Looking Back On Some UCS Lies From 2007

How much misinformation can the Union of Concerned Scientists pack into one report?

Report Warns of a Much Warmer Northeast

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 12, 2007

People in Philadelphia would swelter through as many as 30 days with temperatures higher than 100 degrees each summer.The Northeastern ski industry, except for western Maine, would probably go out of business. And spruce and hemlock forests — as well as songbirds such as the Baltimore oriole — would all but disappear from New Jersey to the Canadian border.

These are among the conclusions of a two-year study by the public interest group Union of Concerned Scientists on the effects of global warming in the Northeast if current greenhouse gas emission patterns worldwide continue unabated. Winters would be on average 8 to 12 degrees higher by the end of the century, and summers 6 to 14 degrees higher.

Report Warns of a Much Warmer Northeast

The frequency of 100 degree days in Pennsylvania has dropped dramatically since the 1930’s, and is consistently much lower now than it was prior to 1940. The eight years from 2003 to 2010 had no 100 degree days, which was the longest such period in a century.

ScreenHunter_753 Jul. 03 07.52

The claims of large temperature increases have no scientific basis whatsoever. I have done software development of radiative transfer models (the models which calculate the greenhouse effect) for the US government, and they provide no indication of large temperature increases in the future due to increasing CO2.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is simply making “facts” up.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Looking Back On Some UCS Lies From 2007

  1. gator69 says:

    Somewhere, Kenji is blushing.

  2. The Union of Concerned Scientists should look at the actual global warming alarmist’s graphs. NASA shows a .6 degrees-per-century warming trend, less than 10% of the warming scenario presented in the 2-year “study.”

  3. geran says:

    I like to the org “Union of Confused Scientists”.

  4. omanuel says:

    I liked the idea of scientists concerned about the welfare of mankind and was a UCS member for many years before recognizing the hypocrisy of the organization. Blush

    • Send Al to the Pole says:

      Omanuel, when did you first hear about them? And through what channel? I’m curious how they have built their organization. Did they write to you?

  5. mjc says:

    I prefer Union of Corrupt Scientist-wannabes.

    I’ve not come across one thing they’ve said that isn’t alarmist, filled with junk/pseudo-science, outright lies, data cooking or a mixture of all of the above, especially alarmist.

  6. Gamecock says:

    Another “given global warming, . . . .” study. Yawn.

    Union of Concerned Scientologists.

  7. Elmer says:

    I thought Baltimore Oriols were baseball players.

  8. Justa Joe says:

    I’d prefer a union of unconcerned (i.e. neutral & unbiased) scientists.

  9. Brian G Valentine says:

    Union of Concerned D-grade college average “Scientists” who couldn’t give a SHIT about anybody who has to work for a living or the truth

  10. nutso fasst says:

    More appropriately the Union of Confounded Sycophants.

  11. Gamecock says:

    Union of Communist Scientists

    Do I win the prize?

    • Brian G Valentine says:

      Authentic Communists don’t even want these people. If they make enviro-noise in Red China or North Korea, these people get thrown in JAIL

  12. northernont says:

    The only thing of concern to these scientists is where their next research grant is coming from. CAGW pays well in all its manifestations and that includes the government bureaucrats, who keep giving themselves pay raises and bonuses because its hard work keeping track of, and doling out all that taxpayer money. Its quite circular and incestuous.

  13. The Union Of Concerned Scientists, which is actually a political and social advocacy group, were strident critics of Reagan’s policies in the 80’s. In particular missile defence systems which were technically impossible. “It would be like trying to hit a bullet with a bullet” was one memorable quote in the media, which gave these claims much publicity on news programs around the world. Of course decades later, these systems are now deployed in various places around the world.

    • _Jim says:

      Unfortunately, the analogy they used was vastly in error; active guidance systems made the ‘impossible’ possible (and most unlike ‘dumb’ bullets fired on a ballistic course toward an oncoming target), an engineering feat the ‘scientists’ failed to consider possible given inevitable advances in technology.


  14. tom0mason says:

    Q. The concerns of unionized scientist?
    A. It’s my grant; I’ll be famous; I’ll tell the government what to do.

  15. kirkmyers says:

    I’m confounded as to why anyone would want to have their name associated with a phony outfit like the Union of Concerned Scientists. Are they merely stupid, or do they really believe the unscientific trash the organization peddles?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s