. You tell me the drought in CA is due to shifts in the Jet Stream. Yup. There is a persistent high pressure cell off the west coast deflecting the JS. We are still investigating the nature of these changes, but one thing is certain. The speed of the JS is a function of the difference in temperature between the temporal and polar zones, and as Guy Calendar predicted in 1938, and all models have agreed with since, and all observations have confirmed to have to be, the Arctic has warmed faster than any other place in the world. This means there is less of a difference in temperature between the polar and temperate zones. This results in a slowing of the JS. There is a definite correlation so far in slower JS having greater amplitude in its Rosby wave, and those waves slow their tracking around the globe. So pointing out the JS has shifted being the main cause of CA drought is actually pointing to one of the climate shift issues we’re aware of and having to adapt to. I’m glad we agree on not subsidizing poor choices, and ignoring the best evidence that sea level rise will continue unabated through this century makes coastal development one of the dumber choices. Urbanization and deforestation reducing infiltration and evapotranspiration has caused more flashy discharge in those water basins and plenty of development is in harm’s way. People build houses in the dead center of forests and expect us to pay to keep that little area from ever burning. After these points you seem to digress into politics and end with the classic Al Gore bit. Al isn’t a climate scientist. Stop getting your information from secondary sources. Look into primary information and keep an open mind.
I have viewed videos from the pro global warming side, experts that you obviously agree with that have cited Dr. Roy Spencer as one of 3 people most qualified to speak on Climate issues. Your declaration that his career isn’t sterling, is that your assessment or are quoting some higher authority and if so could you please name them? I have looked into primary information and viewed an enormous amount of misinformation, bad information and outright deceipt from sources such as the University of East Anglia exposed for “cooking the books” to generate a desired outcome that the media would trumpet from hill to dale. Funny they didn’t report the missing data. Now a partial observer could make the proclamation that James Hansen’s career has been less than sterling as a government paid member of NOAA whose own satelitte data has conflicted with Hansen’s computer models for the past decade, but that would be another silly diversion from the the real issue.
Solar output has not been decreasing for the past half century, as you claim elsewhere in your postings. The scientific community has observed a 22 year solar cycle which is the primary influence of climate and alteration of polar ice melt/growth and subsequent shifts in the jet stream. I only point this out because your proclamations are often as incorrect as your personal attack on Dr. Spencer’s reputation. For the casual reader please note that Cshorey, with postings on this article’s comment threads has vacillated between arguing weather events, hurricanes, droughts, blizzards as evidence of CC while rebutting observations of uncooperative weather that contradicts the CC claim as being irrelevant because one cannot confuse the two. How did you put it Cshorey? “All of the above – weather. Not climate.” in response to wiseguy below. The observant see that this whole weather issue is a fallback position, for the Warmingists, from their primary impetus of rising temperatures once they stopped rising.
Please look into the context of the East Anglia e-mails so you can see that the outright deceit (corrected the spelling for you) was not in the e-mails themselves, but in the way quotes were taken out of context with no accurate explanation to make it look like deceit on the part of scientists. You should be pissed that you’ve been tricked. And Roy Spencer really has had several articles retracted and an editor resign over letting a truly bad paper by Roy through to publication. If you want to hang a argument agains AGW on Roy, you are choosing a weak hangar. Meanwhile, a paper written by James Hansen in the 70’s has been shown to be predictively accurate.
As long as we are correcting grammar you will want to …hang an argument against… has anyone ever told you that you are a pompous…Roy Spencer has been held up by proponents of the Man Made crowd (that is your side) as one of 3 leading authorities on the topic of Climate Change. Someone in your circle of scientists disagrees with your take on Dr. Spencer.
Your James Hansen claim is a false one. You will need to point out any predictions that where accurate also include those predictions that were inaccurate. Some predictions of his have been so wrong they actually removed his “Hockey Stick” Slide from An Inconvenient Truth. The documentary which is not allowed to be viewed in UK schools because there are so many scientific inaccuracies. Look, we can play this nuh uh game till the cows come home or drop dead from the global warming you claim their flatulence causes. You make statement but you don’t prove them. You must understand that when you posit a hypothesis it is incumbent upon you to prove it, not declare the debate over and discredit people who present challenges to said hypothesis. Listen, your circle wants to force the world to change their lifestyle and reduce the quality of everyones life based upon an AGW hypothesis. Nothing you have posted here nor anything the pro-AGW crowd has put forth, could be considered proof. I think your political friends and the media call it “Settled Science” No real science teacher would allow that term to be taught their students cshorey, shame on you. Settled Science. BTW – East Anglia conveniently forgot to input certain data into their man made computer program in order to manipulate the model to arrive at a false outcome that fit the script. End Story.