Friday, December 18, 2015
Scientific dissent squelched
Peter Wood, chairman of the National Association of Scholars has sent the email below to members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). He has also sent a version to the board members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It explains itself pretty clearly.
But some important background:
The National Association of Scholars was drawn into this by James Enstrom, a former UCLA senior scientist who was fired after he blew the whistle on a major fraud at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) which is something like the California version of the EPA. CARB had issued research findings (and ultimately regulations) based on a study that Enstrom demonstrated was fraudulent. The main author of the study had a mail order Ph.D.—as it happens, the address of the phony degree-granting institution is on Madison Avenue two blocks from my office. There was other mischief too, involving several of Enstrom’s colleagues who had seats at CARB.
The National Association of Scholars championed Enstrom’s case from the beginning, and we were not alone in doing so. If you’d like more details, there is a pretty full public record up to the point where UCLA settled the case with Enstrom out of court in an agreement that sealed the record. Enstrom, however, is still determined to set the scientific record right, and that has become more difficult as the EPA itself has built more regulations on the basis of CARB’s discredited findings.
Enstrom sought to publish some account of this in Science, the flagship journal of the AAAS, under the editorship of Marcia McNutt. He didn’t get anywhere. But he did end up making the acquaintance of other scientists who had similar experiences with McNutt, who seems to have a track records of bolting the door against scientists who dissent from establishment positions.
As it happens, McNutt is now a candidate—the only candidate—to be president of the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious body of scientists in the country. Enstrom hoped that if he could draw attention to this aspect of McNutt’s record, the members of the Academy might have second thoughts.
I don’t want to put the National Association of Scholars into a campaign against McNutt’s election, but it does seem to me a good opportunity to raise broader questions about how science bearing on public policy issues is now conducted in the United States, where legitimate dissent is often squelched.
The occasion for this letter is Dr. Marcia K. McNutt, Editor-in-Chief of Science. We are concerned that she is the only official candidate to be the next NAS president. To be clear, the National Association of Scholars does not oppose Dr. McNutt’s candidacy. We simply believe that members of an important national organization like NAS should have at least two candidates to consider when voting for your next president. Indeed, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which publishes Science, always has two candidates for president and its other elected positions. Other scientific organizations also have two candidates for their elected positions.
Also, we want to bring to your attention our serious concerns about the current state of discourse in the sciences. Dr. McNutt has played a significant role in three active controversies involving national regulatory policy that deserve attention in themselves and that are also part of a larger problem. The larger problem is how the scientific establishment, particularly Science and NAS, should evaluate and respond to serious dissent from legitimate scientists. This is an especially important consideration for NAS, which was established to provide “independent, objective advice on issues that affect people's lives worldwide.”
The three controversies are:
1. The status of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose-response model for the biological effects of nuclear radiation. The prominence of the model stems from the June 29, 1956 Science paper, “Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation,” authored by the NAS Committee on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation. This paper is now widely questioned and has been seriously critiqued in many peer-reviewed publications, including two detailed 2015 papers. These criticisms are being taken seriously around the world, as summarized in a December 2, 2015 Wall Street Journal commentary. In August 2015 four distinguished critics of LNT made a formal request to Dr. McNutt to examine the evidence of fundamental flaws in the 1956 paper and retract it. However, on August 11, 2015 Dr. McNutt rejected this request without even reviewing the detailed evidence. Furthermore, Dr. McNutt did not even consider recusing herself and having independent reviewers examine evidence that challenges the validity of both a Science paper and an NAS Committee Report.
This is a consequential matter that bears on a great deal of national public policy, as the LNT model has served as the basis for risk assessment and risk management of radiation and chemical carcinogens for decades, but now needs to be seriously reassessed. This reassessment could profoundly alter many regulations from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and other government agencies. The relevant documents regarding the 1956 Science paper and Dr. McNutt can be examined at www.nas.org/images/documents/LNT.pdf.
2. Extensive evidence of scientific misconduct in the epidemiology of fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5) and its relationship to mortality. Since 1997 EPA has claimed that lifetime inhalation of about a teaspoon of particles with diameter less than 2.5 microns causes premature death in the United States and it established an national regulation based on this claim. Science has provided extensive news coverage of this issue and its regulatory significance, but has never published any scientific criticism of this questionable claim, which is largely based on nontransparent research.
Earlier this year, nine accomplished scientists and academics submitted to Science well-documented evidence of misconduct by several of the PM2.5 researchers relied upon by EPA. The evidence of misconduct was first submitted to Dr. McNutt in a detailed June 4, 2015 email letter, then in a detailed July 20, 2015 Policy Forum manuscript “Transparent Science is Necessary for EPA Regulations,” and finally in an August 17, 2015 Perspective manuscript “Particulate Matter Does Not Cause Premature Deaths.” Dr. McNutt and two Science editors immediately rejected the letter and the manuscripts and never conducted any internal or external review of the evidence. This a consequential matter because many multi-billion dollar EPA air pollution regulations, such as, the Clean Power Plan, are primarily justified by the claim that PM2.5 is killing Americans. The relevant documents regarding this controversy can be examined at https://www.nas.org/images/documents/PM2.5.pdf.
3. Science promotes the so-called consensus model of climate change and excludes any contrary views. This issue has become so polarized and polarizing that it is difficult to bring up, but at some point the scientific community will have to reckon with the dramatic discrepancies between current climate models and substantial parts of the empirical record. Recent evidence of Science bias on this issue is the June 26, 2015 article by Dr. Thomas R. Karl, “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus”; the July 3, 2015 McNutt editorial, “The beyond-two-degree inferno”; the November 13, 2015 McNutt editorial, “Climate warning, 50 years later”; and the November 25, 2015 AAAS News Release, “AAAS Leads Coalition to Protest Climate Science Inquiry.”
Dr. McNutt’s position is, of course, consistent with the official position of the AAAS. But the attempt to declare that the “pause” in global warming was an illusion has not been accepted by several respected and well-informed scientists. One would not know this, however, from reading Science, which has declined to publish any dissenting views. One can be a strong supporter of the consensus model and yet be disturbed by the role which Science has played in this controversy. Dr. McNutt and the journal have acted more like partisan activists than like responsible stewards of scientific standards confronted with contentious claims and ambiguous evidence. The relevant documents and commentary regarding the Karl paper and McNutt editorials can be examined at https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf.
All three of these controversies have arisen on issues in which a strong degree of scientific consensus became intertwined with public policy and institutional self-interest. That intertwining can create selective blindness.
Dr. McNutt has in her career found herself faced more than once with the challenge of what to do when an entrenched orthodoxy meets a substantial scientific challenge. The challenge in each case could itself prove to be mistaken, but it met what most scientists would concede to be the threshold criteria to deserve a serious hearing. Yet in each case Dr. McNutt chose to reinforce the orthodoxy by shutting the door on the challenge.
The three areas that I sketched above, however, seem to have such prominence in public policy that they would warrant an even greater investment in time, care, and attention than would be normally the case. In that light, Dr. McNutt’s dismissive treatment of scientific criticisms is disturbing.
I bring these matters to your attention in the hope of accomplishing two things: raise awareness that the three issues represent threats to the integrity of science arising from the all-too-human tendency to turn ideas into orthodoxies; and suggest that it might be wise for NAS to nominate as a second candidate for president someone who has a reputation for scientific objectivity and fairness and who does not enforce orthodoxy.
Climate deal 'signals end to gas cookers': They'll have to be phased out to meet new targets
Yet more expense and disruption from this evil Leftist hoax. And even if we grant them their assumptions, what sense does it make? Replacing a gas heater by a heat pump does not eliminate the need for an energy supply. Heat pumps run on electricity that has to be generated somehow -- but how would the vast new demand for electricity be met? Britain is already substantially over-run with windmills and solar farms but still gets only a tiny fraction of its electricity supply from them. And domestic heating is mostly used at night, when the sun doesn't shine -- not that it shines much in Britain anyway
The Paris climate change deal spells the beginning of the end for cooking and heating with gas, experts claimed yesterday.
Within 15 years, British families may have to start phasing out gas cookers, fires and boilers if the UK is to meet new tougher targets aimed at halting rises in global temperature.
The United Nations agreement to stop global warming, approved by 195 countries at a summit in Paris after two weeks of intense negotiations, commits nations to reducing greenhouse gases from 2020 onwards to halt climate change.
It was hailed as historic by politicians. David Cameron said: ‘This global deal now means that the whole world has signed to play its part in halting climate change.’
But Britain’s energy plans will now have to be revised as our already stringent targets to reduce greenhouse gases are based on limiting global warming to a rise of 2C.
The new agreement is more ambitious, aimed at limiting warming to ‘well below’ 2C by the century’s end.
The UK is ‘absolutely committed’ to the deal and will be ‘making sure we deliver on it’, Energy Secretary Amber Rudd said yesterday.
Experts predict the stricter targets will mean the familiar sights of gas hobs and ovens and gas-fired boilers will become a thing of the past.
Jim Watson, professor of energy policy at Sussex University, said: ‘This will affect the power sector first, but as we move through to the 2030s and beyond we’ll have to find new ways of heating our homes and cooking our food.’
The Government’s Committee on Climate Change is pressing for alternatives to boilers such as heat pumps – devices which extract warmth from the ground or air.
It wants four million homes to be heated by such devices by 2030, despite each costing £12,000, with installations accelerating after that until gas plays a minimal role in heating and cooking in homes by 2050.
All gas-fired power stations must also close by the mid-2030s unless they strip CO2 from emissions.
Professor Watson added: ‘Gas has served us very well since the 1970s. Whatever we move to next, people will be moving to similar levels of comfort and controllability, which engineers need to get on with.’
Around 23million British homes use gas, with a third of natural gas used in Britain burnt by domestic boilers, cookers or heaters.
Britain is already committed to phasing out coal fired power stations by 2025.
But gas power stations will have to be phased out next, unless a way is found of capturing the CO2 they create – known as carbon capture and storage.
Gas, although cleaner than coal, is our biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions – generating 169million tons of CO2 in 2014.
Bob Ward, who is policy director at the Grantham Research Institute of Climate Change, said that to meet Britain’s commitments the days of cooking with gas were numbered.
He said: ‘The only possible use of fossil fuels that will continue is if they are used to generate electricity, but this will only happen if the carbon dioxide they create is captured and stored.
‘Gas cookers will be phased out, probably as soon as possible. I suspect manufacturers will simply stop making them.’
He added that in years to come some form of carbon tax putting up the cost of gas is inevitable – which will make electric cookers much cheaper than their gas rivals.
CCC chief executive Matthew Bell said: ‘For something like heating, by 2050 gas will be playing a much more limited role and a range of other technologies will have taken its place, meaning low-carbon sources of warmth – heat pumps and so on.’
Climate Make-Believe in Paris
Saving the planet has never been so easy. The Paris climate talks concluded in a rousing round of self-congratulation over an agreement that, we are told, is the first step toward keeping Earth habitable. If generating headlines and press releases about making history were the metric for anything, Paris might be as consequential — if misbegotten — as advertised.
The fact is that Paris is very meta. The agreement is about the agreement, never mind what’s in it or what its true legal force is — namely, nil. Paris is a legally binding agreement not to have legally binding limits on emissions. It might be the most worthless piece of paper since the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawed war — about a decade prior to the outbreak of World War II.
Politico reported that the talks were almost derailed at the last minute by the accidental insertion of the word “shall” deep in the text, which, by implying a legal obligation, was to be avoided at all costs (the U.S. Senate would never give its assent to a legally binding treaty). The U.S. scrambled to change the offending word to “should.”
The Paris summit operated on the principle of CBDRILONCWRC, or “Common but Differentiated Responsibility in Light of National Circumstances With Respective Capability.” That means nothing was actually mandated on anyone because that proved — understandably enough, dealing with all the countries in the world — completely unworkable.
Instead, countries came up with so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. That’s climate bureaucratese for “You make up your emissions target, whatever it is, and we will pretend to take it seriously.” Thus, do the waters recede and Earth is saved from looming climate catastrophe.
Even if you believe the extremely dubious proposition that somehow the climate “consensus” perfectly understands perhaps the most complicated system on the planet, and can forecast with certitude and in detail what the global temperature will be a century from now, Paris is a charade. The best estimates are that, accepting the premises of the consensus, the deal will reduce warming 0.0 to 0.2 degrees Celsius.
President Barack Obama praised 180 countries for coming to Paris “with serious climate targets in hand.” This was ridiculous climate grade inflation. As Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute points out, Pakistan produced a one-page document promising to “reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible.” For this we needed a headline-grabbing global confab?
No one will mistake Pakistan for an industrial juggernaut. How about China, the world’s largest carbon emitter? It promises to reach peak emissions around 2030, when one U.S. government study estimates that it would hit peak admissions anyway, Cass notes. The more China promises to confront climate change, the more it stays the same.
India’s assurance that it will make a roughly 30 percent improvement in carbon intensity is, according to Cass, also about where it was projected to be headed anyway. India still wants to double its output of coal by 2020. As The Guardian put it, India “says coal provides the cheapest energy for rapid industrialization that would lift millions out of poverty.” India would be correct.
The agreement’s celebrants believe that by making countries report their progress on cutting carbon emissions and by sending a stern signal against fossil fuels, Paris will catalyze painful cuts in carbon emissions somewhere off in the future. It speaks to a naive belief in the power of global shame over the sheer economic interest of developing countries in getting rich (and lifting countless millions out of poverty) through exploiting cheap energy — you know, the way Western countries have done for a couple of centuries.
If this is the best hope of the climate alarmists, their global campaign will be a welcome fizzle. All things considered, it probably is best that they occupy themselves with grand meetings and with the exertions attendant to believing their own PR. Otherwise they could do real damage.
EPA Rebuked for Abusing the Law
Fresh off the heels of the Paris climate talks, the Environmental Protection Agency has already made headlines. However, this time it’s not because of failing to protect the environment, but because of failing to obey the law. With the EPA being Barack Obama’s favorite ecological weapon to enforce his agenda, one would think that the all-powerful agency would be a bit more careful in pushing its proposals.
It is worth recounting several of the EPA’s abysmal failures leading up to the newest wrongdoings. First, we previously reported that an EPA employee confessed to downloading more than 7,000 pornographic files to his computer and watching them for two to six hours a day. Not exactly the type of worker taxpayers want to be paying for.
Then recall that back in August the very agency that is supposed to protect the environment was found responsible for breaching a retaining wall during an inspection that led to the spillage of three million gallons of toxic chemicals and waste into the Animas river. Of course, the EPA apologized for the incident, but had someone in the private sector been responsible for the spill, the fines would still be piling up.
Then in October, a federal court ruled that the EPA had to stop encroaching on all of the small waterways nationwide. The EPA’s expanded interpretation of the Clean Water Act was an attempt by the agency to take control of every waterway in the United States. The EPA has no regard for state sovereignty, but in this case the court prevailed and the EPA had to stop its power grab.
Yet despite farmers, landowners, businesses and the courts opposing the overreach in the name of the Clean Water Act, the EPA decided to mount an effort to engage the public on the issue with the end being enough congressional support to pass legislation. Rather than relying solely on the mainstream media to push its proposals the EPA turned to different means — social media.
According to The New York Times, congressional auditors have concluded that “the Environmental Protection Agency engaged in ‘covert propaganda’ and violated federal law when it blitzed social media to urge the public to back an Obama administration rule intended to better protect the nations streams and surface waters.”
That’s right; the Government Accountability Office ruled that the EPA went too far to push its cause. As the Times notes, “Federal laws prohibit agencies from engaging in lobbying and propaganda.” Not surprisingly, an EPA official downplayed the findings by GAO and claimed that the EPA was simply using social media as a tool to stay connected and inform people of its activities. In other words, move along; nothing to see here.
Further, the Times notes, “The E.P.A. rolled out a social media campaign on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and even on more innovative tools such as Thunderclap, to counter opposition to its water rule, which effectively restricts how land near certain surface waters can be used. The agency said the rule would prevent pollution in drinking water sources.”
Moreover, federal agencies are not allowed to engage in propaganda or other covert activity for the sole purpose of influencing the American public. Federal agencies are also not allowed to use federal resources to lobby for the American public to contact Congress to act on legislation that is pending. Yet the Environmental Protection Agency did engage in propaganda and did conduct lobbying according to the GAO report.
Here are the examples cited in the report:
A thunderclap message was used to reach out to 1.8 million people to urge them to support the clean water proposal. The message read, “Clean water is important to me. I support EPA’s efforts to protect it for my health, my family and my community.”
The problem with this message was that the millions of people who read it didn’t know it was being put out by the EPA; hence it is deemed to be covert activity.
In a blog post, one of the public affairs officers named Travis Loop claimed he was a surfer and posted a message stating that he did not “want to get sick from pollution.” In addition there was a link to an advocacy group for clean water and a “take action” button that told the public to “tell Congress to stop interfering with your right to clean water.”
There is definitely some lobbying in that post, but further, there’s the made-up notion that we have a “right” to clean water as enforced by bureaucratic mandate.
The GAO also determined that the EPA violated a federal Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from spending money without authorization.
In other words, taxpayer dollars were used to fund the propaganda and lobbying efforts. So instead of the Environmental Protection Agency, we’re left with the Environmental Propaganda Agency.
If only the three-strikes-and-you’re-out rule could be applied to this agency. But since actual accountability likely won’t happen, maybe, just maybe the GAO report will have done enough damage and exposed the EPA for what it is and the legislation before Congress will receive enough “no” votes to stop this group of unelected bureaucrats from their attempted power grab.
The Great Climate Hoax
Comment from a Danish writer
President Obama attended the climate summit (COP21) in Paris with lukewarm support from the people of his polluting superpower. One in five Americans don’t believe in climate change. In contrast to the almost unanimous opinion of climate researchers around the world, only one in two Americans believe that human activity is the cause of the rise in global temperatures.
One of the skeptics is Wade Linger who introduced his doubt into the school textbooks in West Virginia.
The row over big American cars and sports cars make it evident. Wade Linger (pictured) just wants to give it gas and hit the accelerator on one of his 12 polished show cars without thinking of the environment.
But resistance to the climate debate runs deep in the 58-year-old father of five and owner of a software firm and garage called Wade’s Garage for so-called hotrod cars with lots of horsepower in Fairmont, West Virginia.
He is convinced that the alarming reports of the warming of the climate are part of a great hoax. At the beginning of the year he became well known in the USA as a member of the state’s Board of Education, who was able to change the rules for the state’s school textbooks so that they would cast doubt on the causes of climate change.
In West Virginia, where the coal industry is almost being wiped out due to the strict environmental requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington and stiff competition from other forms of energy, such as natural gas, this is definitely not an unpopular position.
In the run-off of the closures of coal mines and mass layoffs of mining workers, many towns in the coal belt in the southern part of the state are awash in unemployment and social problems. The climate debate and stiff environmental requirements for coal-fired power plants share a large part of the blame.
Therefore, no one was particularly surprised when the West Virginia legislature passed a law that prohibited the direct sales of the electric vehicles in the state because it is done without traditional car dealerships. The preferred vehicle in West Virginia includes the pickup truck, and the speaker of the state Senate, Bill Cole, just happens to own a large automobile business.
Fear of student indoctrination
"If I believed that we were saving the world, I would join forces with the environmental activists. But I don’t think that we have data that supports the scientists’ catastrophic theories about the climate. It may well be that we are destroying entire towns and ruining the lives of thousands of families for nothing," says Linger, who emphasizes that he has neither family nor financial interests in the coal industry.
According to Linger, "all hell broke loose" in December 2014 when he introduced and got the unanimous approval to change statements in the state’s science textbooks. From stating that the temperatures only rise, Linger recommended wording that temperatures have seen "rise and fall" over the past century.
His changes also state that there can be natural reasons for climate change, and that climate change is not just man-made. This triggered a storm of protest. Linger received hateful emails from across the USA and opponents started a petition against the proposed standards.
"My goal was to create balance in education. Instead of becoming indoctrinated, students can now critically analyze all of the data and make their own decisions", he says.
Ironically, there was a blizzard and freezing temperatures when climate activists, or alarmists as he calls them, arrived at the capital of West Virginia, Charleston, to protest Linger’s recommendations and also to discuss drops in temperatures.
The demonstrators were given time to talk at the meeting. One of them compared Linger’s requirements for "balance" with forcing teachers to invite a person who believes that tobacco is good for your health into the classroom for discussions about smoking.
"This is actually a good example. Because we know that it isn’t just tobacco that leads to lung cancer. But they don’t want to talk about the other causes," answers Linger.
Uncertain of the science
In January, the Board of Education in West Virginia voted to bow to the protesters and cancel the changes. But three months later, Linger got his way. With the help of two newly-appointed board members, he managed to get a majority to support a compromise in April. Today in West Virginia textbooks and teachers must respect that there is doubt about why there are changes to the climate. Instead of "rising temperatures", as is stated in the books in the rest of the USA, students in West Virginia are taught that "changes" in the climate occur both up and down.
Linger is far from alone in the USA. A survey from Yale University last year showed that 1/5 of Americans do not believe that climate change is occurring at all. Only 63% believe the predictions of the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists.
Attempts to undermine Obama
Last year, a survey from the Pew Research Center showed that only 50% of respondents believed that emissions are the reason for global warming.
Many Americans have never heard the climate warnings. The debate is low on the list of everyday worries in the USA, and when the topic does appear, it most often occurs in the form of fear that the fight against pollution will lead to taxes on carbon dioxide, and thereby raise the price of fuel and threaten the American lifestyle. The fact that new, American fracking industry has also made the superpower almost entirely self-sufficient in terms of oil and gas also plays a role.
This has made gas prices fall and car sales to rise. Americans are increasingly choosing to forego small and environmentally-friendly vehicles, and instead are buying large SUVs and trucks.
Every year the coal and oil industry uses its assets to lobby against stricter environmental regulations. Republican politicians play an important role as spokespeople for the industry, under the guise of fighting against layoffs and economic crises.
Over 100 Republican members of the House of Representatives, and several dozen senators, are pressing to block Barack Obama’s plan to give billions of dollars to poor countries in the fight against climate change.
USA’S CO2 emissions are dropping
The President wants to give $3 billion to the green climate fund, which, under the UN’s direction will give 100 billion dollars each year to developing countries. According to many observers, this is one of the keys to ensure the success of the summit.
Republican politicians make no secret of the fact that they are prepared to use their power in the coming budget negotiations to prevent the USA from entering into a binding climate agreement.
The majority of Republican presidential candidates recognize that climate change is taking place. But the position is that the USA should not enter into agreements that could damage the American economy, especially if there is doubt about the size of the impact.
New numbers from the American Department of Energy are helping to remove the pressure from politicians. They show that the USA’s CO2 emissions dropped dramatically since 2007 and then flattened out. In 2014, the USA’s share of the world’s combined CO2 emissions dropped to less than 15%, not least due to a sharp reduction in coal-fired power plants. The Earth’s largest CO2 emitter is still China with over 23%.
From ice age to heat wave
Wade Linger emphasizes that he does not want to be a spokesperson for climate deniers. But for a man who claims to have no scientific background, he is remarkably well-equipped with documents that cast doubt on the almost unanimous opinion of global scientists.
During the conversation, just a few meters from his favorite car, a Chevrolet Nomad station wagon from 1957, with a lowered undercarriage and a new 8-cylinder Corvette engine, he passes paper after paper across his desk.
The first includes an interview with the meteorologist Richard Lindzen from the elite engineering school MIT. The 74-year-old professor recalls how the hysteria in the 1970s over a new Ice Age transformed into hysteria about global warming. He compares the proponents of the climate debate to members of a religious cult.
In another document, Don Easterbrook, a geology professor at Western Washington University, maintains that it is a lie that 97 percent of all scientists are in agreement that CO2 is the cause of catastrophic, global warming. He claims that an analysis of their papers show that only 64 of 11,944 scientists believe that CO2 is a threat to the climate.
Others show that inland glaciers started to melt long before we began to release CO2, and that the number of hurricanes has dropped in the past 35 years and that CO2 is good for crops.
Wade Linger does not have any explanation for what he sees as a conspiracy, but says: "my greatest hope is that people will remember, when they finally are forced to admit that this entire thing was a hoax, how adamant they were and how they considered people like me to be crazy. I hope the people will be a little more skeptical when we are presented with the next great political hoax."
Measured or faked climate?
A Finnish professor looks at the hanky panky in a climate record from Australia -- showing how "adjustments" have turned a cooling trend into a warming one. My rough translation from the Finnish below. Finnish is a really pesky language
I wrote earlier today on the Paris climate agreement, and in connection with our neighboring area, changes in climate statistics graphs.
I compared the current GISS statistics in 2011 to previous statistics. And I was shocked. See below the past equivalent comparisons of Alice Springs climate statistics.
By way of background I on April 16, 2012 made a screenshot of Alice Springs temperatures developments, because it differed significantly from months earlier. Which differed from the earlier again (and which does not exist anymore on the GISS website, even though it was still there in March 2012 when I took the screenshot of the then uploads). In April 2012, the statistics showed a climate that cooled dramatically.
The Alice Springs temperature history, however, was once again changed dramatically on 10/22/2014 far as the screenshot shows.
Time changes in the Australian climate statistics do not, however, stop there. From the evidence of the current GISS: Look at the image today. It tells more than a thousand words.
Pay attention to the last, and its differences to previous years. And think about why all the latest measurements have been in need of repair? Originally they seemed quite unbiased.
Compare also the magnitude of the changes throughout the period. Most simply, it is by evaluating the images with minimum temperatures. You will see that in the last hundred years, climate change has accelerated remarkably high between October 2014 and to this day.
This is due to the fact that a hundred years ago temperatures have been shown to have cooled considerably compared to the current high.
After all, have we just been fooled? Surely!
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.
Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here
Posted by JR at 1:31 AM