Noted climate scientists trashes White House climate report

Marc Morano at Climate Depot notes that climate expert Prof. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has found a glaring hole in the recently released climate change report by the White House.

Pielke points out that the report utterly failed to highlight the significant drop in the number of hurricanes that have made landfall in the US.

Pielke Jr. asked on November 24: “How it is that the 2018 US National Climate Assessment failed to include or overlooked trends in US landfalling hurricanes which would, ahem, seem pretty important in a US climate report[?]

Pielke Jr. then noted that the report ignored one of its own expert reviewers who wrote this: “National Hurricane Center going back to the 1800s data clearly indicate a drop in the decadal rate of US landfalling hurricanes since the 1960s… instead you spin the topic to make it sound like the trends are all towards more cyclones.”

Pielke Jr. continued: “Let’s observe here hurricanes are discussed at length in the report, and every hurricane that is discussed is … a landfalling storm. The failure to include trend data on US landfalling hurricanes in USNCA is a remarkable choice. What were they thinking, no one would notice?”

Pielke is no wild eyed, conspiracy theorist, climate skeptic. In fact, Pielke accepts the basic premise of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

Pielke has also written extensively on climate change policy. He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions." He also states that, "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive."

As we know by now, that's just not good enough for climate change hysterics. They need all scientists to accept the theory of catastrophic global warming and if you don't accept it completely, you're a "denier." Pielke was fired from the Five Thirty Eight website because some of the more hysterical global warming advocates objected when he mildly stated the fact that hurricanes are causing more damage because of changes in population density and wealth, rather than the severity of storms.

But Pielke's point is well taken; why leave out information on hurricane landfalls in the US? It's not the only thing fishy about this climate change report, and it begs the question why give ammunition to global warming hysterics in the first place?

Marc Morano at Climate Depot notes that climate expert Prof. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has found a glaring hole in the recently released climate change report by the White House.

Pielke points out that the report utterly failed to highlight the significant drop in the number of hurricanes that have made landfall in the US.

Pielke Jr. asked on November 24: “How it is that the 2018 US National Climate Assessment failed to include or overlooked trends in US landfalling hurricanes which would, ahem, seem pretty important in a US climate report[?]

Pielke Jr. then noted that the report ignored one of its own expert reviewers who wrote this: “National Hurricane Center going back to the 1800s data clearly indicate a drop in the decadal rate of US landfalling hurricanes since the 1960s… instead you spin the topic to make it sound like the trends are all towards more cyclones.”

Pielke Jr. continued: “Let’s observe here hurricanes are discussed at length in the report, and every hurricane that is discussed is … a landfalling storm. The failure to include trend data on US landfalling hurricanes in USNCA is a remarkable choice. What were they thinking, no one would notice?”

Pielke is no wild eyed, conspiracy theorist, climate skeptic. In fact, Pielke accepts the basic premise of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

Pielke has also written extensively on climate change policy. He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions." He also states that, "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive."

As we know by now, that's just not good enough for climate change hysterics. They need all scientists to accept the theory of catastrophic global warming and if you don't accept it completely, you're a "denier." Pielke was fired from the Five Thirty Eight website because some of the more hysterical global warming advocates objected when he mildly stated the fact that hurricanes are causing more damage because of changes in population density and wealth, rather than the severity of storms.

But Pielke's point is well taken; why leave out information on hurricane landfalls in the US? It's not the only thing fishy about this climate change report, and it begs the question why give ammunition to global warming hysterics in the first place?