What Is Fake Science?

[jfle...@gmail.com]

And we've got just the guy in office now to fix this.

EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

July 5th, 2017

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.

Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.

In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.”

The new study will be included in petitions by conservative groups to the EPA to reconsider the 2009 endangerment finding, which gave the agency its legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Sam Kazman, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), said the study added an “important new piece of evidence to this debate” over whether to reopen the endangerment finding. CEI petitioned EPA to reopen the endangerment finding in February.

“I think this adds a very strong new element to it,” Kazman told TheDCNF. “It’s enough reason to open things formally and open public comment on the charges we make.”

Since President Donald Trump ordered EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the Clean Power Plan, there’s been speculation the administration would reopen the endangerment finding to new scrutiny.

The Obama-era document used three lines of evidence to claim such emissions from vehicles “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”

D’Aleo and Wallace filed a petition with EPA on behalf of their group, the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC). They relied on past their past research, which found one of EPA’s lines of evidence “simply does not exist in the real world.”

Their 2016 study “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”

“In sum, all three of the lines of evidence relied upon by EPA to attribute warming to human GHG emissions are invalid,” reads CHCC’s petition. “The Endangerment Finding itself is therefore invalid and should be reconsidered.

Pruitt’s largely been silent on whether or not he would reopen the endangerment finding, but the administrator did say he was spearheading a red team exercise to tackle climate science.

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry also came out in favor of red-blue team exercises, which are used by the military and intelligence agencies to expose any vulnerabilities to systems or strategies.

Environmental activists and climate scientists largely panned the idea, with some even arguing it would be “dangerous” to elevate minority scientific opinions.

“Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate,” wrote climate scientist Ben Santer and Kerry Emanuel and historian and activist Naomi Oreskes.

“They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science,” the three wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed.

“Frankly, I think you could do a red-blue team exercise as part of reviewing the endangerment finding,” Kazman said.

Though Kazman did warn a red team exercise could be a double-edged sword if not done correctly. He worries some scientists not supportive of the idea could undermine the process from the inside and use it to grandstand.

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

MICHAEL BASTASCH

CONTRIBUTOR

[abook...@yahoo.com]

Fakeedu #fakeinstitutions #fakeusassholes




liberals man those temp readings and change them and you advocate for 100% liberals since I came here, so you are a fraud. you attack just to get attention.

You are a left winger folio, cheerleader of corruption.

what is your point?

[Steven Douglas]

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 8:20:06 AM UTC-7, jfle...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> And we've got just the guy in office now to fix this.
>
> EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly
> All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data
>
> July 5th, 2017
>
> https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

I notice Doc did not respond to this. I wonder why?

[Mike]

Maybe he found the double spacing of the text
too difficult to read.

[docufo]

Take whatever you need from a virtual smorgasbord of "scientific
studies" that really are exploited, usually edited, use derogatory
references to AGW supporters, shallowly summarized to either kiss the
ass of major global oil and gas corporations or provide support for
politicians, right-wing media, and the public siding with them. AGW
supporters are referred to as "Climate Alarmists." LOL!

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

That report's summary is as follows: (quote)

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment
issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported
historical GAST data are quantified. While the notion that some
“adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not
challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical
temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures,
and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of
such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain.
However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper
warming linear trend over its entire history.

That was accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing
cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities
providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of
GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best
documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well
as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global
coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization
impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks
between UAH and RSS as well as with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data
sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude

of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical
temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and

credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to
conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have
been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s
GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research
findings.

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

There you have it, climate deniers! "Proof" that the raw historical data
is being manipulated by (likely) liberal tree-hugger types and greedy
folks invested in alternative energies!!

LOL! The removal of the older data to make way for "data adjustments"
requires an independent cross-check to ensure the current integrity of
the figures - that is, that keep showing the global average temperature
is not really rising at all.

Well, husk my corn ears! Three major scientific organizations should
know they're not fooling anyone on the Right out there! No sir! Of
course, they don't just say they already know their data is biased and
invalid, but they are in a conspiracy to mislead the public!

Damn conspiring leftist scumballs! LOL!

^Y^
V

[Steven Douglas]

You are aware that Hadley CRU is where the email scandal took
place, aren't you? Or maybe you've not, if you were relying
on Brian Williams for your news.

As for NASA and NOAA, there's this:

Headline: "Exposed: How world leaders were duped into
investing billions over manipulated global warming data"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

[docufo]

You must know as well as I that the humongous investments in fossil fuel
energy by the 2% made it necessary to politicize a humanitarian issue.
The issue being the cleaning up of what is known fact: enormous amounts
of unhealthy greenhouse emissions from industry and our daily
lifestyles. And known fact number 2: that carbon dioxide is the primary
pollutant that is acting as an unnatural blanket holding the surface
heat. Such extra heat will have an impact on the weather cycles that
wouldn't ordinarily occur sans human activity. Ice core drills show the
ppm of C02 to be the highest in hundreds of thousands of years, at least.

We also know that continuing forward with no replacement or major
easement of fossil fuel dependence will likely take us down a road of
more pollution, wars over acquisition and/or control of fossil fuel
reserves, economic stress, more health problems, and eventually end up
in a state of a multi-level global catastrophe.

We do know, too, that we have the ability to avoid the worst of it by
cutting emissions, converting to a low-carbon technology (in the
interim), and further development and refinement of alternative
energies. During this period, as it was in many ways at the turn of the
20th Century when wood-fueled heat and oil lamps were largely replaced
by electricity and horses and buggies were replaced by fueled
transportation, a revolutionary change in energy sources doesn't mean
the end of an enjoyable everyday existence.

^Y^
V

[Steven Douglas]

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:59:08 PM UTC-7, docufo wrote:
> On 7/13/2017 12:09 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
>
> > You are aware that Hadley CRU is where the email scandal took
> > place, aren't you? Or maybe you've not, if you were relying
> > on Brian Williams for your news.
> >
> > As for NASA and NOAA, there's this:
> >
> > Headline: "Exposed: How world leaders were duped into
> > investing billions over manipulated global warming data"
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
>
> You must know as well as I that the humongous investments in fossil fuel
> energy by the 2% made it necessary to politicize a humanitarian issue.

It's being politicized by people like Al Gore, who has
managed to enrich himself with this huge scam. It's also
being politicized by people such as you (and other leftists),
who hate free enterprise and hope to bring it to its knees
someday.

>
> The issue being the cleaning up of what is known fact: enormous amounts
> of unhealthy greenhouse emissions from industry and our daily
> lifestyles. And known fact number 2: that carbon dioxide is the primary
> pollutant

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. If you are so confused
that you actually believe that, you should stop breathing.

>
> that is acting as an unnatural blanket holding the surface
> heat. Such extra heat will have an impact on the weather cycles that
> wouldn't ordinarily occur sans human activity.

You're saying we wouldn't have weather cycles without human
activity? Are you really that ignorant?

[docufo]

On 7/17/2017 10:36 AM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:59:08 PM UTC-7, docufo wrote:
>> On 7/13/2017 12:09 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
>>
>>> You are aware that Hadley CRU is where the email scandal took
>>> place, aren't you? Or maybe you've not, if you were relying
>>> on Brian Williams for your news.
>>>
>>> As for NASA and NOAA, there's this:
>>>
>>> Headline: "Exposed: How world leaders were duped into
>>> investing billions over manipulated global warming data"
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
>>
>> You must know as well as I that the humongous investments in fossil fuel
>> energy by the 2% made it necessary to politicize a humanitarian issue.
>
> It's being politicized by people like Al Gore, who has
> managed to enrich himself with this huge scam. It's also
> being politicized by people such as you (and other leftists),
> who hate free enterprise and hope to bring it to its knees
> someday.

That didn't happen at the turn of the 20th century. New energies,
electricity and fossil fuel refinement for transportation, presented an
excellent fertile ground for "free enterprise" before the new sources
and technologies were corralled by a greedy few at the very top.
One wouldn't expect that human behavior in accumulating wealth and power
will be magically absent from those invested in alternative energies.
But its the pollution and its massive environmentally negative impact
that needs to be the priority. We can change that positively, but likely
not the behavior that exploits the new energy technologies to benefit a
relative few the most.

>>
>> The issue being the cleaning up of what is known fact: enormous amounts
>> of unhealthy greenhouse emissions from industry and our daily
>> lifestyles. And known fact number 2: that carbon dioxide is the primary
>> pollutant
>
> Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. If you are so confused
> that you actually believe that, you should stop breathing.

It is a pollutant in the concentrations recorded. It is classified,
therefore, as a pollutant. I quote liberally:

Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets
the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2
emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

Climate Myth...
CO2 is not a pollutant
'To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that
has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all
life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is
not a pollutant.' (Robert Balling, as quoted by Popular Technology)

Before assessing whether or not CO2 is a pollutant, we must first define
the term.

What is an Air Pollutant?

The US Clean Air Act was incorporated into the United States Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section
7602(g) defines an air pollutant:
The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of
such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive
(including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct
material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters
the ambient air.
Clearly this is a very broad definition. More importantly, its Title
42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:
"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare"
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US
Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to
regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Two years after the
Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding
concluding that

"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both
to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major
assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National
Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting
the Administrator’s endangerment finding."

Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act's
broad definition of "air pollutants," and must be listed and regulated
by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath
and/or welfare.

Alternatively, the definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia
Brittanica is:

"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of
energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a
rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or
stored in some harmless form."

Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated
if it may endanger public health or welfare. And according to the
encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be
stored "harmlessly."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

>>
>> that is acting as an unnatural blanket holding the surface
>> heat. Such extra heat will have an impact on the weather cycles that
>> wouldn't ordinarily occur sans human activity.
>
> You're saying we wouldn't have weather cycles without human
> activity? Are you really that ignorant?
>

I said what I said, if you could be honest or smart enough to read it
plainly. I am talking entirely about the unnatural level of the C02, way
beyond what the Earth naturally creates. Ice core samples show the
current concentration is far beyond the past levels. The rate of
increase is also beyond past records.

You might want to ask yourself how important is your radicalized
ideology that will help impede progress in getting the public to fully
understand the environmental impact of human pollution, and know that
it's a humanitarian issue that is critical to every thing that breathes,
eats, and drinks?

You and your furry fiends are fools, junior. You and they have enjoyed a
politicization of this humanitarian issue, as you and they did for years
with a guaranteed safety-net national healthcare system, to the
detriment of human health on a mass level. You and they don't care about
living a saner, healthier lifestyle, to lessen wars, to protect and
preserve all living things.

Shame on you and them, shame on your Donald for exiting the Paris
climate group. Maybe his pal Macron will convince him of reentering the
group, or maybe Macron's lovely wife can, uh, persuade him in a more
effective manner. I think she needs to show more cleavage for him.

What do you think? Maybe she ought to let him grab her pussy?

^Y^
V

[Steven Douglas]

Co2 levels have been higher in the distant past, long before
humans could have had anything to do with it.

>
> Ice core samples show the
> current concentration is far beyond the past levels.

Prove it.

>
> The rate of
> increase is also beyond past records.

False.

>
> You might want to ask yourself how important is your radicalized

I'm really tired of being referred to as "radicalized" by a
left-wing kook who hates his own country. Somehow you've
convinced yourself that you're mainstream because you voted
for a fringe kook candidate who had no chance to win, and
that hating the Constitution and the whole history of our
country somehow makes you a centrist -- while deciding that
I'm an extremist because I love freedom and democracy, while
you hate those things and would probably prefer a government
more like those in the dictatorships that you love and adore
so much.

[docufo]

The majority hated or disliked Trump, as both the electorate and general
public when November 8th came. And since then, he's lost significant
support from both camps.

He's killing himself with his wagging tongue, especially with those
midnight tweets that even many Republican politicians are embarrassed by.

It may well be the end of our Presidency as we've always known it, even
before our generation. Will a 'normal' Presidential candidate ever be as
entertaining and have as much media exploitation value? Will the public
and media be bored to death with another Bush or Obama, or even a JFK or
Reagan?

Can any successor be anywhere near as big a fucking clown act as Donald's?

^Y^
V

[Steven Douglas]

You mean the establishment weenies who never wanted him to
be president, even after he became the nominee? I really
don't care what those establishment weenies think. That's
why the Tea Party movement came into existence, as an
internal rebellion against the establishment Republicans.

[abook...@yahoo.com]

u have a Winnie fetish? #lolz