I greatly appreciate your suggestions for a way forward. This is the sort of thinking we need to begin to make progress towards a greater understanding of the situation we face and hopefully a broader consensus.
A more fundamental question might be whether the USA or any other country needs a national climate assessment, and if so, for what purpose?
It seems to be used for the purpose of estimating how much decarbonization is necessary or desirable. However, since the US represents only some 13% of global CO2 emissions and no one knows what the right level of atmospheric CO2 ought to be for the planet it is unclear what further need there is for any kind of national climate assessment.
As the US has announced that it will be leaving the Paris Agreement the policy rationale for having a national climate assessment seems to be gone.
Agree. I have lost confidence that our political process and the science community can do anything like this in an objective, unbiased fashion - someone always has to "win". Just get rid of it. Save money, time, energy, even if it's small change. Delete, delete, delete.
Well, NCA5 was taken apart in a devastating blow to pseudo-scientific cherrypicking and partisan climate policy. Well done!
However, the 3 suggested changes proposed by the current administration reflects their inability to dive into the fundamental flaws of NCA5. They are barely scratching the surface of the problems you listed, even though a deeper analysis would have benefitted their cause and lent credence to climate competency. No such thing. I am not surprised, given an administration who hires staff based on loyalty instead of merits. We need someone like you to straighten things out.
I agree with Roger, its better to just add a single paragraph stating that the report is biased on almost every issue it deals with. Print it on the cover page.
It's shocking when its all laid out but not surprising given how corrupt the Autopen's administration was. It was also hyper-partisan and allowing leftist interest groups to participate in the report writing an obvious sign of bias.
The worst part however was the Censorship Industrial Complex and the viscous persecution of anyone questioning the woke insanity and the demonization of MAGA.
It now appears that some of the worst corruption will face consequences. It looks like Jack Smith will face numerous indictments over the Mara Lago raid and subsequent fabrication of evidence. And Fauci seems certain to be indicted for contempt of Congress and seems likely to face State charges in Florida. Joe Degeneva is still working on a bunch of conspiracy indictments for the worst of the Russiagate purveyors. If you missed them, Tulsi Gabbard's press conferences over the last year and a half are excellent summaries of the massive document dumps proving how bad it was (It's worse than you imagined).
The review of the expert analysis and the misrepresentation of key findings reminds me of what happened in the UHI/LULC analysis in AR5. Page 189 from memory. I really should write it up but in a nutshell they were determined to find that the surface temp record was accurate to within 10% per AR4, which adds to the controversy. Paper after paper that experts recommended be included because they challenged the AR4 conclusion, were summarised selectively so that the findings that challenged the AR4 finding, were omitted or minimised. One page, one conclusion on a critical aspect of climate science, was misrepresented - as one author confided to me, to support a predetermined outcome.
THB certainly mauled the NCA5. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Here's my proposed amendment: "The Global Change Research Act of 1990 is hereby repealed."
The problems with government-paid climate assessments (including IPCC's) are numerous.
I maintain that there is no way to make government assessments tamper-proof and unbiased, especially now that the subject has been so politicized. Far better to have non-government assessments. THB is certainly showing how limited assessments can be credibly produced without taxpayer support and the attendant political interference.
Another problem is that predictions of future climate and weather changes are unproven and highly speculative, mainly because the science is still fairly primitive compared to what it needs to be to make credible predictions. Several known natural factors that affect Earth's energy balance still can't be credibly predicted. Even more elusive is understanding how Earth's energy variations affect Earth's climate and regional climates. Or how proposed mitigation is likely to affect future weather.
A more valuable effort would be to study and report on ways individuals and governments can help humans adapt to protect life and property from known risks or improve our food and water supply, air, our water quality, etc.
"Vest assessment authority in a body insulated from direct executive control — a standing National Academies committee, or a structure under Congress resembling CBO or GAO..."
Given the issues with the National Academies' recent Attribution study, can we count on the integrity of the Academies for a highly political topic?
Very good commentary on what's wrong with NCA5. But off-mark in how to fix it. Take out a red pen, strike through everything that's off mark (your 1-10 and more), and name and shame. This "Vest assessment authority in a body insulated from direct executive control — a standing National Academies committee, or a structure under Congress resembling CBO or GAO, with an empaneling committee, staggered terms, and appointments from a bipartisan group of legislators (like the members of the House Science committee). " is nonsensical, as the National Academies are owned and run by ideologues. The Executive Order is the only reason sunlight is now disinfecting the plague.
Agreed! Those who make a living in climate science have an enormous incentive to stay relevant relative ot other areas of study. Wasn't Marcia McNutt a supporter of RCP8.5?
The problem here goes very deep into elite scientific institutions and will take a long time to repair if its even possible. Defund, divest, and boycott.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! Or, as my sainted grandfather said (at each and every election) "Throw the bums out!" So what to do with this Caliban of a report? It will always lurk in the archives, ready to reinforce the prejudices of another generation of Green True Believers. Rather like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, exposed as a forgery for 100 years but still gospel to gullible anti-semites. Bury it next to Indiana Jones's crate containing the Lost Ark, and lock the door on the warehouse on the way out. Start with a blank sheet of paper and do it right next time.
I still don't think we should be including wildfire in any of these statistics - it's too mixed with other direct human causes like forest/land management, government preparedness and response, etc.
The current Hawk Fire in Nevada, for example, was human caused. If you read the updates, they'll insert things like "Scientists say climate change is leading to warmer/drier conditions which increases the wildfires." But what they're really saying in that sentence is Drought increases wildfire... but drought change is currently undetected on Roger's dashboard. So to make it work, they have to use a separate metric (even if it's caused directly by humans) as a proxy.
I know, right. It's an invalid metric that's really only a proxy for Drought. And it's being used in place of Drought because Drought shows no detected change. It's like counting swimming pools and reservoirs as evidence of flooding.
Quite helpful to have in the holster, ready to use. Thank you.
Thank God for you Roger!
Looks to me like open and shut case of decision based evidence making.
Push everything that supports the narrative and bury anything that doesn’t.
I wish science had penalties for fraud, it feels like politics.
I greatly appreciate your suggestions for a way forward. This is the sort of thinking we need to begin to make progress towards a greater understanding of the situation we face and hopefully a broader consensus.
Unfortunately, the NOAA Billion Dollar data set still refers to it's past archive as follows:
ALL PAST REPORTS, SPANNING 1980-2024, AND THEIR UNDERLYING DATA REMAIN AUTHORITATIVE, archived, and available via: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.nodc:0209268 (my capitalization.) Perhaps another "fix" is to delete that data set and note it's not authoritative?
Your decades of knowledge on climate reporting is clearly evident in this critique. It's a lot of work to participate in policy this way. Thanks.
A more fundamental question might be whether the USA or any other country needs a national climate assessment, and if so, for what purpose?
It seems to be used for the purpose of estimating how much decarbonization is necessary or desirable. However, since the US represents only some 13% of global CO2 emissions and no one knows what the right level of atmospheric CO2 ought to be for the planet it is unclear what further need there is for any kind of national climate assessment.
As the US has announced that it will be leaving the Paris Agreement the policy rationale for having a national climate assessment seems to be gone.
Agree. I have lost confidence that our political process and the science community can do anything like this in an objective, unbiased fashion - someone always has to "win". Just get rid of it. Save money, time, energy, even if it's small change. Delete, delete, delete.
Well, NCA5 was taken apart in a devastating blow to pseudo-scientific cherrypicking and partisan climate policy. Well done!
However, the 3 suggested changes proposed by the current administration reflects their inability to dive into the fundamental flaws of NCA5. They are barely scratching the surface of the problems you listed, even though a deeper analysis would have benefitted their cause and lent credence to climate competency. No such thing. I am not surprised, given an administration who hires staff based on loyalty instead of merits. We need someone like you to straighten things out.
I agree with Roger, its better to just add a single paragraph stating that the report is biased on almost every issue it deals with. Print it on the cover page.
It's shocking when its all laid out but not surprising given how corrupt the Autopen's administration was. It was also hyper-partisan and allowing leftist interest groups to participate in the report writing an obvious sign of bias.
The worst part however was the Censorship Industrial Complex and the viscous persecution of anyone questioning the woke insanity and the demonization of MAGA.
It now appears that some of the worst corruption will face consequences. It looks like Jack Smith will face numerous indictments over the Mara Lago raid and subsequent fabrication of evidence. And Fauci seems certain to be indicted for contempt of Congress and seems likely to face State charges in Florida. Joe Degeneva is still working on a bunch of conspiracy indictments for the worst of the Russiagate purveyors. If you missed them, Tulsi Gabbard's press conferences over the last year and a half are excellent summaries of the massive document dumps proving how bad it was (It's worse than you imagined).
The review of the expert analysis and the misrepresentation of key findings reminds me of what happened in the UHI/LULC analysis in AR5. Page 189 from memory. I really should write it up but in a nutshell they were determined to find that the surface temp record was accurate to within 10% per AR4, which adds to the controversy. Paper after paper that experts recommended be included because they challenged the AR4 conclusion, were summarised selectively so that the findings that challenged the AR4 finding, were omitted or minimised. One page, one conclusion on a critical aspect of climate science, was misrepresented - as one author confided to me, to support a predetermined outcome.
That’s called decision-based evidence-making
THB certainly mauled the NCA5. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Here's my proposed amendment: "The Global Change Research Act of 1990 is hereby repealed."
The problems with government-paid climate assessments (including IPCC's) are numerous.
I maintain that there is no way to make government assessments tamper-proof and unbiased, especially now that the subject has been so politicized. Far better to have non-government assessments. THB is certainly showing how limited assessments can be credibly produced without taxpayer support and the attendant political interference.
Another problem is that predictions of future climate and weather changes are unproven and highly speculative, mainly because the science is still fairly primitive compared to what it needs to be to make credible predictions. Several known natural factors that affect Earth's energy balance still can't be credibly predicted. Even more elusive is understanding how Earth's energy variations affect Earth's climate and regional climates. Or how proposed mitigation is likely to affect future weather.
A more valuable effort would be to study and report on ways individuals and governments can help humans adapt to protect life and property from known risks or improve our food and water supply, air, our water quality, etc.
"Vest assessment authority in a body insulated from direct executive control — a standing National Academies committee, or a structure under Congress resembling CBO or GAO..."
Given the issues with the National Academies' recent Attribution study, can we count on the integrity of the Academies for a highly political topic?
I’m glad for the EO, frankly. Asking Congress to act is too big of a meal. Let’s start with this bite, and hope that guilt and shame correct the rest.
Unless Roger is volunteering as Editor?
😆
Very good commentary on what's wrong with NCA5. But off-mark in how to fix it. Take out a red pen, strike through everything that's off mark (your 1-10 and more), and name and shame. This "Vest assessment authority in a body insulated from direct executive control — a standing National Academies committee, or a structure under Congress resembling CBO or GAO, with an empaneling committee, staggered terms, and appointments from a bipartisan group of legislators (like the members of the House Science committee). " is nonsensical, as the National Academies are owned and run by ideologues. The Executive Order is the only reason sunlight is now disinfecting the plague.
Agreed! Those who make a living in climate science have an enormous incentive to stay relevant relative ot other areas of study. Wasn't Marcia McNutt a supporter of RCP8.5?
The problem here goes very deep into elite scientific institutions and will take a long time to repair if its even possible. Defund, divest, and boycott.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! Or, as my sainted grandfather said (at each and every election) "Throw the bums out!" So what to do with this Caliban of a report? It will always lurk in the archives, ready to reinforce the prejudices of another generation of Green True Believers. Rather like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, exposed as a forgery for 100 years but still gospel to gullible anti-semites. Bury it next to Indiana Jones's crate containing the Lost Ark, and lock the door on the warehouse on the way out. Start with a blank sheet of paper and do it right next time.
I still don't think we should be including wildfire in any of these statistics - it's too mixed with other direct human causes like forest/land management, government preparedness and response, etc.
The current Hawk Fire in Nevada, for example, was human caused. If you read the updates, they'll insert things like "Scientists say climate change is leading to warmer/drier conditions which increases the wildfires." But what they're really saying in that sentence is Drought increases wildfire... but drought change is currently undetected on Roger's dashboard. So to make it work, they have to use a separate metric (even if it's caused directly by humans) as a proxy.
Over half of all fires here in canada are started by people.
If people got smarter (or less evil) and didn’t start so many fires what would happen to the fire stats?
I know, right. It's an invalid metric that's really only a proxy for Drought. And it's being used in place of Drought because Drought shows no detected change. It's like counting swimming pools and reservoirs as evidence of flooding.
As we are still coming out of the LIA I would expect heatwaves to increase as a natural consequence of that natural change.
Some places likely get drier
Some wetter
All completely independent of what we do.
I believe we affect things but only on the margins, not enough to get concerned about.
It’s been pretty wet here in Alberta and Sask this year