Comments on: Another Climate Report Written Backwards

By: Tony Edwards

Tony Edwards — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:10:41 +0000

scientist, this may be a draft, but to give only a month or so to comment would suggest that this “draft” is very close to, or expected to be, the final edition. Yet this report contains, in a section dealing with precipitation, a picture purported to be of a flooded house, but which is actually a graphically modified photo.
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/architecture-and-buildings/874059-got-flood-insurance.php?id=874059
Are there not enough photos of flooded buildings around, that they needed to use a doctored one? Also worth noting, perhaps symptomatically,is the return of the hockey stick, complete with the spliced graphs.
This is supposed to be a scientific report?
Oh well, it’s only climate science.

By: Alfonso Finoso

Alfonso Finoso — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:22:28 +0000

This is a typical waste of NASA budget. NASA was supposed to be a space program, not a shill for political crusades like catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). A pathetic decadence has set in at all government agencies that are becoming hooked on climate-hysterics to secure their budgets.

By: Demesure

Demesure — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:47:02 +0000

Between low and high emission scenarios – assuming models can predict – the difference in heavy precipitation would be 2 percentage points in one century.
Even dirt poor humans have been able to cope with moonsoon for ages (you can’t have more heavy precipitations than this) and those “scientists” assume we should spend money to mitigate the +2% heavy precipitations by 2100 ???
Only people ready to spend other’s money can’t see the absurdity. It’s crazy, no it’s maddening.

By: Keith

Keith — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:42:22 +0000

Actually, as the authors invite comment on their work here, I would suggest the author of this blog post submit his views directly to them. This is the final draft for the report, and they are only allowing public comment for two more days. Anthony Watts has also blogged about this report, and did find it interesting that the authors only allowed two weeks for open review and contest before it would be submitted for printing. Considering it is a U. S. federal government document, any recommendations it will make will have implications in the future concerning policy decisions in this area of debate. We should be making sure that any mistakes in the science of the piece are highlighted far and wide so that they are removed, corrected, or explained in specifics so that the report cannot be used as a propaganda piece, but instead as a true scientific document.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:23:52 +0000

Also, notice the error terms for the different scenarios. They completely overlap each other, meaning that this “simulation” cannot even forecast a different level of precipitation based on the emmision outputs.

By: Kyle Bennett

Kyle Bennett — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:22:59 +0000

"Your post simply describes proofreading"

Draft 1: "'Scientist' likes to molest chickens in his spare time, and is really a closet 911 Troofer."

Final Draft: "'Scientist' is a rational, objective observer with a thorough knowledge of scientific concepts... and a great respect for chickens."

Now, don't read anything into that first draft - it was just a typo. Honest mistake, my fingers slipped and hit the wrong key. Don't quote it or cite it.

By: mbabbitt

mbabbitt — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:44:57 +0000

It is disheartening to see such rubbish posing as the work of professionals. Or … Professional what? GW Propagandists? Or Scientists? Who cares which draft or version it is; the very silliness of the presentation says it all. Everything is posed to scare people into believing the sky is falling and this Truth will set us free. How does that saying go? “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs.” Here they are trying to dazzle us with BS. More BS from a culture that has mastered the art.

By: Dio Gratia

Dio Gratia — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:30:00 +0000

Is the uncertainty in rain observations around 1960 due to the International Geophysical Year (IGY)? You’d expect some of the effort to continue for some time, perhaps suffering from funding discontinuities eventually.

By: Scientist

Scientist — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:25:03 +0000

On the bottom of every page it says First Draft - July 2008 Do not cite or quote. You've found an error in a draft report. Your post simply describes proofreading for the mentally retarded.