Free Markets, Free People

Scientists rebut Obama Administration’s “National Climate Assessment”

Yes, that’s right … scientists.  Here’s their opening.  As you’ll see, they don’t mince words nor do they show much respect for the nonsense spouted in the NCA or those who produced it.  And I don’t blame them:

The National Climate Assessment – 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.

As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of “Climate Change,”however scary, is not proof of anything. Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists call it today.

We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple:

It is NOT true.

Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern.  The theory of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels. It is therefore claimed as self-evident that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will continue to do so.

Higher GAST is then presumed to lead to all sorts of negative consequences, especially Extreme Weather. They promote their ‘Climate Models’ as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection.

This document is structured around a “fact-check,” where we quote a number of the government’s key claims in the NCA and show each to be invalid. The first three claims involve their three crucial scientific arguments (Three Lines of Evidence or 3 LoE), which, if valid, would satisfy a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for making their case. But each is easily shown to be false; and because each is crucial, their entire theory collapses. That means that all of the overblown “Climate Disruption” evidence that they mention, whether true or not, cannot be tied back to man’s burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce or eliminate Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels are completely nonsensical.

They then present a point by point rebuttal of the “3 LoE”, pointing to evidence that shows them to be demonstrably false.  And, as they point out, since those 3 LoE are the foundation of the CAGW theory, the theory collapses.

You can read it here.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

32 Responses to Scientists rebut Obama Administration’s “National Climate Assessment”

  • Bu…bu…but THOSE scientists are just Koch-suckers…!!!
    They sold out to the man, man…  Those guys need to be in jail (David Suzuki) or executed (Richard Parncutt).
    The debate is OVER, dude.  And, remember, Erp…who consults REAL scientists…TOTALLY has bunked that 97% figure you lying liars say you debunked.  Totally!  So there…!!!

    • A reporter I know, interviewed Michael Mann and specifically asked him if there was proof that Climate Change was causing these weather events.  He said, “No, but I have a feeling.”

      • The book Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), published in 1931.  Einstein is reported to have said,”If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”
        So why did they need a group of scientists ?

        • Because the Nazis didn’t understand what they called “Jewish Science”.
          Rather like the AGW gang, no?

    • Went to the linked article.  Too much sciency stuff likes graphs and charts and tables ‘splainin’ away all that they truly truly really really believe – so it can’t be true.  I mean, why go with actual data when the theory sounds so great, and – bonus – keeps:  1. the grant money coming in and 2. them feeling so good about themselves.  I’m mean, c’mon man, they’re savin’ the planet.  Besides – shut up!

      • “… them feeling so good about themselves…”

        They also get to feel an inner satisfaction that they are so much better than we knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, who *gasp* don’t believe in the magical power of collectivist big government..

        • (Eye roll) Billy, you just see everything through an ideological fog of hate for our great President while denying 97% of real sciencey scientists.
          (Doing the stupid trolling that a vacationing….er….”teaching” Erp won’t do…)

          • Global warming is racist and makes sense that deniers are closet racists who oppose the President on everything because he’s not white enough for them. 

      • You forgotted ‘racisssssssstssssssss!’

      • Went to the linked article.  Too much sciency stuff likes graphs and charts and tables ‘splainin’ away all that they truly truly really really believe – so it can’t be true.

        >>>> And hence “Vox”

  • Canadian geneticist David Suzuki urged Western governments to lock up politicians who question man-made climate change, telling PBS’ Bill Moyers “our politicians should be thrown in the slammer for willful blindness!”
    Suzuki seems to have a problem with diversity and inclusiveness.

    Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki resigned from the David Suzuki Foundation board following worries that his opinions could endanger the foundation’s charitable status, the National Post reports.
    “I want to speak freely without fear that my words will be deemed toopolitical, and harm the organization of which I am so proud,” he wrote.
    The man knows he is a “bomb thrower”

    • Sorta gives a whole new meaning to POLITICAL “scientist”.  Dunnit?

    • Hey be grateful he doesn’t favor capital punishment!

    • Suzuki has a whole stable of problems, the METHOD of science being Numero Uno!

    • Meh, Suzuki is just saying what they all feel, because Leftists, in their hearts, are control freaks which, should they be lent enough power, turns to tyranny every time…

  • Bush, Big Oil, Koch Brothers, Science is Settled, Poor Polar Bears, Blah Blah blah
    Shut up he explained.

    • I feel sorry for Karl Rove and Halliburton these days… not so long ago they were the go-to boogeymen but seem to have lost favor in this brave new world.

  • Yet another story of a Nobel winning “skeptic” …

    Sweet revenge comes in many delectable forms, among them the receipt of accolades for work long scorned. And then to get to tell the whole story at length and without a single interruption — small wonder that the Nobel laureate Dr. Stanley B. Prusiner, a renowned neurologist at the University of California, San Francisco, writes with a cheerful bounce. Once disparaged, his scientific work is now hailed as visionary, and his memoir takes the reader on a leisurely and immensely readable victory lap from then to now.

    … riding the bandwagon to consensus won’t get you a Nobel (except perhaps a meaningless Nobel Peace Prize)

  • Even more lefty hypocrisy on display…

    I am sure someone who frequents these parts can earn his 30 pieces of silver by waving it away with the rolling of the eyes.

    • As best as I can tell, many (most?) social science degrees now require the freshman course Eye Rolling and Hand Waving 101. At least, they all seem to act as if they had taken it.

      • Oh, and don’t forget the mandatory lab that goes with the course.  It isn’t enough to just get the theory.  You have to demonstrate that you can apply it correctly to rational argumentation damaging to Collectivism…while not doing yourself any injury.  Carpel tunnel syndrome and crossed eyes have resulted from on-line attempts.

      • You can never have too many hand waving duels.
        We’re like Erb’s Hidelberg, this is where he comes for more dueling scars.
        Remember he says he recommends this site to his students, but it’s not just our agitprop he’s talking about, it’s demonstrations of his suave turn of the wrist, his clever Betty Davis Eye roll (or is it the Marty Feldman eye roll) that he wants them to see in action.

    Hmmm…  Basic math and geometry used to DEbunk the latest hyperbolic chicken-dance on climate?
    That ain’t right…  Hell, even non-scientists can do the DEbunking.

  • Further debunking of the Antarctic ice melting scare.

    • I wonder if Erp will read and consider that piece…???
      (Sometimes, I just kill me…!!!)

      • Bah! He has scientists to consult (i.e. reading warmist blogs that agree with his ideology) before giving all those speeches on global warming climate change because hundreds of people always turn-out to see no-name poly sci teachers at no-name colleges talk about complex scientific topics. All the time!

  • Apparently, in climate science it is “an error” to attempt to compare computer temperature forecasts with the temperatures that actually occurred.  In fact, he says that trying to do so “is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side”.  Apparently, the purpose of scientific inquiry is to win media wars, and not necessarily to discover truth.

    Warren Meyer

  • Anthropogenic climate change is a political hoax.  It is so absurd that it is supported only by useful idiots and radical leftists using it to attack human prosperity, especially the “unfair” prosperity we have enjoyed in the US.
    It is not a theory.  Gravity is a theory.  Anthropogenic climate change is an unsupported hypothesis – nothing more than a “what if”.
    Scientists have no higher moral authority than politicians.  As long as politicians and other leftists pay scientists to create models saying man’s CO2 causes global warming, corrupt scientists will continue to do so.  But unless these models clearly predict and correlate with actual climate, they are invalid.  The failure of these models is more than obvious, as is the validity of the hoax.
    CO2 is a very minor “greenhouse gas”, with water vapor enormously more abundant especially in the tropics.  Man’s effect on CO2 concentration is obviously positive, but unquantified.  We have no idea what per cent of atmospheric CO2 is from burning fossil fuels, or whether it is even a significant factor in total CO2 concentration.

    • What would be really cool would be to try to estimate how much wealth has been squandered…including what we DIDN’T produce, but could have…in the name of this druidic religion.  How many people died as a result?  And what would we do if…WHEN…it is laid in our dust as we move forward?