On Thursday, Jason Samenow of The Washington Post reported that “a major NOAA-lead report” has concluded that “manmade climate change played a substantial role in the exceptional warmth in the eastern U.S. during the spring of 2012.”
Of the 18 studies conducted for the report, Samenow reported NOAA’s conclusion that “approximately 35 percent of the extreme warmth experienced in the eastern U.S. between March and May 2012 can be attributed to human-induced climate change."
Drawing from another study, NOAA adds: “High temperatures, such as those experienced in the [north central and northeast] U.S. in [summer] 2012 are now likely to occur four times as frequently due to human-induced climate change.
Conversely, The Weather Channel reported Aug. 18 that “it’s been a cool summer across a large portion of the central and eastern U.S” and that “the persistent cool weather is well-reflected in national extreme temperature statistics from the National Climatic Data Center.”
For the year to date, the total number of daily record lows across the country is outnumbering the number of record highs by about a 6-to-5 ratio, a stunning reversal from the dominant pattern in recent years.
“Although links between human-induced climate change and some extreme weather phenomena are minimal (tornadoes) to equivocal (hurricanes),” Samenow wrote further, “the evidence that warm weather extremes are increasing is difficult to dismiss, in my view.”
However, Steven Goddard of “Real Science” reported Aug. 24 that – according to NOAA’s own “Chronological List of All Hurricanes: 1851-2012 (Revised in June 2013 to reflect the 1941-1945 revisions)” -- the earth is experiencing the “slowest start to a hurricane season on record” and that the number of intense storms are decreasing.
Additionally, ABC News’ Chief Meteorologist Jennifer Zeppelin reported May 17 that “meteorologists with the national severe storms laboratory track all the tornado stats for the U.S. and have noticed an interesting trend over the last decade – fewer tornadoes.”
In a July 2011 article -- “Environmental Science or Social Engineering” -- Jason Sutherland -- a self-described “environmentalist, scientist, pescatarian” and devout “atheist” – said “people who claim that climate change is simple and that it is obvious that we humans have caused it are actually very ignorant.”
While most scientists believe humans are affecting climate change most of them are really unsure how much of an impact we are actually happening: 100 percent, 50 percent, one percent?
As Examiner reported June 11, Ivan Frishberg -- the Climate Campaign Manager for Organizing for Action, formerly known as Obama’s reelection team, Obama for America – sent out an email announcing the new campaign, encouraging climate change enthusiasts to take aim at “climate deniers” on Capitol Hill.
While Frishberg reiterated the argument that “ninety-eight out of 100 climate scientists agree climate change is real, human activity is contributing to it, and it poses significant risks to our environment and our health,” Forbes explained July 17, 2012, how this frequently cited “consensus” claim “is bogus.”
Additionally, according to a petition initiated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and signed by over 31,487 scientists:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.
On Aug. 10, Examiner discussed Frishberg’s second campaign email, in which he named Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio as the first “climate deniers” target.
Scientists -- from NASA to the National Academy of Sciences in every major country in the world -- agree that manmade climate change is real and dangerous. And the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) just announced that last year was among the 10 warmest on record.
The real question is: Who can actually just sit back and ignore all that science?
Senator Rubio, that's who.
“First,” Examiner countered, “let’s address NASA, NAS, NOAA and “all that science.”
As The Washington Times reported Dec. 3, 2009, Christopher C. Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) was “poised to sue NASA” because NASA “refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data dating as far back as the 1930s.”
“Those corrections destroyed NASA’s stance that U.S. temperatures have been steadily rising in recent years and returned 1934, not 1998, to being the warmest year on record.”
As for the NAS, Examiner cited the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition, signed by over 31,487 scientists.
As William F. Jasper reported for The New American July 13, 2012 -- in an article titled, “’Climate Science’ in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda” -- Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the NAS, participated in the petition project and is among those 31,487 scientists who “refutes claims that there is any kind of “consensus” regarding man-made global warming as a crisis or existential threat.”
Examiner also questioned the relevance of an endeavor in which the Central Intelligence Agency – with the use of taxpayer money -- and the NAS will be “splitting” the cost of a $630,000 “scientific study that will investigate whether humans could use geoengineering to alter Earth's environment and stop climate change,” as reported by Mother Jones July, 17.
Then there’s NOAA.
According to a Jan. 29, 2010 report – “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?” -- co-written by Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org. -- “NOAA started systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world in 1990.”
By eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures – dropping the number of stations from which they collected data from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500 -- they effectively drove up the average measured temperature artificially.
Having been exposed for skewing data in order to “artificially” drive up “average measured temperature in a previous study significantly depreciates the credibility of the latest “major NOAA-lead report” attributing “approximately 35 percent of the extreme warmth experienced in the eastern U.S. between March and May 2012” to “human-induced climate change.”
Then there’s the contradiction regarding Samenow’s Thursday report for the Washington Post.
Of the nine paragraphs in Samenow’s article – seven of which are a single sentence in length and two of which are composed of two sentences — six contain one of the following terms:“
"Manmade climate change,” “human-induced climate change” or “human-caused climate change.”
However, less than two weeks prior -- in response to an article written Aug. 21 by fellow Washington Post contributor, Ezra Klein from an “exclusive interview” with Al Gore -- Samenow expressed a completely different opinion in an Aug. 22 Washington Post article.
Not only did he say that Gore’s “characterization of the links between global warming and hurricane intensity is a bit fast and loose,” he had little faith in Gore’s theory that humans contribute to climate change.
Whereas Gore tells Klein hurricanes are “stronger now” due to manmade warming, the freshly leaked United Nations climate assessment is much more equivocal. Although the assessment says hurricane activity has become more intense in the Atlantic since 1970, there is “low confidence” of a human contribution.
Samenow also raked Gore over the coals for a specific quote in Klein’s article.
The extreme events are more extreme. The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6. The fingerprint of man-made global warming is all over these storms and extreme weather events.
“If you believe former Vice President Al Gore,” Samenow excoriated, “global warming is morphing science fiction into reality.”
But Gore’s statement about this new breed of hurricanes is patently false. There’s no new hurricane category in the works.
After he “contacted Chris Vaccaro, director of the National Weather Service’s office of public affairs, and asked him whether the National Hurricane Center is about to unveil the doomsday Category 6,” Samenow – “in less than 10 minutes” -- received “this response.”
No, we’re not pursuing any such change. I’m also not sure who VP Gore means by “they.” I’d also point out that the top rating, Category 5, has no ceiling: it includes hurricanes with top sustained winds of 157mph and higher.
Then, on Aug. 23, Samenow added his own “correction” to the beginning of his Aug. 22 article.
“According to Ezra Klein, who interviewed Al Gore,” Samenow wrote, “he may have inaccurately transcribed Gore’s comments pertaining to hurricane categories.”
Gore’s staff said the former VP did not say: “The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6.” Rather, Gore (according to his staff’s transcript) told Klein : “The scientists are now adding category six to the hurricane -- some are proposing we add category 6 to the hurricane scale that used to be 1-5.
“It would seem (assuming his staff has an accurate transcript),” Samenow added, “Gore at first misspoke and immediately corrected himself.”
Thus, I retract the balance of my criticism – although his characterization of the links between hurricanes and climate change could have been more precise.
Considering all of this, "it would seem" that the respective reports by Samenow and NOAA offer more contradictions than proof that climate change is "man-induced."