"Imagine if an industry-funded government contractor had a hand in writing a major federal report on climate change. And imagine if that person used his position to misrepresent the science, to cite his own non-peer reviewed work, and to ignore relevant work in the peer-reviewed literature. There would be an outrage, surely . . ."The U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program (CCSP) report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, is a major disappointment, particularly for some of us who labored to not only correct the small things but to get the big picture right. The political side won with stubbornness and persistence. Reality lost with an overall description that many of the impacts from climate change are greater (worse) than the best science allows. The result is an advocacy document parading as a scientific assessment.
- Roger Pielke Jr. on Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (June 2009)
OF THE
TIMES
Comment: This article sounds very much like a public relations attempt to salvage the colossal computer model failures that predicted a super cycle for solar cycle 24.
Recall this recent article on SOTT:
Solar cycle computer model with 98 percent forecasting accuracy a complete failure
The basic reality is that the modelers do not know what is going on. We only understand the science to a given point and beyond that we are learning. The problem is that so many in the scientific community now run on political energy and saving face as long as they can is more important than being honest about what we do and do not know.
This article is being mentioned on other sites as well. Here is a comment from the Watts Up With That site from a leading solar researcher, Leif Svalgaard: FYI, 'CYA' is an acronym for Cover Your A##.
And another commenter from the Solar Science blog: You can search SOTT for 'sunspot' or 'solar' and read many articles and papers on what is currently up with the sun.
Here is a good place to start:
A Cheshire Cat - Will Sunspots disappear entirely by 2015?