Subject: 'Scaremongering': Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: 'This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA...'Misrepresents the science' |
From: "Marc Morano-ClimateDepot.com" |
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:03:37 -0400 |
To: "'Marc Morano-ClimateDepot.com'" |
'Scaremongering': Scientists Pan Obama
Climate Report: 'This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for
the authors and NOAA...'Misrepresents the science'
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 - By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
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.
'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.
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.”