By EMILY HOLDEN
08/11/2017 05:32 PM EDT
Updated 08/12/2017 01:01 PM EDT
Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt said his staff will gauge the “accuracy” of a major federal science report that blames human activity for climate change — just days after researchers voiced their fears to The New York Times that the Trump administration would alter or suppress its findings.
“Frankly this report ought to be subjected to peer-reviewed, objective-reviewed methodology and evaluation,” Pruitt told a Texas radio show Thursday. “Science should not be politicized. Science is not something that should be just thrown about to try to dictate policy in Washington, D.C.”
Pruitt, who has expressed doubts about carbon dioxide’s role as a major driver of climate change, also dismissed the discussions in Washington about manmade carbon emissions, calling them “political.”
Scientists called his remarks troubling, especially because the report — part of a broader, congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment — has already undergone “rigorous” peer-review by a 14-person committee at the National Academies. The reviewing scientists backed the report’s conclusion from researchers at 13 federal agencies that humans are causing climate change by putting more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to a clear increase in global temperatures.
Morning Energy newsletter
The source for energy and environment news — weekday mornings, in your inbox.
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
The report’s authors implemented the 132 pages of suggestions from the reviewers, and now the Trump administration has one last opportunity to review the document before publication. Agencies are supposed to sign off by Aug. 18 and send their comments to the authors.
“It’s a much more extensive process than a usual peer review, which does not typically come out as a paperback book,” said Bob Kopp, a lead report author and climate scientist at Rutgers University.
Kopp said he has “no idea” what to expect after hearing Pruitt’s comments. Staffers at EPA had already signed off on an earlier draft.
Eric Davidson, president of the American Geophysical Union, said the report has undergone “a very rigorous peer-review” and is “built on 50-some years of published research, and each of those papers went through its own peer review.”
He added that while fears of Pruitt suppressing the climate report might be more imagined than real right now, he didn’t rule it out.
“Certainly it’s a possibility, and if the administration doesn’t understand that it’s already peer-reviewed, that really is a sign of concern that he may not understand the process,” Davidson said. “If he’s continuing to question why CO2 is a big deal, that’s also very concerning, because CO2 is a big deal. … To see those quotes continue to come out is definitely disconcerting.”
Several climate experts said they welcomed scrutiny of the report, but they also expressed concerns that political biases could color the process.
“The question is will it be reviewed by people who are scientific experts or will it be reviewed by people who have a political agenda?” said Kathy Jacobs, who oversaw the broader National Climate Assessment under the Obama administration and now heads the Center for Climate Adaptation Science and Solutions at the University of Arizona.
“The implication of [Pruitt’s statement] is that it hasn’t been linked to the data,” she said of the report. “That certainly is not true. This is built on a mountain of evidence.”
Even as Pruitt said EPA would review the report for objectivity, he criticized the Times for saying scientists worry that the administration might interfere with its publication.
“The New York Times out there saying they had to release this report because it’s going to be suppressed is just simply legendary,” he said. “It’s just made-up news trying to create a distraction from the real work that’s being done in Washington, D.C.”
His comments Thursday came the same day that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a separate report confirming that 2016 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the records set in each of the two previous years.
This week’s dust-up over the 13-agency climate report is far from the first climate science dispute for Pruitt, who as Oklahoma’s attorney general sued to block a series of major EPA regulations. He drew criticism after announcing in June that he wanted to conduct a “red team, blue team” debate of climate science, a move that his detractors said would put fringe views on the same plane as established, peer-reviewed research.
The EPA chief defended his “red team-blue team” strategy in the radio interview, saying that “this debate, this discussion, I think it’s good and healthy for the country.”
Pruitt told the Texas radio show that his agency would review the 13-agency report “like all other 12 agencies and evaluate the merits and demerits and the methodology and accuracy of the report.”
HT/The GWPF
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
that’s going to leave a mark.
If only for Pruitt and nothing else, it was worth getting Trump as President.
Unfortunately, Trump is single handedly trying to make you eat your words. All he had to do to become one of the greatest presidents ever was to not be a buffoon. Just can’t seem to stop himself.
Give him time. Results always speak louder than words.
So, my friend,which rock have you been hiding under?I the RINO’s did their job instead of”Obstructing”the President,”We the People”would be a lot further down the road than we are at present.I would suggest you talk to YOUR Congress Critter.
Unfortunately, he is a buffoon, full stop. There is no deeper side to Trump. To be honest, his stance on the environment is clear evidence of his buffoon nature.
Only if you believe the billionaires’ media as they push their power grab……
Ever wonder where the term “buffoon” came from? It was Count Buffon, whose opinions might have been dangerous in the time of the French Revolution had he not played the part of a …buffoon….to make them palatable. I look at Trump as playing the same game, only in a different way.
You got a job lot – a fool and the fool’s choices for cabinet.
“the report [ ] has already undergone “rigorous” peer-review by a 14-person committee at the National Academies. The reviewing scientists backed the report’s conclusion from researchers at 13 federal agencies that humans are causing climate change by putting more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to a clear increase in global temperatures.”
But those weren’t proper peers says Pruitt – I’ll show you proper peers!
It will be very interesting to see who Pruitt chooses – if he names them at all.
Post the report here at WUWT. We’ll give it a good crowdsourced shake down.
Why are those skeptical about the alarmist claims of so-called climate scientists excluded from the peer review? Are you suggesting that anyone who holds a dissenting view cannot be considered qualified to be a peer?
“…even if we have to redefine what peer review is…” Sound familiar? Climategate email.
” has already undergone “rigorous” peer-review by a 14-person committee at the National Academies”
Our guys have reviewed the report and found it complies with our ideology, case closed.
A very timely review of a political process which is screwing up science for too long.
Well just about everyone agrees GHGs have a warming effect, however “leading to a clear increase” is a far cry from the usual claims of CO2 being the “dominant” cause or anthropogenic causes causing the “majority” of warming since 1960 , without explaining the similar warming in the early 20th c.
What they are attempting to do here is back-peddle on ridiculous, exaggerated claims that have dominated climatology for the last 30y , while attempting to give the impression that they are not back-peddling and are saying the same thing as always.
Yes, the vaguer the claim, the harder to disprove it.
That language is not vague at all – you’re displaying classic selective perception. The article said we are ‘causing’ a ‘clear increase in temperature’. That is very strong language.
Besides, we can’t be sure it’s not phrasing chosen by the reporter.
Check out the CERN cosmic ray cloud formation experiment, confirming that Cosmic rays do indeed stimulate cloud formation. Very quietly swept under the rug as it lends great credibility to Svensmark’s theory of the Sunspot Cosmic ray cloud formation link climate modifier.
Bad news for the CAGW crowd.
Go, American economy! Here come the jobs!!
Free at last of the chains of the CO2 dragon.
“This one simple thing” usually isn’t as effective as folks think it should be. Think about the consequences of prohibition and the war on drugs. They didn’t create Paradise on Earth and getting rid of them didn’t/won’t do that either.
We aren’t winning yet but perhaps we’re through losing. It’s certainly worth celebrating a bit before we get back to work.
Janice! Is that you in the middle?
If so, you look more adorable than deplorable.
lol 🙂 The one in the middle is how I would ACT, but, sadly, I was out of town when that little video clip was taken.
(yes, john, the one in the middle looks ‘moore’ enthusiastic than the rest)…
Pleading that the research has been subjected to rigorous peer review doesn’t cut it.
Peer review in this case just ensures that the research doesn’t reach any inconvenient conclusions.
Science is a mess and the scientists know it. Claiming the kind of certainty needed for such a consequential effect on public policy is close to fraudulent.
peer..a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.
In other words….someone that thinks they know the same thing you think you know
That’s why this needs specialist review.
The only way to do this is to have a red/blue team debate.
Set up multiple peer review boards and see what they can produce
e.g. as a taxpayer I’d be interested to see what peers setup by Freeman Dyson (funded by US tp) could do in terms of scientific criticism and validation of every program and claim; and then find 1-2 other groups, selected to provide penetrating insights.
I’m tired of hearing CAGW government welfare science and apologists.
Its IPCCish. And has an amazing amount of bad or wrong or misstated information. The attribution section is awful and illogical. See my post Why Models Run Hot for the logical,disproof of its assertion. The executive summary ignores figures in the main text that directly refute executive summary statements. And so on.
rist Baby – post those gems on the WH website for all to see. The more they know the more they can undo.
Did so several days ago. CC to Pruitt.
Attaboy!
You’re the man, Ristvan. That kind of effective targeted action is what is required. Kudos.
“The question is will it be reviewed by people who are scientific experts or will it be reviewed by people who have a political agenda?” said Kathy
Now Kathy, we know it was Already ‘reviewed by people who have a political agenda’, chasing after Fed Grant Money.
Could you provide a link to the location on the WH web site? Thanks
How dare Pruitt doubt the word of the Obama administration, which was always right in every utterance? /sarc
Agree! Agree! You have to agree and not have an opposing view. Go Pruitt!
The ‘peer review’ concept is based on the assumption that the reviewers are knowledgeable.
The fact that they all subscribed to the false idea that CO2 increases cause massive temperature increases shows that they are ignorant of some very basic thermodynamic principles. In other words, they are not knowledgeable.
Mr Pruitt would be well advised to include a few hard-nosed physicists in his review team.
If you want hard nosed types, get engineers on board. Same basic math-physics-chemistry education but none of this peer review crap, all work is reviewed by Gaia and if the old bat doesn’t agree with your conclusions she kills everyone in the building-boat-bridge just to make her point.
‘Climate Science’ is more driven by a marketing mentality than a truly scientific one with a huge and hungry market in the msm for the next sexed up, salatious, pal reviewed, DOOM DOOM DOOM report.
+1
Get engineers on board that are used to working with gases and thermodynamics and enthalpy in gases. Have them fully validate and carry out an in depth ‘third party audit’ on the report. No academics, purely practicing engineers.
M Seward: I love your first paragraph. Too bloomin’ right!
Indeed, engineers are held to the toughest “peer review” of all, either their shit works or it doesn’t, spin does not come into play.
Agreed. Let the engineers try to build something from the science…I bet they can’t!
As I am one, I appreciate the confidence and sentiment – especially – wrt ‘practicing’. Just one word of caution though. I’ve known a few engineers who are quite political and some whose opinions are for sale (e.g. some shady expert witnesses). I would also be wary of engineering academics (“those who can do, those who can’t teach”). OK, that was more than one word. But in general I agree that practicing engineers are usually very adept at spotting BS and poor science.
M Se – Well put!
+97, M Seward. It’s Bigfoot and UFO science.
Add me to the list.
Wayne Delbeke, P. Eng.
As a used-to-be chemical engineer, I always wondered at the overall heat balance numbers. There was a tricky double counting in there somewhere called feedback.
But… a review by engineers would need measurements. Where are the measurements? How much more CO₂ cause how much atmospheric warming or cooling or, heaven forbid, yield the same temperature? About 4% of the added CO₂ is our contribution.
“the assumption that the reviewers are knowledgeable.”
More important than honest.
They probably are knowledgeable. That just gives them more ammunition to back up their preconceived conclusions. The reason the general population has such contempt for experts is that those experts fail time after time after time. It’s the elephant in the room.
Until experts are held accountable for their failed predictions and bad advice, they deserve no respect, no matter how knowledgeable they are.
Also based on the premise they are unbiased but since they all get their funding from the government, there is a huge conflict of interest. Let’s get some science & engineering folks without a horse in the race to reviewing
“they all get their funding from the government”
This isn’t mentioned often enough.
Yes, that works but if the government changes and they see detriment in that, then it’s politics/ideology ruling the roost.
“Until experts are held accountable for their failed predictions and bad advice, they deserve no respect, no matter how knowledgeable they are.”
Do you ever look in on what is actually happening in the Arctic? Just put that single word into search and follow your nose. No failure of prediction there mate – and I for one am grateful that the scientists are there to record and interpret the dramatic changes. If you don’t do that you’re missing out on a fascinating experience.
Well, I put “arctic icefree” in a search, Jack.
“No failure of prediction there mate
Why do I disagree?
Again, “peer review” is held out as the gold standard of scientific truth. Unfortunately the Climate Zealots game that system to advance their political interests. Do you recall this “science”?
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” – Phil Jones
WAHAHAHAHAH!!! How can they say that with a straight face?
This illustrates the psychological damage that alarmism causes. Those who accept the IPCC as the arbiter of climate science are so full of fear that they fail to recognize a controversy even exists. Even more astounding is that this fear blinds them to the obvious bias that results in their fear in the first place.
I believe the IPCC pretty much has it right – if anything their most recent report is conservative and already behind developments. Having a scientific background, the principles of the IPCC analysis are, to me, clearly sound. No personal fear here though – the changes are not happening fast enough to be a danger in my lifetime, given my age and fortunate geographical location.
I do have a feeling of responsibility for the planet and its biota in the future, and I wonder if the guys in this forum ever reflect for a moment that they may be the ones who have the science arse about face – and if they ever reflect on the consequences of inaction if they are in fact wrong.
The mood worldwide is fast moving against the attitudes displayed in this forum, the effects of environmental disorder are beginning to impose themselves on populations. They will not remain quiet.
Jack,
You need to pay more careful attention to the facts, especially since you say you have a scientific background. You should do some due diligence on the claims of the IPCC, specifically the climate sensitivity, which is the root of the entire controversy. Examine the sensitivity in terms of forcing power in and surface power out, rather than forcing power in and temperature out and the deception will emerge from the fog.
While their claim of 0.8C per W/m^2 seems plausible, 4.3 W/m^2 of emissions per W/m^2 of forcing represents the same thing and is an obvious violation of COE considering that 3.3 W/m^2 of ‘feedback’ must arise from only 1 W/m^2 of forcing. If you can’t see how ridiculous this is, I’ll be forced to question your claim of a scientific background, since COE is one of the most basic tenets of first principles physics. Can you see how they perverted a linear metric of gain into a non linear metric of magic? The deception seems to have worked on you and many others.
You should also do some due diligence on ‘feedback’, without which the alarmists don’t have a leg to stand on. This was an error started by Hansen, broken further by Schlesinger and has been canonized since AR1. In effect, they violated all of the preconditions set forth by Bode in order to apply feedback analysis and botched it by such a wide margin ‘climate feedback’ has no relationship to the theory claimed to support it. This specific error is the root of all that’s evil about climate science and the individual responsible, surprise, surprise, is James Hansen who has been widely exposed as an partisan hack masquerading as a scientist who seems more concerned about getting back at the political left for calling him an alarmist lunatic during the Reagan and Bush years then he is about getting the science right.
You might also want to apply some due diligence to the reporting about climate change, where just as the left leaning media has become obsessed with trying to destroy Trump with lies and half truths because his politics differs from theirs, they do the same as they attempt to de-legitimize actual science when the results don’t conform to the IPCC’s political narrative as they hype sloppy, unrepeatable ‘science’ as ‘settled’.
And BTW, the only ‘effects’ of the imaginary environmental disorder is the psychological disorders all the fear mongering imparts on the gullible masses.
The sea levels aren’t rising much it at all, ice is not disappearing and growing in many places, temperature are not rising and have been relative constant during the last 2 decades (notwithstanding El Nino). The only definitive trend is the multi-thousand year cooling since the current interglacial optimum. Note that it’s conventional to call the peak warming of an interglacial period an ‘optimum’ and not a catastrophe. As a consequence of man’s CO2 emissions, the planet is demonstrably greener.
You should also examine what Paris was all about. Fixing the climate was a smoke screen and the only real purpose was to steal money from the developed world as the ‘green climate fund’ and redistribute it to third world despots.
You should also examine the conflict of interest at the IPCC, which requires a substantial effect by man to justify its existence, yet has manoeuvred itself to be the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science by what thy choose to publish in their reports.
There’s just so much wrong with ‘consensus’ climate science as defined by IPCC reports it would be hilarious if the economic consequences of spending trillions to fix a problem that can’t exist weren’t so hash.
Jack..
I used to buy into this alarmism, for twenty years. Then one day I needed to prepare a speech on the subject. After buying several books on the subject, I noted a pattern of omission on the alarmist side, and facts well presented on the cool heads side.
After hundreds of hours of reading, I had to reluctantly conclude that the skeptics were the honest ones. Then came Climategate. Ouch! Blatant lying and manipulation at the highest levels going on, around the world.
Suffice to say that into not share your concerns at all now.
Sailboarder,
It is easy to present a well reasoned linear argument which appears to be compelling. Some of the reasoning on this forum is very much like that – it seems compelling if you are unaware of or choose to ignore the complexity of the situation being examined. In its extreme, ‘CO2 is plant food, it’s good for the planet’. Much of the argument here is in that vein, though not so patently stupid.
Real scientists are aware of the complexity and of the great unknown they are probing. They have respect for chaos.
Jack,
You’re falling back on the same tired old argument that the climate is so complex, mere physics can’t describe it and mere mortals can’t understand it (sounds more like a religious argument…). In fact, when you break the climate down into smaller elements, it becomes very simple. Excess complexity is just a crutch to cover up the fact that the immutable laws of physics defy the consensus at every turn which makes deception, obfuscation and outright lies the primary tool used by the consensus to ignorantly perpetuate the IPCC’s destructive agenda.
The Earth is a simple thermodynamic system with power arriving from the Sun and power emitted by the planet consequential to a surface warmed by stored energy. There are no internal sources of power and natural systems are relatively linear in the energy domain (all Joules are equivalent). There’s certainly chaos exhibited in the transitions between states which we call weather, but weather is not the climate.
Reply to Jack Davis:
Climate is insensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 – the alleged global warming crisis does not exist. We have known this reality for decades, and published this conclusion in 2002.
This disagreement was initially attributed to errors within the warmist camp. The bullying and egregious misconduct by the warmists and later the Climategate emails made it clear that the warmists’ allegations were not just false, but clearly and deliberately fraudulent.
Global warming alarmism is the greatest fraud, in financial terms, in human history.
************************************
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/10/claim-climate-science-does-not-have-to-be-falsifiable/comment-page-1/#comment-2578369
[excerpt]
In fact, the ~35-year global cooling period that commenced in ~1940 adequately falsifies the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant driver of global warming. The CAGW hypo is further falsified by the current ~20-year “Pause” in global temperatures.
That is why the warmists have more recently been falsifying the temperature data records to minimize the ~35-year cooling period and increase their alleged warming during the Pause.
Conclusion:
Since 1940 there has been ~22 years of positive correlation of temperature with CO2, and ~55 years of negative or ~zero correlation. The global warming hypo is contradicted by a full-Earth-scale test since 1940. CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global warming.
Regards, Allan
Allan,
I wouldn’t say that CO2 has no effect on the temperature, just that the effect it does have has been over-stated by at least a factor of 4 which represents the difference between an effect that we should be wary of and an effect that should be embraced as nothing but beneficial.
CO2isnotevil,
I agree CO2 is not evil, just as a car that might run you down is not evil. But the guy behind the wheel of the car might be guilty of being careless or evil. We are behind the wheel of industry, producing CO2, and we’re fast reaching the point where to continue to deny the science is to go past careless and get to evil.
Your climate sensitivity argument is sophistry. There are as many determinations as there are scientists calculating, and the complexity of the global mix of factors makes that completely understandable.
What is clear to any unbiased observer is that planet Earth is retaining more of the solar radiation energy it receives than formerly. The physical manifestations of that retained heat are also now patently obvious to an unbiased observer.
Jack,
My climate sensitivity argument is the furthest thing from sophistry possible, unless you consider the laws of physics, specifically COE and the SB LAW, fallacious. Feel free to suggest other laws of physics that supercede these ones.
As I said before, you and many others have been conditioned to believe that the climate is too complex to quantify with first principles physics. This is completely wrong and anti-science, but the alarmists must resort to this this tactic because the laws of physics are definitely not on their side. But I must say, if the goal was to confuse the public in order to gain support for what the physics precludes, the IPCC and the self serving consensus it crafted around the reports it generates has succeeded in its bombastic mission.
If anyone is guilty of sophistry, its the IPCC whose fallacious arguments are designed to trigger an emotional response, rather than provide a scientific explanation. If you want examples of blatant sophistry, all you need to to is peruse the IPCC AR’s, especially the summaries for policymakers where anything remotely related to real science is woefully misrepresented.
Here’s a simple task for you. The IPCC claims a nominal increase of 0.8C per W/m^2. This increases surface emissions by 4.3 W/m^2. One of these W/m^2 comes from the forcing. Enumerate the laws of physics that explain the origin of other 3.3 W/m^2, keeping in mind that for the surface to emit 4.3 W/m^2 more, it must be receiving 4.3 W/m^2 more, otherwise it will loose energy and cool. If you don’t believe that an 0.8C temperature increases surface emissions by 4.3 W/m^2, explain the physics that supports otherwise.
If you think the 3.3 W/m^2 are the result of massive positive feedback (which is what the consensus believes), explain the physics behind it and why each of the other 240 W/m^2 of forcing from the Sun are not also resulting in 3.3 W/m^2 of ‘feedback’, for if they were, the surface temperature would be close to the boiling point of water. Keep in mind that all Joules are capable of performing the same amount of work, maintaining the planets temperature takes work, the unit of work is the Joule and that one Watt is one Joules per second.
CO2 is not evil:
You are misquoting me. I wrote:
“Climate is insensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2.”
This does not mean that ECS=0, which is a statement of excess precision.
It does means that ECS is so small that increasing atmospheric CO2 poses no threat to humanity or the environment. You say ECS is exaggerated by at least 4 times – yes, at least that much.
Furthermore, there is overwhelming evidence that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans is not dangerously high – it is dangerously low, too low for the continued survival of carbon-based life on Earth.
I have written about the vital issue of “CO2 starvation” since 2009 or earlier, and recently others including Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, have also written on this subject.
As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on Earth, I feel it is my duty to advocate on our behalf. To be clear, I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms, but I really do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. They could be very nice. 🙂
Regards, Allan
My post from 2009:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#comment-79426
Patrick Moore from 2016:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/moore-positive-impact-of-human-co2-emissions.pdf
Executive Summary
This study looks at the positive environmental effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a topic which has been well established in the scientific literature but which is far too often ignored in the current discussions about climate change policy. All life is carbon based and the primary source of this carbon is the CO2 in the global atmosphere. As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth.
This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation. It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments. The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees. Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.
[end of Exec Summary]
Allan,
Yes, I certainly agree that increased atmospheric CO2 offers more benefits than harm to the planet and its biosphere and that CO2 levels have been on a catastrophic long term downward trajectory. Luckily, we’re able to recover some of the lost carbon by burning fossil fuels. As I’ve said many times before, our biggest concern once we run out of fossil fuels will be how to keep atmospheric CO2 levels high enough to keep agriculture from crashing.
I just reel at statements that can lead warmists to claim that something which can be supported by physics is not accepted. It’s important to be precise. They’ll take one misuse of a word to imply much that’s not true, which in this was case was insensitive meaning ‘not sensitive’ which from a language perspective is an absolute.
BTW, the only non carbon based life form we’ll ever need to worry about is silicon based, once computers learn how to reproduce themselves without help from man (this is closer then you might think …).
Hi CO2, and thank you for your comments.
I do not want to debate the meaning of the word “insensitive” – if you prefer, please insert the prefix “relatively”.
I leave the rest to Jann Arden – I became friends with her brother Ritchie years ago when he ran the Arden Diner on 17th Ave SW in Calgary.
Regards, Allan
Insensitive – Jann Arder
+10…my thought as well when reading that bit
Jack Davis
August 14, 2017 at 7:08 pm: Jack, we have been fighting for realistic physics for years, against abusive li@rs. Your veiled threat tells your tale, but we are winning now. So place it where the sun don’t shine. Nor will we ever cease.
You could give us your physical proofs of course. They would be welcome and respected in the manner they are given, or better……..
Brett,
“So place it where the sun don’t shine.”
I have been doing that, right here on this board where light is scarce – but now I’m tired so I’m going to bed.
Nite.
CO2isnotevil – I am a climate skeptic, but I could not disagree more with you on your statement that climate is a “simple” matter of thermodynamics. If it were, the earth’s climate would have been a constant since the formation of the planet and its atmosphere billions of years ago. Obviously, climate has been anything but constant.
You are actually arguing on behalf of the warmists who declare constantly that warming is a simple problem – add CO2, warmer climate. Voila!
Not hardly. Our system is extremely complex and cannot be modeled effectively with any computer model. The interactions between astrophysical processes (not just sunlight, but other forms of solar radiation, as well as other forms of radiation in space that constantly bombard Earth), biological systems (uhh, you do realize that most of the oxygen in our atmosphere was created by living organisms, don’t you?), geochemical systems (sequestration of carbon and other greenhouse gases in rocks, sediments, and seawater), as well as variations in the earth’s tilt and orbit of the sun, etc.
What we know is that CO2 is one of several greenhouse gases, but what we don’t know is whether CO2 is a major contributor to warming, or is more of a lagging indicator of warming. The variations we’ve seen in Earth’s climate are known – how all the elements of the current system interact to cause it to vary are not well understood, theories at best.
Thanks for that Duane. You sound like someone it would be worth engaging in argument at the pub.
Cheers.
Science is not done at the pub. And at the pub things are usually much simplified. Must be the liquids…
Point taken Raines – besides, the bubbles in the beer are contributing.
Allan McRae is getting around to an argument I’ve always made – It’s indisputable that CO2 is a major driver of the greenhouse effect which makes Earth habitable. It is also plain that we are currently pumping far too much of it into the atmosphere and overheating and creating toxic effects. Through our creditable decision across the planet to invest greatly in planetary science, we are well aware of the problem and what has to be done to address it. If we do address it successfully, we’ll come through with a powerful ability to manage the climate to give us an indefinite era of very friendly climatic conditions.
I disagree with you – a lot of good science gets discussed at the pub.
Cheers
“ It’s indisputable that CO2 is a major driver of the greenhouse effect”
No. Rising CO₂; Warming stopped.
“we are currently pumping far too much of it into the atmosphere and creating toxic effects”
No. CO₂ is not toxic. All effects we can see so far are beneficial. The climate models tell sh!t.
“[CO₂] makes Earth habitable”
Yes. At about 150 ppmv all life will go extinct.
“we’ll come through with a powerful ability to manage the climate”
Pure arrogance.
Pruitt makes a mistake in implying that “peer-reviewed” might be objective in the climate science industry. It is effectively broken in this field. This goes back decades, even before peer-reviewd experts like William Gray were cut off from federal funding by Al Gore for not singing from the alarmist hymnsheet.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/18/rip-dr-william-gray-hurricane-forecast-pioneer-climate-skeptic/
Honesty, scientific integrity, peer-review, kid gloves, and the nice-guy approach failed a long time ago in climate science. Pruitt and Trump need to remember that.
I think they have to tiptoe toward that truth. We are the team that is coming from behind. Eyes on the prize is important and we can’t get too “rammy”. Forthright works where there is hard evidence is available or where the AGW story seems obviously false. People still believe in science and fail to understand how corrupted this field has become. that needs to be revealed to them by degrees. I believe by careful review of the bedrock papers of their hypothesis which will result in powerful refutations.
Kathy Jacobs sez: “This is built on a mountain of evidence.”
She’s at least partly right. It’s built on a mountain of something.
Wanting to know who the peer reviewers were, I Googled the following:
14-person committee at the National Academies National Climate Assessment
It took me here: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/overview/overview
When I saw this graphic, Projected Global Temperature Change, I stopped even bothering to look for the peers who supposedly reviewed this piece of schist.
So, I downloaded the images…
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/overview/overview#tab2-images
And then just enlarged the Epic Failure bits to get the Red Team’s QED:
Since 1988, the observations have consistently tracked strong mitigation scenarios, despite a general lack of mitigation.
That darned green pause again.
The ENSO meter has backed from positive to now tracking neutral.
There is still a chance that a La Nina will develop late 2017/early 2018, and if so (depending upon the strength of the La Nina, and/or its persistence) there is the prospect that the pause will once more reappear but will now be more than 20 years in duration.
That would be awkward not simply to a review of this report, but also for the writing of AR6.
Nature may yet have another laugh at our hubris.
That looks remarkably similar to ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ (tm Phil Jones). Once a climate scientist always a climate scientist as it is impossible to regenerate the ethics once they have been sold.
A very annoying lack of X-axis hash marks allows funny cherry picked data point business.
Modeled data preceding initiation year represents tuned (fudged) model parameters, not a rational portrayal of model accuracy.
Alleged data temperature representation for temperatures from 1900-2000 are amazingly heat and cold wave free. Homogenization run amok.
So if you look at a climate scientist from a sufficient distance, he/she looks honest. Why not throw them down a deep, deep hole to work?
Come on now – the very small segment of the graph you are crowing about covers maybe three years and is a minor variability blip on a trend which is obviously accelerating. That’s the oldest error in the book, drawing conclusions from a tiny time segment.
The “very small segment of the graph” is the entire predictive run of the model. The rest of the graph is “modeled historical”…
Learn to read.
You claimed the green ‘observed’ curve is following the path predicted for ‘high mitigation’. It is not, it momentarily has pointed that way, but keep on watching – it will prove to be a momentary blip.
The ‘modelled historical’ is a check on the power of the model. This model seems to be a good one – it has ‘predicted’ the past in close agreement with the observed data.
I suggest that your failure to understand my point indicates you should look to your reading skills.
“is a check on the power of the model” No, it’s not. It actually shows that models are extremely bad. They needed a pseudo scientific numerology called ‘harmonization’ to fool layman that they are good. In fact, extremely idiotic interpolation schemes can do way much better than those expensive delusional computer games. And for your info, there are an infinity of wrong curves that pass through a finite number of points from a data set. The mere fact that a numerology can fit some points is not a proof that the model is powerful, it’s just a proof that people are gullible and fall for the elephant wiggling its tail due of parametrization.
From the article: “Scientists called his [Pruitt’s] remarks troubling,”
No, *some* scientists call his remarks troubling. Other scientists do not.
The alarmists always want us to think they speak for all of science, but they don’t, of course. More appeal to authority. Still no evidence of CAGW.
Maybe they’ve fired their copy editors, like the NY Times.
Or maybe the job of their copy editors is to remove qualifiers like “some.”
From the article: ““The implication of [Pruitt’s statement] is that it hasn’t been linked to the data,” she said of the report. “That certainly is not true. This is built on a mountain of evidence.”
If that’s the case, then explain why human-produced CO2 is increasing while the temperatures are not increasing. According to your “mountain of evidence” CO2 and temperatures are supposed to rise together. But they are not doing that. Please throw us a scap of evidence from your mountain.
What the CAGW narrative is really built on is a mountain of speculation. No evidence in sight.
…. and that’s being charitable. It’s built on a steaming mountain of excrement.
“The reviewing scientists backed the report’s conclusion from researchers at 13 federal agencies that humans are causing climate change by putting more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to a clear increase in global temperatures”
With the assumption but without the empirical evidence that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels can be attributed to fossil fuel emissions.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997420
chaamjamal,
It’s not that there’s no evidence that fossil fuel emissions contribute to atmospheric Co2 and most skeptics accept this without question. The evidence that’s missing is any physical support for the absurdly high climate sensitivity they claim and which exaggerates the effect incremental CO2 has on the surface temperature by nearly a factor of 4.
of course you’re right. It’s shocking that climate journalists and copy editors don’t spot this “conclusion” as a diversion and strawman.
I may misunderstand Chaamjamal’s point but I have wondered if at least some of the rising CO2 levels are due to outgassing from the oceans as I believe this is the cause of the historical relationship whereby rising temps preceded CO2 increases. I suppose if this is the case then we should be looking for an 800 year lag which doesn’t exist as far as i know, but it seems climate science only seeks what it wants to find.
John,
The more logical reason for the lag is biology since outgassing is more or less concurrent with any temperature rise.
The lag on warming occurs as it takes centuries for new forests to arise in land that was previously covered by ice. Until man started emitting CO2 in significant quantities, the steady state atmospheric CO2 concentration was a proxy for the total amount of global biomass. More plants means both more CO2 is required and more is being generated by decomposition. Biology is more or less CO2 limited and it also takes a while for it to sequester enough natural sources of CO2 into the biological carbon cycle and this also contributes to the delay.
On the falling side, ice accumulates slowly, gradually decreasing the tree line until is drops to zero. Again, it takes centuries for advancing ice to swallow a forest.
About the lag. The 800 year lag is from Vostok, but newer cores with better temporal resolution, like DomeC show lags of only 2-3 centuries.
Apologies, Chaamjamal.
I should have taken the time to digest your interesting paper before commenting. I will find time to do so.
From the article: “His comments Thursday came the same day that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a separate report confirming that 2016 was the warmest year on record, surpassing the records set in each of the two previous years.”
Records were not set in the two previous years before 2016 according to the satellite charts. 2014 and 2015 were way below 1998, and 2016 was only one-tenth of a degree hotter than 1998.
The alarmists wanted to pretend that 2014 was the “hottest year evah!”, and then that 2015 was even hotter than that, and that 2016 was even hotter than that. That way they could say “hotter and hotter” over and over again as part of their CAGW mantra.
But, they couldn’t do that using the satellite charts because they don’t show that fiction, they show reality, so NOAA and NASA charlatans decided to bastardize the surface temperature charts to make things look like they are getting hotter and hotter, as a means of promoting the CAGW fairy tale and money-making machine.
As you can see in the satellite chart below, 2014 and 2015 and every year back to 1998, were “also-rans”. They didn’t come close to being the “hottest year evah!” NOAA and NASA charlatans are lying to us and a lot of people have been duped by their machinations.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2017_v6.jpg
It means that global average temperature is a fiction. A made up number created either out of a deficient and adjustable collection of other made up numbers or cut from whole cloth via anomalies and other machinations. It is what the boogey man wears!
Your questions would be appropriate if the “measured” liner average of average of average temperatures actually had some relation to the Earth’s energy balance. Unfortunately, as radiative energy balance has to do with T^4, that is not the case. Sorry.
GISS openly acknowledge that that is indeed the case.
There you have it direct from the horse’s mouth. To para phrase, it is a guess and then they run the model long enough but not too long, so they get the made up answer they want.
See: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html
As far as I know, the margins of error preclude the possibility of the pause being broken ‘significantly’. Which means no breach of cause, no record global annual Ts lately in actual fact.
In spite of the current drone.
John Harmsworth has given you the flippant answer, I’ll put my serious surmise, and put it up for shooting down as it is not really my field:
My guess is that the relatively random fluctuations are produced by the chaotic dynamics of what we call the troposphere. We are measuring atmospheric temperature but the atmosphere is in constant thermal exchange with the oceans, and the oceans are in a chaotic churning which some years sees an upchurn of relatively warm water (la Niña? ) and other years of cool water (el Niño?). Those extremes and all possible points between could explain a lot of the variation, and there would be many other sources of variation such as different extent of sea ice from year to year – possibly feedback from the ocean upswelling and possibly drivers of it.
In short, it’s a chaotic system which means jagged curves are to be expected.
“What is it that the satellites are measuring and then turning into temperatures?”
I agree that’s a good question Forrest, and admit I don’t know either.
Looking at that graph, the huge spike just before Al Gore lost to GWB was maybe happily posed to present Al with a new hobby to distract him from the disappointment of political defeat.
Maybe we can forgive him some of the more extreme predictions in his first film – if he was watching closely, that spike really would have been alarming.
RE the “spiky up-and-down” nature of global temperature:
The oceans are the primary driver for global temperatures – the Nino3.4 temperature is an excellent predictor of tropical temperature three months in the future, and global temperature four months in the future. Nino3.4 and the Aerosol Optical Depth volcano Index are the two most important leading parameters, followed by the AMO. CO2 apparently has negligible impact. Longer term, the integral of solar activity is probably the primary driver.
Kindly read the following – intelligent critiques are welcomed, PROVIDED THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A SCIENTIFIC BASIS AND ARE COHERENT WITH THE DATA.
Regards, Allan
Post script:
Incidentally, CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, from ~~300 to 800 years in the ice core record to ~9 months in the modern data record, on a shorter time cycle (dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature, and its integral atmospheric CO2 lags by about 9 months). If climate sensitivity to CO2 (“ ECS”) was significant, CO2 would not lag temperature at all measured time scales and this close relationship would not be apparent in the data record:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
My original paper on this subject was published on icecap.us in 2002, and is finally gaining some traction.
“Temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.”
Post post script:
This “non-linear, chaotic, blah blah” climate system gives us obvious clues as to how it works, IF one cares to actually look at the data rather than obsess on false climate models.
___________________________
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/16/october-2016-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-update/comment-page-1/#comment-2342825
NOT A WHOLE LOTTA GLOBAL WARMING GOIN’ ON!
[excerpt}
Bill Illis has created a temperature model that actually works in the short-term (multi-decades). It shows global temperatures correlate primarily with NIno3.4 area temperatures – an area of the Pacific Ocean that is about 1% of global surface area. There are only four input parameters, with Nino3.4 being the most influential. CO2 has almost no influence. So what drives the Nino3.4 temperatures? Short term, the ENSO. Longer term, probably the integral of solar activity – see Dan Pangburn’s work.
Bill’s post is here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/23/lewandowsky-and-cook-deniers-cannot-provide-a-coherent-alternate-worldview/comment-page-1/#comment-2306066
Bill’s equation is:
Tropics Troposphere Temp = 0.288 * Nino 3.4 Index (of 3 months previous) + 0.499 * AMO Index + -3.22 * Aerosol Optical Depth volcano Index + 0.07 Constant + 0.4395*Ln(CO2) – 2.59 CO2 constant
Bill’s graph is here – since 1958, not a whole lotta global warming goin’ on!
My simpler equation using only the Nino3.4 Index Anomaly is:
UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC, ~four months later) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom + 0.15
Data: Nino3.4IndexAnom is at: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices
It shows that much or all of the apparent warming since ~1982 is a natural recovery from the cooling impact of two major volcanoes – El Chichon and Pinatubo.
Here is the plot of my equation:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1106756229401938&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
I agree with Bill’s conclusion that
THE IMPACT OF INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS SO CLOSE TO ZERO AS TO BE MATERIALLY INSIGNIFICANT.
Regards, Allan
Hello Forrest.
First, my post seems to have lost all its vertical spacing – sorry about that. Also, the plots were not displayed, just referenced.
In answer to your question, here is the plot by BIll Illis that shows the “spikiness” of the tropical temperature, which tracks and lags Nino3,4 temperature by ~3 months.
My simpler model, which has the same pattern, shows global temperature tracking and lagging Nino3,4 temperature by ~4 months. The cooling impact of major volcanoes in 1982 and 1991 is apparent.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1106756229401938&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
The mechanism is that increasing Nino3,4 temperature increases tropical atmospheric water vapour, the PRIMARY greenhouse gas, and the tropics warm, and the rest of the Earth warms ~one month later. ENSO variability drives Nino3,4 temperatures. Longer term, the integral of solar activity is probably the primary driver of global temperature..
Then there is incontrovertible observation that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, from ~~300 to 800 years in the ice core record to ~9 months in the modern data record, on a shorter time scale. This suggest, like other evidence, that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is very small, and global warming alarmism is nonsense.
In the modern data record, the velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature, and its integral atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months. Other drivers of atmospheric CO2 include fossil fuel combustion, land use changes, etc.
If climate sensitivity to CO2 (“ ECS”) was significant, CO2 would not lag temperature at all measured time scales and this close relationship would not be apparent in the data record. I wrote the original paper on this observation in January 2008 and it is finally getting some attention. See the reference in my above post.
Not all that complicated, is it, for a “non-linear, chaotic, blah blah blah” climate system?
The complicated climate computer models used by the alarmist IPCC fail to model the aforementioned real observations, and assume that CO2 is THE major driver of global climate – this assumption is false and the models produce nonsense – there is no real global warming crisis.
Regards, Allan
ECS does not exist.
Oldberg commits a fallacy: ” ECS does not exist. ”
…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
From the article: “Pruitt told the Texas radio show that his agency would review the 13-agency report “like all other 12 agencies and evaluate the merits and demerits and the methodology and accuracy of the report.”
WUWT will be doing the same thing.
I think Pruitt should have a report on the details of the egregious adjustment process that Hansen’s GISS had on pushing down the 1930s temperatures. As late as 2007, US dust bowl temperatures were still the highest despite adjustments already made! In that year, they deducted over 1.5 C. The rationale when 1998 didn’t break the record was that this is as only the US and it represented only 3%of the globe. Here is how it used to look:
As it turns out, the 1930s were the hottest in widely scattered locales globally, too, powerful corroboration for the verity of the unadjusted US longterm record. Here is Cape Town S. Africa in the southern hemisphere:
The same pattern is to be found in Canada, Greenland, Siberia and Paraguay, etc. (You can check it out, the mod doesn’t like multiple links)
Ps. The Capetown chart records points each separated by a decade so it the swings are exaggerated
Gary, or anyone else – was much known about El nino years back in the 1930s?
Gary – do you have sources for these graphs, i.e. are they taken from some publicly available document? If so, would you let us have them.
The US chart comes from Paul Homewood’s UK blog Notalotofpeopleknowthat
The Capetown S Africa from WUWT.
They’re OK to take. Meanwhile, there are also almost the same looking graphs for Nuuk Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia, Asuncion (Paraguay) , etc. It would make a great post and would influence the “debate” under Scott Pruitt.
They mutually corroborate the case for a real world warmest period in the 1930s and 40s as yet unsurpassed. The adjusters take advantage of some data discontinuities, time of observation variations and a station move or two in order to get their hands on the data to corrupt it. It perhaps may be legitimate to make some changes, but the evidence from corroboration is that their changes are far to great. The raw data tells that recordings were reasonably good for most of the records of these locales.
Some support in raw & official data re Australia’s 2 largest cities (which also have the longest T records).
An Australian map like the one you show for Cape Town is difficult, because it uses gridded data and I don’t have the programs to mimic the gridded averages.
The main point is that this hot day analysis does not support the simplest of global warming theory.
Geoff.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/century_days_sydmelb.jpg
I always wanted to know how much co2 was in the test tubes that illustrated that co2 causes warming and the whole of this scam was based on.
Richard,
It is easy to get abused when you mention how much.
Clearly, any atmospheric heating would not work measurably if there were only a few molecules of CO2 in the air. As you increase the CO2 concentration, you reach a point where there is enough CO2 to produce a measurable response. It is like doing colorimetry on solutions that are too dilute, too clear, to move the needle on the colorimeter.
Nobody, in all the papers I have read, has calculated this minimum. It is typically couched in dimensionless units like ratios, doublings etc. which is a way around a problem. I would be delighted to read of this threshhold before action. Can anyone help?
Geoff.
“As you increase the CO2 concentration, you reach a point where there is enough CO2 to produce a measurable response. It is like doing colorimetry on solutions that are too dilute, too clear, to move the needle on the colorimeter.
Nobody, in all the papers I have read, has calculated this minimum. It is typically couched in dimensionless units like ratios, doublings etc. which is a way around a problem. I would be delighted to read of this threshhold before action. Can anyone help?”
Good question, Geoff. And that there is no answer to your question currently, just shows that climate science is not quite ready for “prime time”. Lots of unanswered, basic questions still outstanding.
Does this report include any positives such as a greening planet, more food, less starvation, fewer deaths from cold, in other words a better planet.
Something else I have never seen is an global map of where these temperature increases will occur. It is pretty far stretched to claim one temperature graph will cover each and every square inch of the planet. There have to be gradients of heat, rainfall, increased greening, etc. You can’t just claim that any warming is bad, that is not science. It is the same as saying any temperature rebound from the LIA is disastrous. There must be assessments of geography and benefits to life also.
A National Climate Assessment has to look at more than just CO2 and temperature changes. It must also assess climate changes in different areas of the globe. Without this, I would simply return it and say “you’re not done”!
Jim Gorman, you generally won’t see local maps of where global-warming is going to have its alleged most serious effects. This is because the regional predictions of climate models are even worse than their global predictions.
The most famous ‘local’ prediction of global-warming theory was in fact in the upper troposphere in the tropics. The so called “tropospheric hot-spot”. All the models agreed. Yet all the models got it badly wrong. So they just don’t talk about it anymore. Big fail. But this was the sort of self-test that a few real scientists in the field set themselves.
The models fail the biggest tests of skill, so the proponents go constantly searching, searching for minor successes that will occur happen-stance every now and again by virtue of pure statistical luck, but might make a good press headline. It is not science. It does not even approach the art of fishing.
Thanks for the response. Pruitt needs to point this out to the press. What good is a National Climate Assessment if you can’t even give accurate predictions for the U.S., let alone the NH 10, 50, 100 years from now? All these crying scientists need to be put on the fire. They are the experts, they should damn well give us good assessments, or be told we will find someone who will!
The theory is a top down effect.
This requires the atmosphere to warm before the surface and to a greater extent.
” … has already undergone “rigorous” peer-review …”
The ‘consensus’ claims that 1 W/m2 of forcing can be amplified into the 4.3 W/m2 required to replenish the increased surface emissions arising from a surface temperature 0.8C higher than the current average of 288K. This is ridiculous considering that 240 W/m2 of total solar forcing results in only 390 W/m2 of radiant emissions from the surface where each W/m2 of forcing results in only 1.6 W/m2 of surface emissions. All Joules are equivalent, thus all W/m2, including the last one, results in the same 1.6 W/m2 of surface emissions, so the idea that the next one would result in 4.3 W/m2 is absurd beyond belief. Such a result could ONLY arise by violating COE and/or the SB Law, both of which are immutable physical laws.
This represents such an obviously fatal error in consensus climate science that either the claimed sensitivity was never subject to peer review or the veracity of climate science peer review is nil, either one of which deprecates the entire body of ‘consensus’ climate science research and publishing.
Pruitt clearly understands this and that a scientifically robust peer review of the IPCC’s supporting science is an absolute necessity.
I agree. This should and can be a loose thread that needs to be pulled. As parts and pieces of this interconnected work of fiction begin to unravel the world will start to see that there is no truth in it. Whether in the parts or the whole.
John,
It’s more than just a loose thread and more accurately characterized as a rotten foundation.
I accept your correction and add that the forcing supposedly increases temperature but, that temperature increase somehow does not increase heat rejection. More defiance of physics.
I sense a concerted effort at consensus science again..
New software from Tony Heller-
“Getting Started With UNHIDING THE DECLINE”
Wait a minute! So your manipulated data model agrees with the manipulated data you input and it was peered reviewed.So why are you afraid of another review?
They formulated the ‘answer first…