Thread: With all due respect Mr. President

March 31, 2009

Open Letter By The Cato Institute On Climate Science

Filed under: Climate Science Reporting — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am
There is a letter to the President published by the Cato Institute that headlines [thanks to ICECAPand Dr. Patrick J. Michaels to alerting us to it];
“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.� — PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008


With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
The letter is signed by over 100 scientists.
Climate Science wants to comment on the specific statements of science in the letter which is reproduced below:
“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.�
Comments by Climate Science

• “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.â€�

This is correct using the global average surface temperature. An effective analysis of this issue has been presented at the weblog http://rankexploits.com/musings/cate...e-sensitivity/. However, using the global average upper ocean heat content changes, the warming in the 1990s and early 2000s ended in 2003, so the more rigourous metric for global warming indicated “no net global warming� for 6 years.

• After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.

This is a correct statement which has been extensively discussed and summarized athttp://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/category/climate-change; see also Chapter 2 in Pielke, R.A., Jr. and R.A. Pielke, Sr., 1997: Hurricanes: Their nature and impacts on society.

• The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.

This is a robust conclusion both on the global scale (e.g. see) and on the regional scale (e.g see and see).
The dismissive response on Real Climate and on Grist to this letter do not provide the objective scientific rebuttal to these science claims. This is unfortunate and is misleading policymakers, but, as we have learned and reported many times on at Climate Science and elsewhere (e.g. see and see), this is the way the IPCC and CCSP community deals with solid science that disagrees with their perspective.



Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » Open Letter By The Cato Institute On Climate Science





Consensus?This along with the previous letters from hundreds of qualified scientist debunks that claim.

"the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."

Great thread Stinger.

The idea in quotes is the correct position. Denying warming is putting you in a position where you can be easily attacked. Denying alarm is absolutely the right place to be.

Alarm is nothing but conjecture and projection. The facts don't support it.

Don't forget that the scientific consensus is not for alarm. It is for controlling Co2 because it contributes to warming.

Science: greenhouse gas theory - Co2 increases - Co2 has a tendency to increase warming (there are no forumlae that balance this tendency with natural variability and predictions, just estimates)

Religion: The warming is catastrophic - Man is to blame - We are killing the planet- Repent ye Sinners and control your carbon footprint or we're all doomed!

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

"the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."

Great thread Stinger.

The idea in quotes is the correct position. Denying warming is putting you in a position where you can be easily attacked. Denying alarm is absolutely the right place to be.

Alarm is nothing but conjecture and projection. The facts don't support it.

Don't forget that the scientific consensus is not for alarm. It is for controlling Co2 because it contributes to warming.

Science: greenhouse gas theory - Co2 increases - Co2 has a tendency to increase warming (there are no forumlae that balance this tendency with natural variability and predictions, just estimates)

Religion: The warming is catastrophic - Man is to blame - We are killing the planet- Repent ye Sinners and control your carbon footprint or we're all doomed!

Yep, Cap and Trade will doom us all.

Hmmmm what happen to all the consensus faithful?

I've been saying Global Warming and Climate Change is a bunch of hype for years now and I've been dragged through the mud for it on many occasions. Thanks Stinger for backing me up!

Cato Institute had the first debate I heard on this topic.

The thing that struck me funny was that all the scientists, both pro-alarm and anti-alarm openly recognized that they did not have a handle on natural variability.

For example, one of the alarmists basically said that the temperature drop after WW2 was unexplainable, but it was clear that it would have been a lot worse (colder) if not for AGW.

That was my first clue that not only did science not have a handle on this topic, but that the "consensus" also had no idea whether AGW was helpful or dangerous.

Really, if you had to choose. Which is a better choice?

AGW contributing to warming?

or

Agw diminishing the effects of cooling?

And if you don't have a handle on natural variability, how can you tell what to do?

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

Really, if you had to choose. Which is a better choice?

AGW contributing to warming?

or

Agw diminishing the effects of cooling?

And if you don't have a handle on natural variability, how can you tell what to do?

Or as I have posed, what if they are right about being able to institute measures to cool the climate, but are wrong about the direction in currently is headed?