Seems pretty biased to me...I'd also like to point out that it's ironic that to show the warming trend they pick three of the warmest years on record: 1934, *1998, and 2006.

*By the way this one was only so warm because of the very strong El Nino that year.

At this early stage I need to be
approved by the site owner.

I am a meteorologist.

David Christainsen

Reply: You don't have to be approved David. Welcome aboard.

well brett, i would have assumed your title for the post would be "US Government Report Adds Proof to Human Induced Global Warming"....well, maybe not, considering the blogger. and of course you might be "citing" the report, which is a no-no

kind of funny for the govt to release this thing to the public with a directive of "do not cite or quote"...kind of like putting a plate of cookies in front of a kid and saying "do not eat"

brett, aside from giving you a hard time about the title, i did want to thank you for posting the link...fyi, had a hard time opening the report and had better luck going directly to the climatescience.gov site (it opened right away)

i'm sure folks on both sides of the issue will find plenty of interesting points to discuss...

That's a draft of the report. They're inviting public comment. The following is a link to the comments instructions page:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/usp/public-review-draft/instructions.php
I commented on their failure to include the impacts of natural variables. They're only comment on El Ninos was how ENSO influenced fishing.

You've got less than ten days to let them know where they've failed.

Reply: Thanks for the info. Bob.

The report mentions in several places that increased heavy downpours and regional droughts are consequence of global warming. That odd combination is only possible if the warming is from higher CO2 levels.

Believe many regions of the US have already experienced this, but the implications are that extreme weather events will only get worse as temperatures (especailly night time lows) continue to rise.

Can imagine that evil oil executives will try to put a spin on this while they continue to charge more for gasoline.

Brett: Off subject. Found an interesting article on Towhhall.com this morning:

http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankPastore/2008/08/04/are_you_ready_for_carbon_rationing

Some may find it as interesting as I. Thanks srr

Reply: Thanks Steve.

I think one of the best things we can do is support 'green' business that not only provides a desired utility but also benefits the environment. For example http://www.simplestop.net stops your postal junk mail and helps the environment.

OK, first off, who paid for this report? Pretty snazzy graphics and lots of quick hitting and historical photographs on the title sheet. I wonder, does any of the esteemed authors and editors have distince proof that these are images depicting actual global warming?

Frankly, if it takes this group 208 pages to write about this topic, something's a bit wrong. Seems to me that to try to prove their point, read agenda, they are working a bit hard.

The executive summary is ridiculous. Full of absolutes and at the same time suppositions.

I have to ask, when in a mere couple of years, it is shown by actual measurement that GW is an agenda, naturally occurring at worst, can we sue these people to get our money back?

Better yet, can we sue HANSEN and the Gore for slander?

I only read the executive summary and the key findings and I can accurately label this document as nothing more than an expensive piece of trash. The "key findings" make it crystal clear that there was absolutely ZERO objectivity applied to the production of this document. The statements in the "key findings" section can not, in any way, be backed up by valid scientific data or valid scientific study.

In short, this "study" is a bad joke and should be immediately dismissed as worthless propaganda from an increasingly desperate fringe group.

Upon reading further,

Seriously now Brett, this is a joke, right? A late April fools prank? It is not possible that this document could have been produced by a group of people who were expecting to be taken seriously. A person with the slightest modicum of intelligence, no matter how hopelessly biased, would not have the audacity to submit a document filled with such a litany of lies. Unbelievable. Even coming from the AGW crowd, this is utterly, astonishingly unbelievable.

Oh the lengths that alarmists will go to...

The report uses faked photos in an attempt to make it seem threatening.
(just like Inconvienient Truth did)

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/ncdc-photoshopping-the-climate-change-report-for-better-impact/

Excerpt:
In that post I mentioned that �The draft document reads more like a news article in many places than it does a scientific document, and unlike a scientific document, it has a number of what I would call �emotionally based graphics� in it that have nothing to do with the science.�

(Reply: Its made up so the public can easily understand it. A lot of scientific documents are not easy to understand from a public standpoint.)

The report also uses the completely discredited Hocky Stick as well.
Will they never admit that was a Fraud?

They should have distributed it at the -5F NFC Championship match, and given 10 days for comment.

Denier-in-Chief,

You are not one of those kids I knew in grade school that just read the inside of a book cover and produced a book report from that quick summary, making up the rest and in the end creating your own story?

Criticizing a scientific report by just reading the key findings and executive summary without first reading the full report and delving into it's referenced documents has no basis in justification.

Is the detailed scientific information just to hard for you that you just simply close your mind so much that you can never possibly consider another point of view on a given topic?

Denying is one thing, but being totally closed minded in another.

Maybe once you read something in this report in more detail and provide some actual scientific discussion and basis for your conclusions, then your denials can be taken more seriously.

Ouch!

One more report, you have to take seriously (after all it is from the Bush Gov't), that is convincing us all AGW is happening and we have to try to do something about it.

Steve Rowland,
Interesting link. Everyone is now slowly realizing how bad things are going to have to be to try to get on top of this Climate Change problem.

Most people realize its there, but can not cope with/envisage the change required and the lower standard of living that we're in line for (whether we act or not) and so are in denial.

Bob Tisdale,
Solar irradiance does have some effect, but the current long term steep rise can be attributed to the CO2 effect. The report does not cover it much but does refer to it on pg 25&31.

also see Hansen's latest.

First it was the Soviet Union and the threat of nuclear annihilation, then AIDS, now global warming. I don't wish to get older but I'll be glad when in 10 years no one will be talking about GW. Not because we solved GW, just as the first 2 still exist, but there will be a new PC crisis.

Thankyou Bret for posting this one. OY. I have just scanned 25 pages or so and have already gotten red lights flashing on my BS meter! To be fair I will read more but for now my initial feeling is. er. um. This is a really well funded slick piece of propaganda. Very well presented, but propaganda none the less. Coincidentally , I just met a man who says he wrote volumes about global warming during his tenure at Oak Ridge (science laboratory?) he introduced himself as Woody Cole, elderly man. I was on my way to a friends funeral and stopped for coffee at the Noon Mark Diner in Keene Vally. We got to discussing Climate Change and Global warming. So I took him to task about Weather Weapons, Chemtrails and Weather Modification. Very interesting take he had. He simply said these were factors that do need to be included in this study of climate change. Needless to say a very lively conversation indeed!

The report mentions in several places that increased heavy downpours and regional droughts are consequence of global warming. That odd combination is only possible if the warming is from higher CO2 levels.

Andrew,

Can you please explain why this combo only occurs in pressence of high CO2 levels?

What is considered high?

Also, how is it odd to have droughts and monsoons at the same time. As long as I have been alive there have been droughts and monsoons occuring at the same time.

I'm fairly certain this has been the case for several thousand years.

thanks,

Steve

Here is a good example of consensus being refuted. Scientists, for years, were all on board with scientific studies through expeditions backed by grants and wildlife funds, agreeing that the population of lowland gorilla's worldwide was endangered at around 50,000.

Now they have just discovered 125,000 of them living happily in a swamp in Africa. The locals knew they existed, but the scientific studies showed otherwise, because the studies did not include that part of Africa, which is 50 miles from the nearest road and no scientist had ever ventured in there.

Those locals, who may have said "your study is not correct by not including this area", could have been seen as sceptics or deniers to the known science of gorilla populations.

Reminds me of the IPCC not including a lot of variables into their models and scoffing anyone that say's otherwise.

If you wait long enough, the real science eventually emerges, looking nothing like what was initially thought to be the truth, while scientists and governments say "0h! My! Would you look at that. There's more to it than we thought, eh!", but only after running amok with your tax dollars to do something to fix it.

Lesson #1: Don't jump on a bandwagon until you know where it's heading and where it will end up. Scientific history just continues to repeat itself.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/08/05/congo.gorillas/index.html

Hey Darren: I agree about the expense and waste with a product such as this. This "Global Warming for dummies doesn't work. I think that AGW is real and is starting to effect our planet. I also notice a sense of urgency from other sources about Global Warming. Both the Democrats and Republicans have failed to get to the point. Americans have got to learn to conserve. No matter if we drill for oil, make nuclear power plants, liquefy coal, wind farms, solar panels, or gain energy by using hydrology in the East river, there is the most important factor. If we can drive 10% less, turn lights off, tune up our cars, we could save millions of barrels of oil and coal, and the price at the tank would go down. What some want to do in congress is actually tax gas more to keep Americans thirst for oil at a minimum have an old house and want to put in a wood burning stove, but am definitely going to double insulate and zone my forced hot air. You should see this place around Christmas. People just light up there house, as though we have energy to burn. We don't anymore, and Americans aren't used to it. I'm not. But if it is time to save energy I will. Otherwise big brother will be coming in their greed. This double weight glossy production that will be given for free, won't do a thing. How much did it cost to make. More waste. Chuck it!
Best,KIPP

Brett: Thanks for posting this Draft. Well this is the IPCC party line. You are a brave man.KIPP

I currently am reading a book about destructive emotions as discussed by the Dalai Lama. One example offered was to ask somebody to just get mad without any provocation. Of course people can't immediately act on that suggestion, but I tell you after reading one sentence of this report I certainly am able to get mad. While reading this book, I have thought a lot about the subject of global warming and the intense reactions most people have about this subject. The Dalai Lama makes a lot of references to western thinking and how often we obscure how things seem and how they really are.

It is deeply distressing how this report assumes a direct correlation between heat waves, wildfires, heavy rains, droughts as if they never, ever occurred before humans took over the planet. We simply know this is not true and yet we saddle the burden on the shoulders of mankind because to do otherwise would mean it is quite possible long-term civilization is doomed. We have lost civilizations before for unknown reasons and I suspect it will happen again.

What goes up must come down....what was started will eventually cease to exist. Perhaps.

Those folks that put together this report have made up their minds and if left up to them will try to make sweeping changes to our lives by seriously increasing government control for the sake of the planet. I think Pelosi's emotional plea that she just wants to save the planet will give her and others like the authors of this report the right to say and do anything and march over all those that oppose them. So if you agree that man is responsible for global warming you will embrace the idea of putting the deniers in jail for the sake of the planet. Isn't it funny how history has a way of repeating itself? Wasn't it religious leaders that beheaded those that refused to think like those in charge?

The global warming movement has become a religious crusade.

Here is something even more interesting:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003303.html

Excerpt:
There were 3 PDO's during the 20thC; a warm and dry +ve PDO from 1905-46; a cool and wet -ve PDO from 1946-76; and another +ve PDO from 1976-2006.

Good read

And this is also very interesting;

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Theunsoundsciencebehindglobalwarming.pdf

When they refer to "findings," they mean they found it on the web, and cut and pasted it into their report.

For example, go to the 2004 report: