While the GAO issues a report today saying that the US Historical Climatological Monitoring Network has real tangible problems (as I have been saying for years) the Inspector General just released a report this week saying that EPA rushed their CO2 endangerment finding, skipping annoying steps like doing proper review. The lone man holding up his hand at the EPA saying “wait a minute” was Alan Carlin, who was excoriated for doing so.
From Powerline Blog:
Here’s a refresher: in 2009, when the EPA announced its “endangerment” finding to justify its planned regulation of greenhouse gases under 
the Clean Air Act, Alan Carlin, a 35-year veteran EPA employee who ran the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics, produced a 98-page critique of the climate science the EPA used in its finding. Carlin’s report concluded, “We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by the EPA.”
You can guess what happened next. The Obama Administration, the one supposedly dedicated to transparency and “restoring science” in public policy making, squashed Carlin’s report and told him to cease and desist any further analysis on climate change issues. Carlin’s supervisor (a political appointee) emailed his: “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc.” Shortly after this episode Carlin left EPA. (By the way, Carlin was the chairman of the Los Angeles chapter of the Sierra Club in California at one time, and helped with the Sierra Club’s campaign to stop two dam projects back in the 1960s. In other words, he’s no right-wing ideologue, as the smears of the climate campaigners would have you think.)
This story is relevant again this week not simply for the obvious hypocrisy and double standard (insert the old joke about liberals and double-standards here), but because the issue of the EPA’s climate science has resurfaced in the form of an EPA inspector general’s report that essentially says that Carlin was right about the EPA’s shoddy scientific review. Here’s the New York Times account from Wednesday:
In a report with wide-reaching political implications, U.S. EPA’s inspector general has found that the scientific assessment backing U.S. EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases are dangerous did not go through sufficient peer review for a document of its importance. . .
According to the IG report, EPA failed to follow the Office of Management and Budget’s peer review procedures for a “highly influential scientific assessment,” which is defined as an assessment that could have an impact of more than $500 million in one year and is “novel, controversial, or precedent setting.”
In particular, the document was reviewed by a 12-member panel that included an EPA employee, violating rules on neutrality. EPA also did not make the review results public, as required, or certify whether it complied with internal or OMB requirements.
In a statement, IG Arthur Elkins Jr. emphasized that his office “did not test the validity of the scientific or technical information used to support the endangerment finding.”
“While it may be debatable what impact, if any, this had on EPA’s finding, it is clear that EPA did not follow all required steps for a highly influential scientific assessment,” he said.
Roger Pielke Jr. observes how the climate campaigners are all circling the wagons, saying “move along, nothing to see here,” and noting that “I’d speculate that these observers would have had different reactions had this report been requested by Henry Waxman in 2006 about the last administration’s EPA. . . during the Bush Administration concern about processes to ensure scientific integrity were all the rage. At that time it was generally understood that process matters, not simply because it helps to improve the quality of scientific assessments, but also because it helps to establish their legitimacy in the political process. One sneers at process at some risk.”
More at Powerline Blog
=============================================================
I’m proud to say that Alan used materials from WUWT in his report, and that he has been vindicated for standing up to the sloppy rush job.
Thank you Mr. Carlin, for having integrity where others did not.
UPDATE: Climatologist Pat Michaels sums up the whole affair pretty well at Forbes: The EPA’s Endangerment Finding Is Very Endangered
Phil Clarke, don’t be silly. Your “tropospheric hot spot”, the “fingerprint of global warming” has been falsified by empirical observations.
1978 starts a critical period because that’s when the hockey stick et al start climbing, IIRC.
19 years, 30 years, pick a number. They all have their interesting attribute and show (or suppress) different aspects of climate cycles and change.
May I suggest going back 6,000 years ago when the glaciers retreated far more than they have in the last 1000 years. See http://wermenh.com/climate/6000.html
Smokey – the falsification has been falsified http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/08/underestimate-of-variability-in.html
But glad you agreed with 6 out of 7 of my points, Carlin’s ‘science’ remains utterly unvindicated.
Ric “1978 starts a critical period because that’s when the hockey stick et al start climbing, IIRC.”
Possibly. There certainly seems to have been a step change in the rate of warming mid-seventies. And the end of the decade is when we started receiving satellite data. My point was about Carlin’s selection of an apparently arbitrary interval of 19 years when we now have 30 years of data. Why stop in 1997?
I’ll tell you – over 19 years short term natural variability can mask the long term gradual rise from GHG frcing, and 1997 was a strong La Nina year, thus pulling Carlin’s endpoint down and depressing the overall trend. Mmmm … cherries!
@Phil Clarke
Without conceding any of the other 6 points for now lets just look at number 7. I would submit that using even the US surface station data (“some of the best in the world?”) for determining natural or human climate effects has its limits. These measuring sites were not set up to
obtain climate research data. To do this, global sites would probably best be sited in predominately rural areas (and have at least 120 years of data from the same site, using the same hi-tech instrumentation etc.-none of which is likely). There is much climate research based on the data from traditional sites and I think from Carlin’s point of view it means that the EPA and the IPCC have probably propagated errors because of these data limitations. In other words we do not have all the answers yet and he was concerned that the EPA was rushing to judgement based on extremely tentative work discussed in the IPCC Assessment Reports. You sound very confident that you are correct in each of your responses to Carlin’s 7 points. I am much less so but I am confident that there is a rush by many of the governments in the world “to do something” (at very large cost) in spite of this healthy lack of confidence by many of us who want the scientific community to show us why any of it is so.
Bernie
Philip Clarke says:
October 1, 2011 at 3:18 pm
“These oscillations merely move heat around the system, and cannot account for the long term average warming of the whole surface.”
Deliberate attempt at confusion! The system is more than just the surface. Ocean Heat Content (OHC) is an energy storage parameter of the system, and therefore cannot fail to affect “the long term average warming of the whole surface.”
Unless of course by ” long term” you mean something comparable to the age of the solar system? Nope. You mean just the length of the blade on the Hookey Schtick, don’t you.
@ur momisugly Steve Keohane & @ur momisugly Frank K & & Bernie – no, I am not (but you knew that!). If you want to make politcal points because you disagree with climate science – fine – but THIS issue is about trumped up spin (by Inhofe) in relation to the IG’s report on the EPA.
The FACT is there is NO finding by the IG that the climate science used by the EPA is in any way flawed
As for a debate about the climate science – that’s more properly conducted by scientists who know what they are actually doing – not on blogosphere sites by untrained amatures who call people they disagree with “Trolls” (yes you Mr Watts) . Quite frankly if you do not understand that AGW is real and a problem then you have your head in the sand (it’s a bit like refusing to accept a diagnosis of a serious illness from a doctor because you don’t want to believe it and keep going to visit more and more doctors until finally you get a diagnosis that says you don;t have a problem).
What IS a proper and useful political debate to be had in the public arena is what (if anything) should be done about the problem.
We know CO2 causes warming, we know we are putting excess CO2 into the atmosphere and we know the temperature is rising and the Ocean pH is dropping. We therefore know humans are the cause of AGW, but there are uncertainties about climate sensitivity, feedback and forcing etc and hence how warm it might get and how fast that will happen. Quite frankly that’s why we need good climate science (and healthy debate about those issues that remain uncertain – but we should let those who are QUALIFIED to conduct that debate do so instead of pretending we on the blogosphere know better) so that can inform public policy about our responses and what mixture of abatement/adaptation we should take.
Gee, even if AGW is wrong (I’m willing to bet it isn’t and every single national science body of credibility says the same thing) some of the actions we might take to address it will improve our energy security and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels (which are running out and cause many other health realted problems – in fact use of fossil fuels causes more deaths per KWh of energy produced than any other source by orders of magnitude). On the other hand we have derived many economic and social benefits from the use of fossil fuels so any transition away from them needs to be gradual and carefully managed.
This site and others like it would be better off to focus on these important poltical, social and economic issues instead of trying to debate a science they are not trained to understand and consistently show they do not.
(But, of course, if you think you are smarter than most of the worlds climate scientists – go ahead – but because refusing to accept the real situation impacts us ALL and not just those with their head in the sand – I will continue to advocate for rational debate about sensible courses of action).
Dr Mark Harrigan (phsyicist)
And just how do we determine who all those QUALIFED savants are? Oh, I know, we let the EDF, Greenpeace, FoE, MoveOn.com, WWF and 10-10 tell us who those savants are.
Next step, we ban all Letters to the Editor in all newspapers. Wait, better yet, we let the likes of “Dr Mark Harrigan (phsyicist)” peer review all letters first to determine if the submitter is entitled to use the word “science”.
What better way to ensure a strong and vibrant technology-based civilization than to let the folks with “PhD” after their name determine who can and cannot speak about an issue?
To Dr. Mark Harrigan
Wow I am not sure where to begin. Such a long list of dogmatic statements.
I would hope that the IG would not make a statement on the science. On points of procedure of course. It is disappointing to me that the Supreme Court attempted to make a statement on the science.
I would suggest that if we “unwashed” non-climate scientists cannot properly discuss (or understand) the science then the political discussion is already doomed. It was not I (nor do I think it was Alan Carlin) who suggested that the science is settled. In fact I am just one of the many who wish to slow down this speeding train that is hurtling toward the precipice (EPA, IPCC, others). Until we all can easily understand the science, I would suggest that hastily cobbled together political or economic solutions will gain us very little.
It is encouraging that you don’t wish to shut down the mines and the wells immediately but the following statement :
“in fact use of fossil fuels causes more deaths per KWh of energy produced than any other source by orders of magnitude”
is amazing to me! Where did you get that?
I am all for healthier, safer and more efficient (economic) solutions to ALL our problems. I am also for debate (especially if it is based on good data) but I am not for hastily developed solutions that are crammed down ALL our throats by government bureaucrats.
Bernie
mark harrigan says:
October 1, 2011 at 9:04 am
By the way – as far as I cant tell the link from WUWT to the actual IG statement is broken (curiously?)
Well, maybe you “cant’ tell very far, but as far as I can tell, the link works..
LOL
Oh, and allow me to fix your statement from October 2, 2011 at 12:15 am
We know CO2 causes extremely slight warming, we know we are putting an extremely small amount of excess CO2 into the atmosphere and we know the atmospheric temperature has been both rising and falling and the Ocean pH may be slightly changing. We are not sure that humans are having anything more than an almost immeasurable effect on the climate, but we do know that there are uncertainties about climate sensitivity, feedback and forcing etc and hence how warm or cool it might get and how fast that will happen also remains uncertain.
There, as far as I can tell, that statement is no longer broken.
more LOL
Congratulations to the EPA’s Inspector General, and the crew that produced the report. IG’s are about the only folks inside the beltway that seem to still have any integrity at all. Lord love a duck! Keep up the good work guys, you’re about the only thing standing between the two sides of the next Civil War.
Recall that it was Sen. Obama from Illinois that authored the U.S. senate bill to enable IGs to be fired. That sure comes in handy from time to time.
mark harrigan says:October 2, 2011 at 12:15 am
@ur momisugly Steve Keohane & @ur momisugly Frank K & & Bernie – no, I am not (but you knew that!). If you want to make politcal points because you disagree with climate science – fine – but THIS issue is about trumped up spin (by Inhofe) in relation to the IG’s report on the EPA.
The FACT is there is NO finding by the IG that the climate science used by the EPA is in any way flawed
As for a debate about the climate science – that’s more properly conducted by scientists who know what they are actually doing – not on blogosphere sites by untrained amatures who call people they disagree with “Trolls” (yes you Mr Watts) .
The part of your statement that is bold, shows this issue is political by virtue of the involved parties being political…
I did temperature measurement and control methodology for IC manufacturing that was adopted by NIST as SOP for SemaTech, and can easily recognize garbage science regarding temperatures, like AGW. Humans may have contributed a fraction of the .7°-.8°C rise we’ve seen, with land use change and possibly a CO2 effect being .2°-.3°C, but the remainder is natural variation. There is no evidence of anything unprecedented going on. I’ve been studying paleo-anthropology for fifty years, it has been warmer and colder. We seem to do better when the glaciers recede. Climate science is not settled.
@ur momisugly Steve – great Steve – look forward to you publishing in the near future – but in the meantime it just an uncredentialed unscientific piece of blogospheric claim which has debukned more times in the scientific literature than I care to count.
As for the issue being political. Well – in THIS intance it has been polticised by the false claims of Inhofe
(By the way – I never said that Climate Science is settled – although some parts of it are fairly well established and yet to be overturned)
@ur momisugly John neither this link on WUWT http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e0584e33-d3da-4fba-b95a-e93548105e09 or this one http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=bb6f9c3f-802a-23ad-432c-dc7700b3bf61 would work for me – but as I linked to the actual IG statement it hardly matters.
Given that you feel empowered to make statements about climate science without substantiation I look forward to seeing you published in the relevant literature. Otherwise you are just another unqualified blogger who wishes to deny science (like a quack medical provider to my hypothetical medical patient). Here’s just one paper that clearly concludes WE are the primary cause
Rosenzweig et al (2008). “Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change”
Nature 453, 353-357.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf
in which the abstract says (in part) “these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone.”
Then there’s the royal society (the worlds most pretigious science body) http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
who state
“There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial.”
But apparently you know better????
Perhaps you might might find this simple explanation more within your intellectual grasp
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-were-causing-global-warming-in-single-graphic.html
@ur momisugly Bernie – my claim ““in fact use of fossil fuels causes more deaths per KWh of energy produced than any other source by orders of magnitude” may, indeed, be amazing to you.
Strange though – because an open minded skeptic would have tested such a claim.
Perhaps you have not heard of google which you might use to test such a claim? Try typing “deaths per kwh” and see how many links you get
No matter – I’ll give you one clear link here
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-human-cost-of-energy
You’re welcome 🙂
mark harrigan says:
October 2, 2011 at 3:37 pm
@John neither this…better???
Perhaps you might might find this simple explanation more within your intellectual grasp
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-were-causing-global-warming-in-single-graphic.html
The overall inference of your reply is that only a published PhD may be able to have the “intellectual grasp” necessary to understand the basics of what is happening regarding the “CAGW” discussion. This is insulting to anyone with an IQ capable of understanding the discussion and especially those with an IQ equal to or higher than someone with a degree that you would feel is appropriate to this discussion. However, your statement does make one wonder – since you feel empowered to make statements about climate science, please provide us with a listing of your published work in the relevant literature. According to you, otherwise you would be just another unqualified blogger who wishes to deny science.
Your further inference that “skepticalscience” is for those with, shall we say, a lower “intellectual grasp” is actually an area in which we somewhat agree – that site is designed for the weak-minded who want to be led by agenda driven, deceptive “science”. I have no doubt that you have it bookmarked and refer to it often.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
http://www.petitionproject.org/
I know, that statement isn’t from relevant literature, but one could argue that it has been given a much more thorough peer review than many papers that support the CAGW by CO2 argument.
@ur momisugly John – you’re right – I should not have been so condescending and I apologise for any offence.
It’s just that I found it rather arrogant on your part to feel you could rephrase my statement to “fix it” a little insulting, especially given you have no evidentiary basis for doing so and when my statement as it originally stand is support by every single national science body of credibility (and for which I have offered a peer reviewed paper in its support.
What do you offer? A reference to an unaudited petition?
In relation to skeptical science – they have won one of the most prestigious prizes for science (the Eureka prize) for the way they report on the current science and if you spent any time at the site you might realise they consistently reference published peer reviewed science to support any of their arguments.
The petition project has been debunked more times than I can count but if you wish to persist in believing in myths and denying the science then that is, of course, your choice. But given that you KNOW it is not published science or from a reputable science body I wonder why you choose to believe it? (there is simply no credible basis to suggest it has had anything vaguely resembling peer review)
Scientific American took a random sample of some of signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 they were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climate science community.
The number who have signed it sounds like a lot until you realise it is less 0.3% of the available scientific population in the USA (the vast majority of whom are not qualified in climate science).
So can it really be relied on?
here are just a couple of references pointing out some clear credibility problems with this petition
http://climatesight.org/2009/06/17/ignore-the-petition-project/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
http://www.howtopowertheworld.com/petition-project.shtml
Perhaps more importantly I do not think you can place any reliance on something like that which has NO process of validation and auditing.
On the other hand the relevant national science bodies have boards of governance and memberships (who DO comprise qualified climate scientists).
I have already referenced the Royal Society (and I note you haven’t explained how you know better even though you may well be a highly intelligent fellow? I certainly do NOT know better and wouldn;t presume to be arrogant enough).
Here’s another example from the US National Academy of Science’s report America’s Climate Choices 2011:
“Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. Emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks. In the judgment of this report’s authoring committee, the environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks posed by climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare for adapting to its impacts.”
You are right about another thing too. I am not a climate scientist. On that point I stand guilty as charged. I do have the physics to understand the relevant science when explained but I bow to the superior expertise of actual climate scientists in this matter, the vast majority of whom support that AGW is real and a problem (as per above). Just like I would bow to the superior expertise of a medical professional in relation to my own health
So – what should the intelligent, open minded (but non-qualified and certainly non-expert) person do?
Believe the blogosphere and non-audited projects with a political bent – or accept the published science and the conclusions drawn by those who actually have the training and the knowledge?
Sorry – missed the link to the NAS statement
But here’s a link that shows virtually ALL of them
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
Perhaps an open minded, reflective person might wnat to actually read them and consider their views before rushng to state that they know better
And here’s the direct link to the NAS statement
http://dels.nas.edu/Report/America-Climate-Choices/12781
(my old link was broken)
@Mark
What’s so hard about putting in the link in the first place? I do have another life. Be that as it may thanks.
Sure industrial accidents and health risks are very high in a number of industries and jobs especially those in the third world where safety is often not as much a concern. But I will grant you the fact that in extractive industries, industrial deaths are pretty high everywhere and if we can replace them with more environmentally friendly, safer and healthier methods of energy production I am for that. The graphic footnote brings up a problem with the renewables in that they are young industries and there are extractive supply chains there that have yet to be studied. If photovoltaics were viable now I would be there myself but where I live they are heavily tax supported (state and fed) and the power companies give users “sweetheart” deals on rates (all of these are subsidies). There are also emerging safety and health risks with these new forms of energy production that may change this nice picture in the future. I have a friend trying to get off the grid with his photovoltaic array but night production is very poor. This worldwide study of 1800 cases over 30 years does not seem like a huge fatality impact when compared say to world wide auto accidents (I’ve seen the stats and I’m going to keep driving). Nuclear looks good here doesn’t it except maybe for the accidents and the disasters? And maybe even then.
Health issues concerning air quality problems is another issue. Someday we will completely solve this and I applaud viable methods to do so in all industrial processes.
Bernie
“mark harrigan says:
October 2, 2011 at 6:32 pm”
Well then, mark, what do you think of a CO2 = CAGW “Science” that has failed to get even one relevant prediction correct as compared to the empirical world, which has even showed results oppostite to its predictions, while these facts do not even bother its esteemed “Scientists”, who instead remain content with insisting that everything that happens is “consistent with” CO2 = CAGW – such that, as they actually use their hypothetical statements, these alleged “statements” turn out to make no factual claims whatsoever upon the real world? Even to the point that they have to call their intentionally directed GCM runs “experiments” and their output the real “data”.
mark, not only is ipcc Climate Science not doing real scientific method and principle science, its verbiage relates to the real world only as well as does any other garden variety Apocalyptic claim demanding our repentance in its specified currency “before it’s too late”, as its tribute. Why do you want to support such an enterprise?
Well JPeden,
That’s a bold claim. Can YOU provide a reference to a piece of peer reviewed published science that has made a specific FUTURE claim about a parameter that has been incorrect within the (usual) 95% confidence limits (+/-) 2 standard deviations that are normally used?
But wait! – I can –
apparently the IPCC models GOT IT WRONG on sea ice!
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JC007110.shtml
So you are right! They DID fail to get their prediction right!
But wait – oops they UNDERESTIMATE the actual loss
“IPCC climate models underestimate the decrease of the Arctic sea ice extent. The recent Arctic sea ice decline is also characterized by a rapid thinning and by an increase of sea ice kinematics (velocities and deformation rates), with both processes being coupled through positive feedbacks. In this study we show that IPCC climate models underestimate the observed thinning trend by a factor of almost 4 on average and fail to capture the associated accelerated motion”
Maybe – instead of just recycling tired myths from the blogosphere you might want to look at the actual science.
In any event, a specifc future claim that is wrong hardly invalidates the entire science. As the fllowing letter last year “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science” published in the journal Science says
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full
I(t’s written by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Laureates. I recommend reading the entire letter but here is an excerpt:)
“There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet…
… The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more. ”
Tell me JPeden – how is it that you are right and they are wrong?
Any empirical evidence of any off the above claims? Lot of hot air. Model runs or not experiments. Model outputs are not data. Empirical evidence has shown 13 years of cooling when CO2 levels went up. That’s why Trenberth and Co. are searching for missing heat in the oceans and can’t find the tropospheric heat spot till date, simply because they don’t exist. That’s why Hansen is blaming chinese aerosols for causing a ” pause ” in global warming.
You need to read up what’s happening before wasting time on hyperbole with zero evidence.
@ur momisugly Venter. I do not see how it is possible for any objective person to argue there has been 13 years of cooling when looking at the Global surface temperature data here
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ which shows the evidence (all of which needs to be viewed over decades and it’s 5 year moving averages (at a minimum) which are relevant – not individual years
OR are you saying that is all faked?? And that you know better and have better data because??