The Fourth National Climate Assessment violates scientific integrity

Ed, your letter is absolutely perfect. It hits the nail on the head. A lot of my colleagues have been asking me what is this National Climate Assessment Group? I had no idea.  Now I can answer them. – Dan Nebert

by Edwin Berry, Ph.D., Physics

When the U.S. government began to support the global warming agenda

In 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency called a meeting of atmospheric scientists. I remember well the meeting in a theater-like lecture room in the San Francisco Bay Area. I knew the atmospheric scientists from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute, and local colleges.

A man in a suit walked up to the lectern. He told us:

Global warming is a new national problem. Human CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming. Future research funding will focus on predicting climate disasters.

The room was silent. I raised my hand, “How can you support your global warming hypothesis when you omit cloud cover which affects heat balance more than carbon dioxide?

He answered, “I know more about the atmosphere than you people do.”

I responded, “How do you know more than the atmospheric scientists in this room?”

He said, “I know more about the climate because I am a lawyer for the EPA.”

Thus the U.S. government announced its support of the global warming fraud. Government agencies began giving absurd “research” contracts to ecologists, but not physicists and engineers, because ecologists would support the government’s global warming agenda.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program

In 1989, Presidential initiative established the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). In 1990, Congress mandated the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) to develop and coordinate

“a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.”

USGCRP comprises 13 Federal agencies under the Subcommittee on Global Change Research of the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability.

The GCRA requires USGCRP to submit the National Climate Assessment (NCA) to the President and Congress every four years.

The 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA) is pseudoscience.

The NCA omits the scientific method. The NCA uses IPCC science. Tests of 102 IPCC “CMIP” climate models began in 1980. By 2015, no climate model agreed with another climate model, and their average global-temperature prediction is far higher than the data show. This alone proves climate models cannot predict climate. Therefore, according to the scientific method, the IPCC and NCA climate theories are wrong.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program and its NCA is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people. The NCA is not science. It is the promotion of a government climate religion for political purposes. The NCA lacks scientific competence and scientific integrity. You can read comments on the NCA report by other scientists on Climate Depot.

How climate science should be done.

Properly done, human-caused climate science must progress through the following steps (1) to (3). The alarmists add step (4) as their political solution to (3):

  1. Show human CO2, not nature, caused all CO2 increase above 280 ppm, or since 1750.
  2. Show human-caused CO2 increase causes significant global warming.
  3. Show human-caused global warming causes bad stuff to happen.
  4. Stop bad stuff by reducing CO2 emissions and using wind and solar energy.

According to the scientific method and logic, if the climate alarmists cannot show that both (1) and (2) are true, then they lose their case.

Good science has proved the following:

  1. The IPCC argument to support (1) fails logic. Physics proves human CO2 adds less than 5 percent to the natural level of CO2. So, human CO2 emissions do not cause climate change (Berry, 2018, and others). The NCA does not even argue that (1) is true.
  2. The IPCC argument to support (2) fails because it uses an incorrect feedback calculation and it ignores convection which moves heat upward faster than radiation. Correction of the feedback proves human-caused CO2 heating is insignificant (Monckton, 2018, and others). The IPCC argument also The NCA4 Vol. I argument fails.
  3. The IPCC argument that global warming causes bad stuff to happen fails because data and good science show the alarmist bad-stuff claims are wrong and that warming is beneficial. The NCA4 Vol. II argument fails because it uses unrealistic scenarios for future climate.
  4. Alarmist arguments for large-scale wind and solar energy fail because these energy sources do not reduce human CO2 emissions, they kill wildlife, they increase the costs of electrical energy, and they reduce the benefits and availability of fossil-fuel energy.

Climate alarmists have not proved (1) and (2) are true. Yet, they move merrily on to claim (3) climate change causes bad stuff to happen. Isn’t the bad stuff all you hear and read in the news? You never hear about the science.

The alarmists think if they make the bad stuff is scary then (1) and (2) must be true. Not so. Events do not prove their cause.

Why is good science losing the climate war?

Good science is losing the climate war for three reasons:

  1. It is not a scientific war. It is a political and PR war for the minds of the voters.
  2. The alarmists have 97 percent of the climate money and government jobs.
  3. The Trump administration has played neither defense or offense in the climate war.

Alarmists have the money.

The alarmists have a climate machine. Billionaires and major foundations support the green climate agenda.

Hedgefund billionaire Tom Styer funds the Center for American Progress and NextGen America, which promote the green agenda. A Center alumnus was the sole editor of the NCA’s bad stuff claims that use an unrealistic scenario. Who put that editor in charge?

Climate Solutions, an example non-profit climate alarmist group, advertises:

When you donate to Climate Solutions, you are working toward accelerating solutions to the climate crisis. Your partnership will help us:

  • Champion transformational policies and market-based innovations;
  • Catalyze powerful partnerships and a diverse movement for action and accountability; and
  • Communicate a bold vision for solutions at the scale required by climate science.

How do greens get away with using non-profit organizations for green political action?

Almost all media talking heads support the green climate agenda. Seth Borenstein, a climate alarmist, writes every climate-related statement for Associated Press. People believe the AP is unbiased and accurate. The greens own AP.

Alarmists dominate government jobs.

It is like having your enemy dominating the positions in your army. Since 1990, the insiders have been stacking government jobs with greens and climate alarmists. They now run the government bureaucracy. They use their government jobs to block President Trump’s agenda and to publish the NCA.

Alarmists own the NAS and dominate scientific societies.

In 2010, 289 members of the National Academy of Scientists (NAS) signed a public letter that claims (1), (2) and (3) are true. They claim to be scientists, but they did not act as scientists. They acted to support a political agenda, not science because these claims are clearly false.

The greens own most scientific societies and most professional scientific journals. That way, they get their climate science junk published and block good climate science from being published. Peer review has lost its meaning and respect. It has become political.

Good scientists are outgunned.

Frankly, the good scientists are overwhelmed. They are like an army trying to fight a modern war with bows and arrows.

Climate alarmists can throw out climate garbage faster than good scientists can respond. And when good scientists respond, the alarmists and the media ignore their response. No matter what they say, climate alarmists get the approval and promotion by the media.

This does not change the fact that the good scientists have proven the alarmist claims are wrong. It’s just that ultimately the climate battle is a PR battle. And it takes money and people in power to win a PR battle.

Climate alarmists promote bad science in the climate war.

The Trump administration must promote a climate offensive.

President Trump has made the right decisions on climate issues. However, his administration has not gone on the offense to back up his correct views of climate science. In fact, President Trump has not defended his climate decisions. He has let the alarmists dominate the science debate without rebuttal. That is why, so far, he has lost the climate war.

How can good climate science win the climate war?

Good scientists have already proved the IPCC and NCA are wrong. Here’s what else needs to happen:

  1. The purpose of the NCA is to undermine President Trump and his climate agenda. Now, the 13 Federal agencies should reject the NCA. However, they need good science to back up their rejection. Good science is available. The government only needs to ask for it, support it, and fund it.
  2. The government must hire good scientists to help change climate policy on the inside. Maybe some good scientists can convert some greens to good science.
  3. Schools, colleges, universities must teach good climate science. This will require good scientists to be brought into the science teaching. We cannot rely on the present teachers to properly teach good science until they pass a training program.
  4. Create training programs for science teachers to qualify to teach good climate science.
  5. Most universities promote climate alarmism as an authoritarian religion. They require complete devotion by faculty and students, or else the faculty are dismissed, and the students are flunked.
  6. The government pays universities millions of dollars to promote the climate religion. It’s time to turn off the climate money faucet or divert the money flow by giving grants and contracts to good scientists.
  7. To stop the funding of bad climate science, it may be necessary to have good scientists review every government climate-related grant or contract before it can become final.
  8. Remove all climate alarmism from government websites and publications.
  9. Implement a national climate truth program to get climate truth to the public. It must exceed the influence of the bad science promoted by climate alarmists.
  10. Change the education policies in each state individually to allow its schools to teach climate truth.

Urgency

President Trump may have only two more years to set climate science straight in the U.S. government. If a Democrat becomes president in 2020, it will take about ten minutes to move government climate policy back to where Obama left it.

Demographics show the climate-alarmist Next Generation will control U.S. politics. It is a national emergency to teach them the climate truth.

The Republican Party is the only party that supports good science. For a nation to be great, it must replace false climate ideas with climate truth. We must act in time to save the Republican Party. That time limit is two years.

Links

https://www.globalchange.gov/content/whats-new-nca4

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_Ch02_Changing-Climate_ExecSum.pdf

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/

https://climateone.org/people/tom-steyer

https://nextgenamerica.org/our-story/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/sorry-tom-steyer-you-cant-sue-your-way-to-climate-policy

(NAS, 2010) http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full

http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/11/25/scientists-trash-new-federal-climate-report-as-tripe-embarrassing-400-page-pile-of-crap-reports-key-claim-based-on-study-funded-by-tom-steyer/

21 thoughts on “The Fourth National Climate Assessment violates scientific integrity”

  1. We have had global warming for the last 18,000 years. And the temperature has gone up or down. It was 2 degrees warmer than now approx. 2,000 years ago and again approx. 1200 years ago, and it will be bitterly cold between 2030 and 2040. The last 2million years has been a mixture of ice ages and interglacial times, the last one of them lasted 19,000 years. We may live in an interglacial time and may be in 1,000 years time we shall know. Meantime I for one enjoy the climate as it is now. I remember the northern winter 1941-42, when the temperature dropped 30C, and the average global temperature did not get up to that of 1940 before 1976. Some of the same people, that tells us we will be roasted now told us them, that we were facing an ice age.

  2. Just a typo:
    Number 4 under Good Scientists have proved the following: “Alarmist arguments for large-scale wind and solar energy fail because these energy sources do not reduce human CO2 emissions, they kill wildlife, they increase the costs and availability of electrical energy, and they reduce the benefits of fossil-fuel energy.”
    Should be : Alarmist arguments for large-scale wind and solar energy fail because these energy sources do not reduce human CO2 emissions, they kill wildlife, they increase the costs of electrical energy, and they reduce the Alarmist arguments for large-scale wind and solar energy fail because these energy sources do not reduce human CO2 emissions, they kill wildlife, they increase the costs of electrical energy, and they reduce the availability and benefits of fossil-fuel energy.
    Fully agree with your points. It occurs to me that your paper and Harde’s should generate an effort to falsify them and could lead to good open debate if the alarmists are consistently called out for their attempts at censoring and poorly formed arguments. Moving forward in this political environment will require much more exposure than we have had so far.

  3. The solar cycle climate model is 93% accurate at predicting present-day climate based on historical climate data.

    https://nextgrandminimum.com/2018/11/22/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/

    No climate “scientist’s” computer model comes close to that degree of accuracy and never will because of the impossibility of knowing and mapping a virtually infinite number of initial conditions at a precise moment in time.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/04/chaos-climate-part-3-chaos-models/

    The only reason climate “scientists” don’t use the solar cycle climate model is because it doesn’t give them the result they want; global warming.

    1. I’ve been preaching this gospel… OOPS! I’ve been embracing this science since I was in graduate school in the Upper Cretaceous period (actually, late 60s to early 70s), long before AlGore started with his snake oil pitch. I’m a biologist (aquatic; PhD) and it’s amazing how many biological cycles are tied to solar cycles. People used to write papers on it! If blue crabs can pay attention to Milankovitch, why can’t people?

  4. After reading “Foundations, Their Power & Influence” by Rene Wormser, I realized that money can buy most things, including how most people are educated to think. Since reading Wormser’s book, I am often asking “How do you fight money and education?” You end up arguing with your friends and family members that believe they are well educated. They don’t believe their teachers could teach anything but facts or that their “degree” hasn’t enlightened them. This doesn’t count the subsidies that go toward climate change propaganda and subsequent pigeon holed research and policies, which only reinforces their thinking. I really appreciate that you can explain (and prove) this so clearly. Again, how do you fight money and education?

  5. Michael A. Lewis, PhD

    Ed, I was right there with you, until you lost me with talk of “greens” and The Current Resident.

    No politician, no political party, no ideological movement has a monopoly on climate science. Donald Trump says he doesn’t believe in climate change. Climate is not a matter for belief. Donald Trump is completely ignorant about climate science and non-linear dynamics, as are his advisors, come and gone. All governments lie, obfuscate and bend information to their profit, no matter which party. Even the United Nations.

    The only way to understand and respond to climate variability is through independent science and scientists. All else is smoke and mirrors.

    Keep up the good work.

    Michael A. Lewis, PhD, anthropology, dendroclimatology, nonlinear dynamics

    1. Hi Michael, I know many people in the Republican Party who want to learn more about climate. These people will listen to arguments that I and other scientists present on climate.

      By contrast, I know of no one in the Democrat party who will even listen to a discussion that contradicts their climate religion.

      My goal is to bring climate science to the public by making it simple enough for a non-scientists to understand. I think I have achieved making it simple enough. As an example, my talk to the local Pachyderm Club on November 30 will make climate science simple.

  6. Hi, Ed: You said: “The Republican Party is the only party that supports good science.”

    I wish that were true, but half of them still endorse CO2 reduction in one way or another – just not with the knee-jerk mindless ferocity of the Democrat Party.

    1. Hi Tom, I agree the Republican Party is not perfect and is itself divided on the climate issue. However, the Democrats are united on the false belief that human CO2 causes dangerous climate change.
      Also, I estimate that less than 10 percent of elected Republicans support the Democrats on the climate issue. Several of the bad Republicans lost their elections because of their position on climate.
      Further, President Trump is the first president who opposes the Democrats on the climate issue. Therefore, the Republican Party is the only party that can help bring climate truth.

    1. Hi Bob, some Republicans are morons on climate, but not all. The Republican party is our only chance to bring truth to the climate issue. No question that the climate war will be a very tough war.

  7. The UN, in combination with the demand of leading countries, must stimulate world’s economy, that is what Paris agreement is about. That’s why the alarmists will win in the short term unless overwhelming experience with normal situation will force them to reconsider their theory. Also, the Nobel committee for economy is using UN’s policy to prize the economy in a wanted direction by the UN, see the Nobelprize for economy this year and the assumptions made by the prizewinner(s). Direct after Trump’s word about ‘upwarming’ the UN send a message about alarming situation, it must frighten people and as newsservices only speak about UN’s statements, it frightens people and politicians. About CO2, I point to the paper “New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model Ned Nikolov* and Karl Zeller Ksubz LLC, 9401 Shoofly Lane, Wellington CO 80549, USA”. I am not qualified to provide criticisme the paper but it shows that using Buckingham’s theory the alarmists did forget something important, namely, thinking about the units one has used in the model.

  8. The agenda being propagated by the Alarmists is “the debate is over”. This alone should be evidence of their bad science. For every 300 scientists who wrote the NCA there certainly are 300 scientists who could and should willingly come forward to refute .

  9. NOTHING sells like fear. AlGore knew it, and laced his snake oil pitch with heavy doses. Eric Hoffer knew it, and wrote eloquently in “The True Believer” about how important it can be in generating following in mass movements (should be required reading in every high school in the land). The alarmists either know it (the charlatans and sell-outs) or instinctively accept it, and use it as an essential ingredient in their propaganda. Unless and until the good science folks find a way to counteract the fear being preached, we will be engaged in the labors of Sisyphus.

  10. Excellent job, Ed!

    You have very clearly laid out the present assault on science, such that everyone should be able to understand it. The underlying problem is that too many are too willing to put their entire faith in the scientific establishment, believing that they cannot possibly be wrong, when they have been frequently wrong. These people have no idea how science actually works and will not listen if we try to explain it to them. They only want to respond to emotional arguments, because most never learned how to think rationally in the first place.

    They have no hope of understanding Richard Feynman’s comment that “Science is a belief in the ignorance of the experts.’ And they will never understand the Royal Society’s motto “Take no ones word for it.”

    Hence, it falls upon us to stop corrupt scientists from continuing to feed hysteria in order to keep getting their government grants. We have to continue to call them out for their very, very bad behavior.

    But the problem of the nation being held hostage by a scientific-technological elite is a political problem that President Eisenhower first recognized. Politicians need to put a stop to this by pulling all funding for those scientists who purvey propaganda and feed hysteria. That is a sure sign that they are not doing good work and are not even real scientists.

    Ending the Federal gravy train and making scientists justify their requests for funding on the basis of real science would be truly revolutionary. That would solve the problem of non-science masquerading as science almost overnight.

    And let’s make sure that the nonsense does not reappear as another scare without merit in the future.

    Gordon
    Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
    Corbett, Oregon USA

  11. The “teaching” of totally unfounded climate lies to students at school and universities is propaganda. Really, how can the teaching of undebated theories be anything but propaganda. Real science does not assume a theory is correct and refuse to debate it. Real science does not alter data to match a theory. Real science can never be settled.

    In Australia, it is against the terms of service for teachers to promote personal views to school children. My proposal is that teachers that have flagrantly abused their influence to promote their personal views MUST re-educate the children they taught at any age at their own expense to ensure they understand that their teachers told them lies. The costs would be also borne by the bodies that influenced the teachers, such as the Teachers Federation and left leaning political parties. In Australia, this is all of the mainstream parties. Remember, it is not the taxpayers that should be liable, it is the corrupt politicians and crony capitalists that profited from climate legislation that must pay.

    The teachers must continue until every brainwashed student/ adult has been fully informed and becomes aware that they were plugged lies and propaganda. This cost and work MUST be borne by the teachers and those that induced the teachers to plug the lies.

    I will even volunteer to help with the production of the re-education videos, since this is much cheaper and simpler than one to one. Teachers would still need to apologize in public and to individual students about their teaching of lies.

    If they refuse, they must refund to the taxpayer ALL their salaries, superannuation etc that have been paid to them since they were not doing the job they were paid to do. They have been, in effect, fake teachers. If they refuse to admit to all their pupils that they spread lies because they still believe their lies, they are still liable to pay the costs for someone else to repair the damage.

    The exoneration of the teachers can only occur after ALL former pupils have been woken up to the climate (and other lies) that they have unlawfully promulgated.

  12. Pingback: Energy & Environmental Newsletter: December 3, 2018 - Master Resource

  13. Pingback: Energy And Environmental Newsletter – December 3rd 2018 | PA Pundits - International

  14. Pingback: My Poster Presentation for the AMS Annual Meeting Jan 8, 2019 - edberry.com

  15. I am a long time geologist and petroleum engineer (1948-2008). Since I retired I have actively researched and written about climate change. I was associated with the TRCS (group of retired NASA scientists and engineers dedicated to climate research)for 6 years. Now belong to an associated group – “Scientists”.
    I am sick and tried of the politics that lifts its ugly ignorant head on every climate issue. Yes, add on that the media promotes political science over REAL science, too.
    In spite of this, I believe the TRUE scientific community is making some progress with the general public.

Leave a Comment

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.