How Credible is the latest National Climate Assessment Report?

US National Climate Assessment Reports have been issued in 2000, 2009, 2014 and 1917/8. The report in 20i4 was a standard IPCC-style doomsday scenario and people at Cato produced an alternative report in the same colour scheme and format to give a more credible appraisal.

The latest edition looks like a carry-over from the previous administration. Some 13 agencies including NASA are involved. Say no more. President Trump has rejected the more lurid conclusions because has been taking advice from Will Happer from the early days of his administration. Happer is now the official Science Czar.

More information. I will get to Patrick Michaels at Cato and find out what is happening.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to How Credible is the latest National Climate Assessment Report?

  1. Dr Fred Lenin

    How credible were the statements issued by the soviet union ? When you consider who wrote them about as true as any climate report written by “scientists“ _who are financed by climate money confiscated from the taxpayer , or the statement “malcolm turnbull is a dyed in the wool true menzies liberal “.
    Truth is anything we want to force on the peasants for our personal benefit .
    I am however amazed that there are only 79 clinate scientists in 40 countries and 93.7 say there is climate change ,what a load of insulting crapnfrom the rentseekers and carpet baggers who are corrupting western civilisation . “A la guillotine les globalistes mort aux fascistes “

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    Fiction.

    There’s still no actual global warming happening in the real world climate data. Only in the models and the adjusted temperature datasets. Both are fictitious too.

    Roger Pielke jr, who is a world expert in weather extremes, is quite caustic about their extreme weather claims which are completely opposite to the actual data, which shows extreme weather has decreased markedly.

    Scientists rip new federal climate report as ‘tripe’ – ’embarrassing’ – ‘systematically flawed’ – Key claim based on study funded by Steyer & Bloomberg

    Chicken Little was a tyro compared to these millenarian nutters.

  3. Just another attempt to put down Trump. Whatever it takes.

  4. BoyfromTottenham

    Models, models, models, all the way down. Can Trump use the existing US data quality legislation to exclude all ‘scientific’ claims based on modelling, and the use of the word ‘projection’ and ‘science’ in the same document?

  5. Rafe

    OK it is the same agencies operating independently regardless of the administration.
    Not to mention the truth.

  6. Bribiejohn

    Dramatic, and extreme language such as “unprecedented” etc are not necessary for the dissemination of truth, except when seeking to further a nonsensical position, e.g. IPCC.

    Have a look at the following about Bundaberg fires.

    https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=Bundaberg+bushfires+November&l-state=Queensland&l-category=Article

    Some quotes:
    Ten million pounds damage in early Nov 1951

    End October 1936 – Bushfires on an extensive front around the Bundaberg district have caused untold damage to many grazing properties
    From 1876 – To make matters worse, bush-fires are almost continually raging in different localities around us, destroying what little feed remains, and giving to the sky an ever cloudy aspect 25Nov1876

  7. It is rubbish from people who either have no technical qualifications or are liars.
    This video on Facebook shows the stupidity of wind turbines – despoiling the countryside in Germany and none producing any electricity- https://www.facebook.com/idiotope/videos/276654712983636/?_rdc=1&_rdr Seems you do not have to have a facebook account

  8. cohenite

    The stinking IPCC itself repudiated the greenie scream that extreme weather is increasing with it’s SREX report in 2012: in chapter 4 they state:

    •“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
    •“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
    •“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”

    And in a Nature editorial in 2012 even that alarmist journal repudiates man-made extreme weather.

  9. cohenite

    Meanwhile the obscene alarmists contend themselves with using children like this:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.