Thread: Global Warming | Climate Change Articles

Experts on Climate Change Assessment: ‘Every Conclusion of This Latest Government Report Is False’

9,547



AFP Tolga AKMEN25 Nov 201811,963
4:06

The federal government’s Fourth National Climate Assessment, released on Friday, has gained praise from leftists and left-wing environmental groups as a dire warning of the coming death and destruction in the United States if we don’t stop global warming.

But critics of the report, including scientists, have slammed it as “exaggeration,” bad science and even said its conclusions are “false.”
“This latest climate report is just more of the same – except for even greater exaggeration, worse science, and added interference in the political process by unelected, self-serving bureaucrats,” Tim Huelskamp, president of the Heartland Institute said in statements released by the free-market think tank following the report’s release.
“With a new volume out in December, The Heartland Institute has published 4,000 pages of the Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Huelskamp said. “Those reports cite many hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers that show how every conclusion of this latest government report [is] false.”
“This report from the climate alarmist Deep State in our government is even more hysterical than some United Nations reports,” Huelskamp noted. “The idea that global temperatures could rise as much as 12 degrees in the next 80 years is absurd and not a shred of actual data and observation supports that.”
“This report is a scientific embarrassment,” Jay Lehr, science director at the Heartland Institute, said. “Not only does it rely on computer models to predict the climate through the end of the century, it relies on computer models from five years ago that have been laughably wrong, failing to get even close to reality since 2013.”
Lehr said the report is filled with “blatantly absurd conclusions” designed to put more money and power into the hands of the United Nations.
As Breitbart News reported, the assessment includes predictions of dire consequences from climate change, including people dying because of increased temperatures.
“Higher temperatures will also kill more people, the report says,” CNN reported. “The Midwest alone, which is predicted to have the largest increase in extreme temperature, will see an additional 2,000 premature deaths per year by 2090.”
The report also said there would be more insect-borne diseases, including West Nile cases, which could more than double by 2050, according to the report.
The wattsupwiththat.com website pointed out that Chapter 6 of what it called an “alarmist” report on climate change contradicts some of its claims:

Temperature changes in the United States of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s recently published Climate Science Special Report (2017) clearly shows and discusses, under the heading of “6.1.2 Temperature Extremes”, how temperature extremes for the contiguous United States have become more moderate over the last 118 years, with the coldest daily temperatures warming and the warmest daily temperatures cooling. In other words, temperature-extreme-related climate in the United States has improved.

Critics also have advice for President Donald Trump, who has said man-made climate change is not a concluded fact.
“President Trump was required by law to release this report, but he is not required to take it seriously – and he surely will not,” Huelskamp said. “To do so would undermine his sensible, deregulatory agenda and restart the war on fossil fuels.”
“Happily, President Trump has on his advisory staff Dr. William Harper [of Princeton University], who knows how flawed these models are and will advise the president to not base a single aspect of U.S. policy upon them,” Lehr said.
“This is the Deep State run amok,” James Taylor, a senior fellow on environment and energy policy at Heartland, said. “The Trump administration needs to root out the embedded leftists who are responsible for this one-sided propaganda report that is even less credible than Al Gore.”
“The left has already politicized the science, and President Trump has every right to populate the executive branch agencies that produced this report with climate realists,” Taylor said.
Lehr and 18 reputable scientists wrote a 54-page critique of the Global Change Research Program’s 2017 report, which was similarly alarmist, according to Heartland.

The critique can be found here.
Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...UihkNDSkjDfEUI

Rush Limbaugh

There are ongoing efforts within the so-called Trump administration to undermine and sabotage him and his staff multiple times a day.

Climate Change Report Is Sabotage from Inside the White House

Nov 26, 2018



RUSH: Look at CNN’s little headline there: “Trump dismissals of science, intelligence community, and Russia move –” Trump is not dismissing science! Trump is dismissing deep state efforts to sabotage his administration. We had a call up here a moment ago. The caller went away. The caller wanted to know if Trump was going to be having to fight every day, multiple times a day, for every little thing he wants to get done. The answer is yes.

Now, this climate report that the Trump administration put out, folks, it’s caca. I’m gonna give you an example. One of the parts of this report talks about the devastating flooding in Houston from the hurricane that went through there as an example of climate change. This climate change report, people have asked me, how can the Trump administration put out a report like this, which is diametrically opposed to Trump and what Trump believes? The answer is that there are all kinds of deeply embedded deep staters in Washington.
Whenever somebody’s president, everything in the executive branch is called the “name of the president’s” administration: the Trump administration, which implies that everything happening is related to the president because the president wants it to happen. Well, not so in this case. The deep state has people all over — in the intelligence community, got ’em in the FDA, they’ve got ’em in the EPA, they’ve got ’em at the FDA, they’ve got ’em at NASA, they’ve got ’em everywhere! Trump hasn’t been able to weed out everyone.
In fact, David Bossie and Corey Lewandowski have a new book out. This is their second book in two years. You know, they were ranking members of the Trump election campaign staff. And their book is devoted to the examples and the existence of people in the White House who are trying to undermine Trump, in the administration. Not at some bureaucracy, but actually in the White House. White House staff, West Wing staff.
I saw Lewandowski on TV today being interviewed. And this is an ongoing problem. And let me ask you if you remember something. Do you remember when the first impetus existed for Trump to declassify all of the FBI documents that would finally reveal what the actual beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation was, what actually triggered it? Remember, there were all kinds of different explanations. George Stephanopoulos telling the Australia ambassador that he had heard that the Russians had Hillary emails, and that turned out to be bogus. And the FBI has provided three or four different explanations of starting points.
But we don’t really know what the starting point was. Those documents would tell us. So everybody’s been saying to Trump, reveal ’em, declassify ’em and release these documents. And he hasn’t. And I have posited that one of the reasons why is that Trump may think that he profits from being seen by his supporters as a political victim. So maybe, in his mind, he profits or helps keep his support group tied to him by being seen as a victim of the deep state.
And I’m wondering if that’s not a factor in this book. Because it’s one thing for six months into an administration to have the story that there’s all kinds of saboteurs in there, saboteurs maybe held over from the previous administration. But the West Wing, the West Wing, the president’s office, that’s his people. How in the world can there be saboteurs in there? Trump hires everybody in there, or delegates the hiring of those people. So who are these saboteurs?
Now, for the same story, now we’ve got a book about the saboteurs in the administration? Why are they still there? Why haven’t they been identified and rooted out? The book — I haven’t read it. I’m gonna assume that the book knows who these people are. Maybe they don’t. But how do you write a book if you don’t know who they are? You’ve gotta know who they are if you know what the sabotage is.
So I’m thinking maybe there’s an ongoing political theory within the White House that Trump seen as a victim of unseen saboteurs helps him stay solidified with his voters. I don’t know this to be the case, but I’ll tell you, I — you tell me — I may be on thin ice with some of you here. But after two years don’t you think you might have made some headway in getting rid of some saboteurs? We’re talking West Wing. I’m not suggesting that they should have been able to get rid of every saboteur and every deepest lifer that’s at the FDA or OSHA. I mean, there’s so many damn agencies that you couldn’t get rid. And it’s increasingly tough to fire federal employees anyway.
But in the West Wing, in the actual administration, the fact that there’s still saboteurs running around in the White House on Trump’s staff? I don’t know. If that’s true, it’s time to get rid of ’em! Go and write books about the fact they exist and how they’re trying to undermine the president, but get rid of ’em at the same time. There’s no reason for this. There’s no reason the president just sit there and tolerate or deal with saboteurs or deep staters or people participating in a silent coup, which is exactly what is happening. There’s no question that a silent coup began and is ongoing. And this climate change report is a classic example.
So back to CNN. Now, you people say, “Rush, you sound” — what was the word, disheartened? I’m not disheartened. You know, I’ve told you, some days I can’t take it either, watching the media some days I need to follow my own advice and turn it off. I’m watching CNN this morning, moments ago, actually, Tom DeLay, who lives in Sugar Land, Texas, which is suburban Houston, was being interviewed about the devastating climate change report put out by the Trump administration.

It was released the day after Thanksgiving, last Friday, and the media is off there saying, “They tried to bury it, they tried to bury it by releasing it on a slow news day, but we were too smart for ’em, we’re not gonna let them bury it.” It was precisely released by the proponents on the day after Thanksgiving in collusion with the news media to make it a big deal because it is a slow news day, so it could be the focal point!
So people are supposed to sit here and believe the Trump administration is warning us of climate change while Trump personally doesn’t believe in it. And it’s meant to convey that Trump doesn’t even know what’s going on in his own administration, that Trump is so detached, that Trump is so distant, that Trump is so disinvolved, so stupid, that he doesn’t even know what his administration’s doing! That’s the message. That’s the purpose.
When in fact a bunch of deep staters put this thing together, and it’s a crock like every other climate change projection story has been. It’s back to warning us we’ve only got 10 more years, the final 10 years to fix it, and if we don’t, we’re toast by the end of the century, meaning another, what, 84 years, 82 years. That’s all we’ve got, folks. We’re toast. If we don’t fix it in 10 years, by the next 82 years, we’re done. And they cite the floods in Houston after the hurricane.
And Tom DeLay was trying to tell this brain-dead infobabe — are these people this dumb and stupid? Which is infuriating if they are. Or are they just this activist engaged? And half of them I think are this stupid, I think they’re just plain dumb. They’re not curious, and they just buy hook, line, and sinker everything in the leftist agenda. And it might have been the case here. I’m not gonna name the anchor. I don’t want to create hate mail, none of that. That’s not the point here. It doesn’t matter who on CNN it was. They’re interchangeable.
And this babe was asking DeLay, “Well, what about all of the floods, the climate change report says the flooding had never been seen before in Houston for any kind of a hurricane, and it’s an example of what we’re headed for.” And DeLay kept trying to tell her, “No, no, no, no, the hurricane didn’t cause the flooding. It was some bad levees, like in New Orleans, a lot of money had been appropriated to build up some levees and some flood walls and the money was not spent, they were not in a strong state, they gave way.”
She wasn’t even open to the possibility. She immediately thought DeLay was lying to her or was full of it or what have you, and was prepared to buy hook, line, and sinker this report. This report, like every other climate change report, promising doom and gloom is nothing more than a made-up, pseudoscientific document. There is no consensus in science, and yet they continue to rely on what a consensus of scientists say.
The truth is, global temperatures — Investor’s Business Daily has it today in an editorial — global temperatures the past two years are plummeting. There isn’t any warming. Now, the left will say, “Well, yeah, that’s ’cause of all the smoke from the fires that are brought about by global warming. And the volcanoes brought about by global warming.”
You know, there’s even a story that we’re causing climate change on the Moon? Because we’re aiming so many satellites and missions to the Moon that we’re causing climate change. It’s gotten out of hand, it’s so ridiculous. But the point is there are ongoing efforts within the so-called Trump administration to undermine and sabotage him and his staff multiple times a day. And this climate change report is just one example of it.

Related Links

Investor's Business Daily: Global Warming: Another Doomsday Climate Model Flunks A Math Test

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2...A9iDczQwZuqKLM

Obama official helped prepare dire National Climate Assessment



In this April 3, 2014, file photo giant machines dig for brown coal at the open-cast mining Garzweiler in front of a smoking power plant near the city of Grevenbroich in western Germany. Despite uncertainties about whether the United States ... more >

By Valerie Richardson -
The Washington Times - Wednesday, November 28, 2018

A former Obama administration official with ties to a liberal advocacy group funded by Democratic megadonors George Soros and Tom Steyer helped prepare the Fourth National Climate Assessment, whose dire predictions have since been attacked as overblown.
Andrew Light, who worked on the 2015 Paris accord negotiations as a senior adviser to the U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change under Secretary of State John F. Kerry, served as a review editor for the assessment, overseeing the pivotal final chapter that concluded under a worst-case scenario that global warming could wipe out as much as 10 percent of the U.S. economy by 2100.
Now a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute, Mr. Light also spent five years as senior fellow and director of international climate policy at the Center for American Progress, which was founded and now led by longtime Democratic insider John Podesta. The center is also financed by liberal billionaires such as Mr. Soros and Mr. Steyer.
The involvement of Mr. Light and other figures known for their climate change advocacy has raised questions about the credibility of the report, which has been widely depicted as a politically neutral, scientific document prepared by disinterested specialists from 13 federal agencies.
Roger A. Pielke Jr., University of Colorado Boulder environmental studies professor, criticized the decision to bring in Mr. Light, as well as the report’s reliance for the 10 percent figure on a 2017 study funded in part by Mr. Steyer’s Next Generation and Bloomberg Philanthropies.
“The question remains, whose idea was it to have John Podesta’s climate adviser and Obama political appointee be in charge of the review of the most important chapter, which leans heavily on Tom Steyer research?” Mr. Pielke said in an email.


Mr. Light directed questions about his role to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is required by Congress to prepare a new assessment no less than every four years. The program did not immediately return messages requesting comment.
“I was appointed in my capacity as a professor at George Mason University, where I have worked since 2008,” Mr. Light said in an email. “Any questions about decisions on who was or was not appointed to one of the chapter author teams should be directed to the U.S. Office of Global Change Research, because that is the office that put together those teams.”
Mr. Light has no formal academic scientific credentials — he earned his Ph.D. in philosophy — but noted that he completed a three-year postdoctoral research fellowship in environmental risk assessment.
“I believe I was selected as a Review Editor because for over fifteen years I have been working on domestic and international environmental, climate, and energy policy,” he said. “I have authored or co-authored over a dozen policy reports in this area, participated and led several important dialogues and projects in this field, and made substantial contributions to climate and energy agreements.”
Mr. Light denied being in charge of the chapter, saying it would be “inaccurate to say that I was responsible for any of the content.”
He made the media rounds after the report was released, with both CBS News and Bloomberg News calling him the report’s “co-author,” which he said was incorrect.
The report lists more than 200 authors and contributors, most of them federal employees but also dozens from universities, advocacy groups, foundations, think tanks and consulting firms specializing in advising governments and businesses on climate change adaptation and resilience.
The advocacy groups include the Union of Concerned Scientists, National Wildlife Federation, Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, and Arctic Institute. Others involved with the report are affiliated with the Brookings Institution, the Paulson Institute, and the Rand Corp., as well as the Kresge and Packard foundations.
Absent were prominent scientists affiliated with top research universities who have challenged catastrophic climate scenarios, such as John Christy, Judith Curry, William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Roy Spencer.
Mr. Light said review editors were selected by the National Climate Assessment federal steering committee from candidates nominated by others or themselves.
“Anyone could be nominated for the role of Review Editor or they could self-nominate,” he said.
The report landed President Trump on the hot seat, in part for its ominous findings, in part because it was released on Black Friday, fueling accusations that the administration wanted to bury the damning assessment.
Environmental groups reacted with calls for swift action to avoid the scenarios laid out in the report, including as many as 9,300 climate-related deaths per year by 2100 and an increase in extreme weather events.
“This assessment, put forth by Donald Trump’s own government, continues to make it clear that if we don’t act now, the catastrophic effects of climate change will reshape the United States and the world for those of us alive today and for generations to come,” the Sierra Club said in a statement.
Mr. Trump dismissed the assessment, saying, “I don’t believe it,” prompting CNN to scold him for “dismissing his own experts.”
Skeptics, meanwhile, have blasted the report as “tripe” (Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore), a “400-page pile of crap” (Heartland Institute’s John Dunn), “irrelevant” (JunkScience’s Steven J. Milloy), and “baseless scaremongering” (Watts Up With That’s Eric Worrall).
“The National Climate Assessment report reads like a press release from environmental pressure groups — because it is,” said Marc Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”
He described two of the authors — Texas Tech professor Katharine Hayhoe and Donald J. Wuebbles of the University of Illinois — as “longtime Union of Concerned Scientist activists.”
“These are not ‘Trump’s own scientists’ as the media likes to claim,” Mr. Morano said. “The key authors are in fact left-wing environmental activists with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for American Progress, and the Obama Administration. And they cited outlier studies funded by Steyer and [Michael] Bloomberg.”
The 2017 study, which appeared in the journal Science, was cited to support the claim of a possible 10 percent decline in U.S. gross domestic product by the end of the century, a scenario decried by critics as highly improbable.
The report concluded that reducing climate change under a more extreme scenario versus a lesser one would mean fewer deaths and fewer lost labor hours. The avoided health impacts would represent “domestic benefits of mitigation on the order of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars per year.”
“These figures, as clearly identified in the references in the report, were not derived from one study but from a number of sources, primarily an EPA study from 2017,” he said.
Mr. Pielke, who has described climate change as “real” and Mr. Trump as “wrong” on the issue, said the estimate was not only “implausible,” but also was contradicted elsewhere in the assessment.
“The report obviously fell short in its quality control,” Mr. Pielke said. “Why this happened should be explored, but clearly it would have benefited from expanding its leadership beyond the ‘climate club.’”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...7JtidUDlzc6CzQ