Updated: July 8, 2009
Below is a small sampling of first reactions to the President Obama’s new global warming report. (See: Obama issues global warming report — ‘Detailed picture of the worst case scenarios’ — ‘Poised for its most forceful confrontation with American public’ )
Sampling of Scientific Reactions to report:
Meteorologist: ‘This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA’ – June 16, 2009
By Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. D’Aleo publishes www.IceCap.US
Excerpt: The report issued was the Hollywood supported NOAA CCSP report which after two rounds of comments by many scientists citing peer review reasons to change, largely ignored the comments and delivered a document even more alarmist than the UN IPCC. It starts out DAY ONE being wrong on many of its claims but goes much further to rely on climate models for 2050 and 2100 to make even more dire prognoses. This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA. They gave the administration the cover to push the unwise cap-and-tax agenda. For D’Aleo’s complete reaction, go here.
U.S. Government Scientist: ‘I disagree strongly with the hurricane-related conclusions of this report!’ – June 16, 2009
Excerpt: U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. Goldenberg is expressing his personal views on the report, not those of any organization. Goldenberg: I saw the news story on this and looked up the report. I have a pretty good grasp of the hurricane and AGW issues. I have skimmed over the hurricane findings (by the way — I didn’t notice a single recognized hurricane climate expert in the list of authors) and they definitely ignore a large body of the published hurricane research. There are a number of hurricane climate experts (including myself) that would disagree strongly with the hurricane-related conclusions of this report! […] I can only imagine how slanted the other portions of the report might be as well. (For Full Goldenberg reaction, go here:
Prof. Pielke Jr.: Report ‘misrepresents the science’ — ‘ignores relevant work in peer-reviewed literature’ – June 16, 2009
By Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Excerpt: Imagine if an industry-funded government contractor had a hand in writing a major federal report on climate change. And imagine if that person used his position to misrepresent the science, to cite his own non-peer reviewed work, and to ignore relevant work in the peer-reviewed literature. There would be an outrage, surely . . . The Obama Administration has re-released a report (PDF) first issued in draft form by the Bush Administration last July (still online PDF). The substance of the report is essentially the same as last year’s version, with a bit more professionalism in the delivery. For instance, the photo-shopped picture of a flood appears to be removed and the embarrassing executive summary has been replaced by something more appropriate. This post is about how the report summarizes the issue of disasters and climate change, including several references to my work, which is misrepresented. This post is long and detailed, which is necessary to support my claims. But stick with it, or skip to the end if you’ve seen the details before (and long-time readers will have seen them often), there is a surprise at the end. […] So to summarize: sentence one is not supported by the citations provided, which lead in both cases to selectively chosen non-peer reviewed sources, and the citations that are peer reviewed on this subject come to an opposite conclusion and are ignored.
By Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles. Excerpt: The new scare report issued by the Obama administration refers (reference list) to the work of Stephen H. Schneider six times. You will recall that Schneider is infamous for telling Discover magazine (October, 1989, p. 45-48) that “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” 2. There has been no sea level rise for the past three years. 3. Hurricane, typhoon, and tropical cyclone activity is at a 30-year low. 4. The satellite data (UAH MSU) currently show that mean global temperature is about the same as it was in June of 1979…no, if anything, it is LOWER. […] Global “warming” is based almost entirely on the record from meteorological stations. Anthony Watt’s survey of 1221 weather stations is now 70 percent complete, and shows that an astonishing 69 percent of these stations are likely to have serious errors, due to their being located near heat sources such as asphalt paving, air conditioning vents, etc. After following this subject now since the mid 1980s, I become more skeptical every year. I am now beginning to conclude that global warming simply does not exist.
‘So Much For That Whole Commitment To Science We Were Promised’ – June 16, 2009
Excerpt: Wow, that’s sure how I learned to handle a scientific report back when I was studying physics – scrub it of the science and give it to an activist PR firm! Do you need any more evidence that climate science has become substantially dominated by post-modernist scientists, where ideological purity and staying on message is more important than actually having the science right? […] Apparently the report will make up for having all the science stripped out by spending a lot of time on gaudy worst case scenarios.
Obama ‘hires PR firm to embellish past scaremongering generated exclusively from virtual climate computer models’ – June 16, 2009
Excerpt: Despite the scientific evidence that the globe has been cooling (land, atmosphere and oceans) over the last 10+ years, Obama chooses to publish his first “science” report void of any recent, real-world climate science. Instead, his administration hires a PR firm to embellish the past scaremongering generated exclusively from virtual climate computer models. Unfortunately for real science and America, he has sided with the pseudo science of “virtual lies” and hysterical climate claims in order to get his badly needed revenue-generation engine, ‘Cap & Trade,’ passed in Congress.
Guest post by Bob Tisdale: Expert: The USGCRP report “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” was released today. As noted in the title, it fails to address the multiyear effects of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events on global temperature. Other than explosive volcanic eruptions, El Nino-Southern Oscillation events have the greatest impacts on global climate on annual and multiyear bases. […] Like the IPCC, the USGCRP either fails to accept the significant multiyear and cumulative impacts of ENSO on global temperatures or they chose to ignore them in their presentation of the causes of global temperature change.
Sen. Inhofe: ‘No surprise report released just in time for Climate bill vote’ – June 16, 2009
Excerpt: “That the federal bureaucracy in Washington has produced yet another alarmist report on global warming is nothing new,” Sen. Inhofe said. It’s also no surprise that such a report was released just in time for the House vote on Waxman-Markey. […] I would suggest that, given a little time, the world’s preeminent scientists will quickly and thoroughly debunk this study. As has been clearly demonstrated by the Senate Minority report of over 700 scientists questioning global warming hysteria, the debate on the science remains wide open.”
Small Sampling of Critiques of Obama’s Climate Report: Updated: July 8, 2009:
Fear Factor! Obama issues global warming report — ‘Detailed picture of the worst case scenarios’ — ‘Poised for its most forceful confrontation with American public’ – Report offers ‘most tangible evidence of economic costs of climate change’