Comments on: Sloppy Work by the CCSP

By: Am I missing something? « The Way Things Break

Am I missing something? « The Way Things Break — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:59:45 +0000

[...] Much squawking in the denialosphere erupted, with plenty of noise from some of the usual suspects. One point, made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that actually seems to have some [...]

By: Alex Jones’ Prison Planet.com Skeptics win one! NOAA/NCDC to pull the CCSP report

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:45:22 +0000

[...] the same time, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. revealed that Ms. Hassol appeared to simply move some of her website’s claims into this self-proclaimed [...]

By: Skeptics win one! NOAA/NCDC to pull the CCSP report « Watts Up With That?

Skeptics win one! NOAA/NCDC to pull the CCSP report « Watts Up With That? — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:13:01 +0000

[...] the same time, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. revealed that Ms. Hassol appeared to simply move some of her website’s claims into this self-proclaimed [...]

By: Deltoid

Deltoid — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:52:55 +0000

Do not cite or quote…

Clif at Sadly No mocks some blogger who thinks that because the draft report Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States used a photoshopped picture of flood to illustrate a flood, rather than a picture of a real flood,……

By: Mark Bahner

Mark Bahner — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:43:33 +0000

“The doctored image and the out of date graphic could be forgiven as sloppiness but the clear bias of the editor completely undermines the report’s credibility.”

With the doctored photo, *someone* must have known it was a fake. I was strongly suspicious that it was a fake, just by blowing it up and looking at the pixelation.

But *someone* must have gone to the source of the photo to get permission to use it. Per Jay Evans at Climate Audit, this is the site:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/architecture-and-buildings/874059-got-flood-insurance.php?id=874059

The photo caption says, “Photo of house under several feet of graphically-rendered flood waters.”

I don’t think anyone could make an honest mistake, and miss that. Especially since there’s a photo of Seattle under graphically-generated flood waters on the very same page.

By: Sylvain

Sylvain — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:49:16 +0000

Has I have pointed out in the earlier thread you posted this is not the only litigious graph used in the CCSP.

For example on page 27:

They show a graph of CO2 concentration that include models, ice cores and observation.

I find this graph misleading since it provides no information what part of the data comes from ice cores or observation.

Does ice cores and observation shows the same result? Is there any data for ice cores for 1980 to 2007?

On page 20:

While using if not the graph from the IPCC at least a similar one to which they removed the level of understanding associated to each climate forcing.

This has the result of overstating the certainty.

On page 22:

The level of co2 point to around 382-4 is different than the graph on page 17 which seems closer to 387-90

On page 22:

The temp graph seems to be from the Met office, yet no mention is made that this graph is undergoing adjustment following last springs discoveries by Thompson.

Finally, the report rely on local projection which, as documented at Roger Pielke sr, computer model are the most inacurate.

By: Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut.

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:25:11 +0000

[...] Prometheus » Blog Archive » Sloppy Work by the CCSP 3. Hijacked Executive Summary But what is most troubling is the fact that the Executive Summary of the report repeats much of what the report’s non-governmental editor, Susan Joy Hassol calls her “Elevator Speech” of her personal political preferences on climate… [...]

By: BRIANMFLYNN

BRIANMFLYNN — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:59:23 +0000

See also the report yesterday at ICECAP, “Industry Group Asks NOAA to
Withdraw Major Climate Report”. The report says in part “…the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asked the government to withdraw a major Climate Change Science Program report released in May. The group argued that the analysis violates a federal law that requires agencies to employ “sound science” because it relies on unpublished information.”

I understand the comment period on the CCSP report expires on August 14. So Roger, I hope you have submitted your compilation of comments.

BRIAN M FLYNN

By: Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut.

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:32:39 +0000

[...] Change Science Program (CCSP) report has been criticised by the likes of Roger Pielke Senior and Junior because science comes a poor third to sloppiness and political advocacy. The report represents the [...]

By: Raven

Raven — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:10:24 +0000

I don’t understand how a process that was supposed to be kept separate from the political process ended up with an editor that had clearly made up her mind on the major conclusions before the process even began.

The doctored image and the out of date graphic could be forgiven as sloppiness but the clear bias of the editor completely undermines the report’s credibility.