Reassessment of climate change finding mooted by White House

Posted: February 26, 2019 by tallbloke in Accountability, Analysis, government, People power
Help Ned by emailing the White House to recommend his inclusion on the panel.

About time too!

CNN says: “According to the paper, the plan, which is not finalized, was discussed at a meeting Friday with several high level administration officials in which attendees “debated how best to establish a group of researchers that could scrutinize recent federal climate reports.”The paper said the proposed panel “will not be tasked with scrutinizing recent intelligence community assessments of climate change.”

  1. tallbloke says:

    Come on folks, let’s get Ned and Karl heard at the top level. Please sign and spread the word.

  2. oldbrew says:

  3. gallopingcamel says:

    This might work if the panel was limited to Nobel Prize winning scientists. That would exclude every member of the “Climate Science Tribe” and therefore improve the chances of maintaining objectivity.

    Something similar was done by the National Reading Panel (NRP). The panel considered 100,000 “research” studies dating from 1966 and 15,000 prior to that date. A screening was carried out to select only studies that met criteria “….normally used in medical and behavioral research…” At the end of the screening, only 428 studies met the panel’s high standards, and in September 2000 the findings were presented to the US Congress by chairman Donald Langenberg.

    Anyone who has published papers on climate should be encouraged to submit them for review by the NCP (National Climate Panel). It is unlikely that any of them will meet the “three sigma” standard regarded as the minimum for the “Hard Sciences”. I will be amazed if more than 5% meet the “two sigma” standards of medical and behavioral research.

    This kind of screening is costly to carry out but the spending is justified to make sure that public policy is basis is based only on solid research.

  4. Ned Nikolov says:

    The Nobel Prize is no longer a guarantee for solid scientific achievements. Remember that IPCC and Al Gore got a Nobel Prize for their climate “science” in 2007.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Re – Ned Nikolov says: February 27, 2019 at 6:03 am

    Gore’s climate propaganda soon ran into trouble…

    Al Gore’s ‘nine Inconvenient Untruths’
    11 Oct 2007

    Al Gore’s environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.

    The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

    Also: the judge ruled that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.

    It is, he ruled, a “political film”.

  6. gallopingcamel says:

    Al Gore still has not admitted his untruths. There is no downside to lying if you are Al Gore, James Hansen, Prince Charles, David Suzuki, or Michael Mann.

  7. oldbrew says:

    White House To Create ‘Red Team’ To Counter ‘Green Team’ Climate Hysteria

    The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

    The move would represent the Trump administration’s most forceful effort to date to challenge the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are helping drive global warming and that the world could face dire consequences unless countries curb their carbon output over the next few decades.

    The idea of a new working group, which top administration officials discussed Friday in the White House Situation Room, represents a modified version of an earlier plan to establish a federal advisory panel on climate and national security.

    That plan — championed by William Happer, NSC’s senior director and a physicist who has challenged the idea that carbon dioxide could damage the planet — would have created an independent federal advisory committee.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Environmentalist Tells Tucker Carlson: Renewables Can’t Save The Planet (VIDEO)

    “I was one of the founders of, sort of, the first Green New Deal back in 2003, 2007,” Shellenberger, the founder of Environmental Progress, began. “People don’t remember President Obama, we spent about $150 billion on renewables between 2009 and 2015, and we just kept encountering the same kind of problems.”

    Shellenberger laid out the two main problems that plague wind turbines and solar panels: unreliability and low energy density.

    “They just depend on when the sun is shining and when the wind is blowing, which is 10 to 40 percent of the year,” he said, demonstrating how the intermittent energy production of wind and solar makes them unreliable sources of power. “Something people are not as aware of: the low energy density of sunlight and wind. Basically what we’ve been finding is that the lower the energy density of the fuel … the bigger the environmental impact.”

    Because solar and wind produce such small amounts of energy, according to Shellenberger, they require a much larger amount of land to generate electricity.

    Instead, the Environmental Progress founder touted the benefits of nuclear energy

    Pretty much what Bill Gates said the other day. Is anyone in charge listening?

  9. oldbrew says:

    Date: 01/03/19 Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

    The idea of exposing the public to both sides of the global warming debate is back in the form of a President’s Committee on Climate Security, but like climate science itself, this committee’s future is not yet settled.