A draft government climate assessment The New York Times “obtained” and claims is not yet public has actually been available online since December, according to scientists who worked on the report.
TheNYT reportedly obtained a draft copy of the upcoming National Climate Assessment (NCA), quoting unnamed scientists who feared “the Trump administration could change or suppress the report.” TheNYT also reported that global warming skeptics were “equally worried that the draft report, as well as the larger NCA, will be publicly released.”
However, the draft NCA has been online since January. A couple of the scientists who worked on the NCA took to Twitter to let people know the draft has been online for months, despite TheNYT’s reporting.
It’s not clear what the news is in this story; posted draft is public review draft from Dec, and WH review hasn’t yet missed Aug 18 deadline https://t.co/0sZxCCvoMn
— Bob Kopp (@bobkopp) August 8, 2017
The Times’ leaked draft has been on the Internet Archive since January, during the public comment period https://t.co/B8XLQ6omb2
— Bob Kopp (@bobkopp) August 8, 2017
Important to point out that this report was already accessible to anyone who cared to read it during public review & comment time. Few did. https://t.co/eYgsj09Z97
— Katharine Hayhoe (@KHayhoe) August 8, 2017
This begs the question: how would President Donald Trump be able to suppress a publicly-available draft report? Atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue pointed out the study has not been delayed, and the government only recently began looking for scientists to review the draft report.
Why purposely politicize process? This could be a disastrous unforced error if current above-board process is short-circuited by activists.
— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) August 8, 2017
TheNYT has not yet issued a correction on the story.
Read more at Daily Caller
The science of thermalization (of thermal EMR) and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy explain why CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.
Water vapor, a ghg, has made the planet warm enough for life as we know it. WV increased fairly slowly until about 1960. Since then it has been increasing at about 1.5% per decade and is now about 8% higher than it was in 1960. The still-rising water vapor (WV) is rising more than twice as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone (feedback, water temperature from HadCRUT4).
The rising WV coincides with rising irrigation, especially spray irrigation on fields and lawns. The warming (perhaps explaining the slight rise in the UAH temperature trend) is welcome (countering the average global cooling which would otherwise be occurring as a result of declining net effect of ocean cycles and a declining proxy which is the time-integral of SSN anomalies) but the added WV increases the risk of precipitation related flooding. How much of recent flooding (with incidences reported world wide) is simply bad luck in the randomness of weather and how much is because of the ‘thumb on the scale’ of added water vapor? Detailed assessment of this is at globalclimatedrivers2
The NY Times is leaking credibility . Who is running it into the ground ?
Original draft posted by NYT was 3rd revision, which was available in December. NYT updated to the 5th draft, which is not public.
Will you update your story?
Why has manmade climate change been politicized you ask? Here are some reasons:
1. It forces people to take sides–it’s divisive.
2. To put a guilt trip on opponents who disagree.
3. It becomes a cause for which policy can be made to implement a solution.
4. Taxes can be levied to force a behavioral “solution”; money is power!!
5. It is legitimized because politicians believe it and promote it.
We know it’s a scam, politicians can only smell the money!
So how many people still read or subcribe to the New York Slimes(All the Sludge that’s fit to Print)anymore and the NRA has a real good video that takes on the Old Grey Hag