HoodaThunk?

Federal climate change report blasted by scientist whose work was featured in the report.

Professor of environmental studies Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado calls into question the conclusions and reporting of the latest federal report on climate change. From the New York Times:

The new federal report on climate change gets a withering critique from Roger Pielke Jr., who says that it misrepresents his own research and that it wrongly concludes that climate change is already responsible for an increase in damages from natural disasters. Dr. Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, asks:

‘[Why] is a report characterized by [White House] Science Advisor John Holdren as being the “most up-to-date, authoritative, and comprehensive” analysis relying on a secondary, non-peer source citing another non-peer reviewed source from 2000 to support a claim that a large amount of uncited and more recent peer-reviewed literature says the opposite about?’

Why, indeed? Consider the Doctor’s list of actual findings of fact in the last year that demonstrate the report’s conclusions to be dead wrong:

1. Over the long-term, U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining.
2. Nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought.
3. Despite increases in some measures of precipitation . . . there have not been corresponding increases in peak streamflows (high flows above 90th percentile).
4. There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms
5. There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters.
6. There are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record.

The Doctor, while offering a stern rebuke from the academics’ perspective, is necessarily constrained in his characterization of this report. I’m not. The report’s conclusions cannot possibly be construed from the findings of fact, not by anyone actually interested in telling the truth. The people who are publishing this and similar reports are lying. I do not buy the notion that anyone who knows this subject matter could assess the facts and come to the opposite conclusion honestly. There’s money to be made and power to be had in promoting the notion that the climate change is worsening and, therefore, justifies more government control over the private sector.

I am hopeful that actual science will win out and will inform a rational set of decisions about what actions are necessary.

June 19th, 2009 Posted by ricjames | Environment, Politics, Science | no comments