From a press release:
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (June 7, 2018)
The Heartland Institute today shipped copies of the Climate Change Reconsidered series of reports to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. An accompanying letter from Heartland Institute President Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D., advises Pruitt to use the 3,000-plus page report containing some 10,000 footnotes to comply with a federal court order to provide “documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change.”
Beryl Howell, chief judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ordered EPA on June 1 to back up a statement Pruitt made in a CNBC interview shortly after taking office that “carbon dioxide created by human activity is not the primary driver of global climate change.” She was enforcing a Freedom of Information Act request a group called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed the day after that television interview.
“We have no doubt that PEER, with the assistance of the judge, is trying to box you in and embarrass you,” Dr. Huelskamp wrote Pruitt. “After all, you were only on the job for a few days and you could not possibly have reviewed all the documents EPA possessed before your confirmation – which would all toe the unscientific, alarmist dogma that marked the Obama years. Fortunately, you do not have to look far to find ‘documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change.’”
The Heartland Institute several years ago submitted the Climate Change Reconsidered series to the agency, including digital versions when EPA has called for comments on rulemaking. Climate Change Reconsidered is a years-long scholarship project by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), led by prominent climate scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer. The Heartland Institute publishes and distributes NIPCC’s work.
“In the event an Obama-era ideologue at EPA disposed of or destroyed those volumes, we have enclosed them in this package for your use in answering Judge Howell’s order,” Dr. Huelskamp wrote. “In fact, the Climate Change Reconsidered series stands on its own as the work of a ‘Red Team’ that has been working to critique and correct the work of the ideological alarmists on the ‘Blue Team’ for more than a decade.”
The Heartland letter contains a list of hardly exhaustive examples from the peer-reviewed literature to bolster Pruitt’s point, including:
- empirical data on past temperatures contradicting the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate. (Climate Change Reconsidered, 2009)
- research by a growing number of scientists who say variations in solar activity, not greenhouse gases, are the true driver of climate change. (Climate Change Reconsidered, 2009
- research published in peer-reviewed science journals indicating the model-derived temperature sensitivity of Earth accepted by the IPCC is too large. (Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, 2013)
- proof that four specific forecasts made by global climate models have been falsified by real-world data from a wide variety of sources and that there has been no significant global warming for some 20 years. (Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, 2015)
You can read the whole letter below, or in PDF form on Heartland’s website.
For more comments or to book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at firstname.lastname@example.org and 312/377-4000 or (cell) 312/731-9364.
June 7, 2018
Administrator Scott Pruitt
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Administrator 1101A
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Administrator Pruitt,
We understand that on June 1 Beryl Howell, chief judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to back up a claim you articulated in a CNBC interview shortly after taking office. In that interview you stated human emissions of carbon dioxide are not “a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”
The day after that interview, a group called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request demanding “EPA documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change.”
We have no doubt that PEER, with the assistance of the judge, is trying to box you in and embarrass you. After all, you were only on the job for a few days and you could not possibly have reviewed all the documents EPA possessed before your confirmation – which would all toe the unscientific, alarmist dogma that marked the Obama years. Fortunately, you do not have to look far to find “documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change.”
The Heartland Institute several years ago submitted the Climate Change Reconsidered series to the agency – four massive volumes and two smaller reports amounting to more than 3,000 pages from the peer-reviewed literature showing how humans are not causing catastrophic global warming. This years-long work of scholarship by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) – led by Dr. S. Fred Singer, one of the most-prominent and important climate scientists in the world – serves as a needed check on the politicized reports regularly put out by American and multi-national government bureaus. The Chinese Academy of Sciences thought so highly of NIPCC’s work that it translated and published an edition in Mandarin.
Heartland has submitted these volumes in digital form during EPA comment periods in the past, and we are certain physical copies were also sent to the agency.
In the event an Obama-era ideologue at EPA disposed of or destroyed those volumes, we have enclosed them in this package for your use in answering Judge Howell’s order. In these volumes you will find scientific evidence that:
- demonstrates the limitations of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) attempt to forecast future climate conditions by using computer climate models. (Climate Change Reconsidered, 2009)
- reviews empirical data on past temperatures and finds no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate. (Climate Change Reconsidered, 2009)
- summarizes the research of a growing number of scientists who say variations in solar activity, not greenhouse gases, are the true driver of climate change. (Climate Change Reconsidered, 2009)
- challenges the IPCC’s claim that CO2-induced global warming is harmful to human health. (Climate Change Reconsidered, 2009)
- shows research published in peer-reviewed science journals indicates the model-derived temperature sensitivity of Earth accepted by the IPCC is too large. (Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, 2013)
- explains how the sun may have contributed as much as 66% of the observed twentieth century warming, and perhaps more. (Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, 2013)
- illustrates how there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of storms of any kind in the modern era. (Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, 2013)
- outlines the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere to all life on earth. (Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, 2014)
- the findings of hundreds of peer-reviewed research analyses suggest a much better future is in store for Earth’s aquatic life. (Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, 2014)
- warmer temperatures lead to a decrease in temperature-related mortality, including deaths associated with cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and strokes. (Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, 2014)
- articles and surveys most commonly cited as showing support for a “97% scientific consensus” in favor of the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis are without exception methodologically flawed and often deliberately misleading. (Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, 2015)
- four specific forecasts made by global climate models have been falsified by real-world data from a wide variety of sources. In particular, there has been no global warming for some 20 years. (Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, 2015)
- melting of Arctic sea ice and polar icecaps is not occurring at “unnatural” rates and does not constitute evidence of a human impact on the climate. (Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, 2015)
- the best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. (Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, 2015)
In fact, the Climate Change Reconsidered series stands on its own as the work of a “Red Team” that has been working to critique and correct the work of the ideological alarmists on the “Blue Team” for more than a decade. Feel free to cite this material, which contains more than 10,000 footnotes, in your response to the judge or in any other public setting.
At your service in this matter,
The Honorable Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D.
The Heartland Institute
The green blob will respond with both an Ad hominem and Appeal to Authority, and consider the controversy settled.
And the green bloggers have already declared the NIPCC debunked …. except they can’t bring themselves to say how.
In their “minds”, just declaring, “you’re wrong” is enough to debunk something they disagree with.
That is a long-standing tradition – just tossing off the word ‘debunked’, and then simply moving on.
I had a friend tell me that Anthony had been “debunked” as the reason for his refusal to read any articles from WUWT. He went out of his way to ignore my response that “people are not debunked, ideas are debunked”. Alarmists are the equivalent of a little kid sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting “Lalalalalalalalalalalala – I can’t hear a word you’re saying”.
Yeah, here’s what they’ll do:
* Compare CO2 to tobacco smoke, and compare burning fossil fuel to smoking,
* associate the Heartland Institute with big tobacco, comparing big tobacco to big oil, of course,
* thus, discrediting the Heartland Institute as a good-ol’-boy cult of tobacco-smoking, oil-burning, hetero-traditional, biologically-born males of advanced age,
And there you have it — DEBUNKED. Never mind the facts.
You forgot the sexual assault the great great grandfather of an unnamed ancestor of one of the authors was once accused of by a CURRENT member of the ‘ME TOO’ movement. That alone is enough to discredit EVERYONE!
Good move! The alarmists’ attempts to use the courts and the machinery of the legal system to shut down dissent and intimidate people brave enough to speak out against fraud should be derailed at every opportunity.
Surely it is just a case of asking for transparent science. If Pruitt is so keen on the EPA only using “transparent” science then he should practice what he preaches and clearly specific what peer reviewed science he used to come to his conclusions.
If I get 5 people to review my paper on how unicorns are growing in numbers, then how do you refute my peer review 🙂
This has nothing to do with peer review. The judge has asked the EPA to produce the documents that Pruitt relied upon when making his comments about whether or not CO2 is a driver of climate.
You were the one that asked for peer review, Percy, and the FOI request asked for the EPA documents that support Pruitt’s case.
I think you will find that the references that Huelskamp refers to are peer-reviewed papers and the document submitted by the Heartland Institute was in the possession of the EPA at the material time.
Whether or not Pruitt had actually read it when he was interviewed seems academic. The evidence that PEER demanded existed in the Agency.
The only empirical evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 has had any effect on the planet is that according to NASA, the planet has greened by 14% in ~35 years.
So what evidence can be presented to demonstrate that man made CO2 is causing climate change, assuming you agree that empirical science is always more desirable than computer generated projections and laboratory experiments.
In other words, the onus of proof falls on alarmists who have made fantastic claims about man made CO2 with no evidence whatsoever.
There’s plenty of evidence, but skeptics have a habit of rejecting it, then looking for reasons why to reject it.
I’ve seen people write posts after reading an AGW article saying, “It all seems to make sense, but it MUST be wrong,” then someone will supply justifications,” like the data were faked or the statistics are faulty, and the first person will blindly say, “Oh, I knew there must be something wrong.”
No, the onus is on skeptics to come up with something that explains the patterns better. You’ve had 50 years and all you have is a bunch of different ideas, none of which work, while the vast majority of climate scientists believe there is substantial evidence from many fields of science that support the theory of AGW.
“No evidence whatsoever”? None, huh? It’s all a hoax, all the melting and warming and bleaching and changes in phenology and species moving north, and permafrost defrosting? What evidence are you looking for? What evidence would ever satisfy you? “Oh, it’s just natural variation, and all that extra CO2 in the atmosphere is doing nothing despite 150 years of theory that it should” – is that your line? Or is it, “The data are fake”? “Politics determines the scientific outcome”? “All of the above,” just to be safe?
The never-ending vitriolic rhetoric and crazy assertions about groups of people combined with the pervasive scientific bias that is nurtured around here lends nothing to skeptic credibility. A perfect example: of all the trends that NASA data has found, the only one you believe is that the world is greening? Does that not strike you as problematic?
I’m not trying to convince you of CAGW. I don’t really care what you think about policy. I care about the fact that the profession of science is being undermined by the wrongful attacks on it by skeptics. It has been undermined indirectly by assertions of alarmists, too: Al Gore, the liberal media, Hillary, Greenpeace…I despise them all for what they’ve done. It’s not science, it’s political partisanship, and too many skeptics play right along.
Another pretender claiming that those who question gross assumptions and ridiculous conclusions of alarmists must prove the opposite of the alarmist claims…
Those putting forth their claims, proposals, theories have the burden of proving their assertions.
Thirty years of utterly failed CAGW alarmist predictions and their ever changing assortments of innumerable computer model runs, prove that alarmist assumptions and predictions are without merit; scientific or practical.
Mankind’s miniscule CO₂ allegedly causing “global warming”? Busted!
Which, is why CAGW religion advocates keep changing CO₂ effect terms in order to keep moving goal posts to hide their decades of failures.
“A perfect example: of all the trends that NASA data has found, the only one you believe is that the world is greening? Does that not strike you as problematic?”
Not to me. There is clear evidence for the planet greening.
There is no clear evidence that the Earth’s atmosphere is being controlled by the amount of CO2 it contains.
… PRIMARY driver of climate….
(seems I’m always asking the question “Are they intentionally trying to mislead, or are they just incompetent. which is it with you?)
Yes I am not sure peer review is any indication of anything there has been too many cases of obvious pal review, just review the empirical data and arguments around it. In the current political world enviroment nothing is going to happen fast anyhow and climate science needs to get itself out from the politics. If you like Climate Science needs to act like a Nuclear Protection Agency and scientists with extreme anti-nuclear stances are not allowed to control it, because like it or not we are going to be living in a nuclear age for years to come. It’s called getting a dose of world reality which Climate Science is sorely in need of.
Which alarmist declared in the ClimageGate e-mails that they would keep contrarian papers out of the journals, even if they had to change the definition of peer review.
They were keeping poor science out of journals that had improprieties with the peer review process. It’s all well-documented, but apparently you didn’t know about it, and that suggests there could be a lot you don’t know about the climategate emails. That’s what happens when you take things out of context and see things as you want to see them, turning a blind eye to any different interpretation.
A specious claim and an irresponsible dependence upon “argument from authority”; i.e. “Argumentum Ad Verecundiam”
Other emails from these miscreants describe hounding editors and forcing them to retire or be fired… Actions that have been evident over recent years with intolerance shown towards Pielke, Judith Curry, Bjorn Lomborg and many others.
Vindictive mendacious actions reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition and Hitler’s brownshirts.
Atrocious behaviour, even for immature delinquents.
I love it when trolls try to change the subject. Especially when they are this bad at it.
Exactly which regulations are based on Pruitt’s interview comment?
Mark W. Always calls people trolls when he has nothing to offer. Which is why he calls people trolls a lot
Trolls hate it when the truth comes out.
4 times. Still not a record though.
Undoubtedly PEER’s dogmatic faith has blinded them to the reality of not only how uncertain is the science behind climate change, but also how much has been outright fabricated.
DR, Jay Lehr, Heartland Institute Science Director, knows the EPA well – he’s a felon who did time for defrauding EPA. If this goes like Heartland’s other junk science attempts to defeat justice in Court, it will be tossed with admonishments from the bench. It is time to haul Heartland into Court for their attempts to defraud and harm USA citizens with their climate fiction and science denial.
Not only are you wrong all the time, you take great pride in being wrong all the time.
I’m so wrong that i sat on a professional panel that found he had acted unprofessionally that ended up with him being indicted, etc. Amazing how you live in a land of climate fiction and denial!
what professional panel?
You’ll just have to go back and check the records and proceedings or ask Jay how he fell from grace.
In other words you are saying “I am unable to substantiate my claim”
Translation: I’m lying, but I’m going to make you work to prove it.
He falsified time sheets. That was it.
You could have just said that.
He won’t say, just as he never says when pressed to back up his claims of being an authority. The reason he never says is he’s nothing more than an anonymous troll and that’s all he’ll ever be.
As that this guy, who shows up in the other commenting system elsewhere? https://disqus.com/by/Scientia_Praecepta/
50,000 comments! Good lord, that’s a full time job for many years. When did he have time to become an ex-spirt?
Somebody who’s name we don’t know, who sat on a panel that he won’t name, but we are expected to take these two claims as proof that he is an expert and should not be challenged.
Given how wrong you are, over and over again, your claims to professionalism are falling flat.
Regardless, even if true, no doubt you had your verdict determined before the first piece of evidence was heard.
“Acting unprofessional” is not a crime as you should well know, ….. but iffen it ever becomes a “crime” then you and your like-minded friends, peers and/or associates should be the first ones “indicted” for said criminal act(s).
But CAGW believing lefty liberals would never indict one of their own, let alone even consider that they acted unprofessionally.
“HA”, they say a good Prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a “ham sandwich”.
Russell, unable to rebut actual science, spreads ad hominems trying to distract people from the valid science presented.
Russell apparently claims he served on an Inspector General’s 1991 investigation that documented Lehr’s company’s timesheet mishandling?
The IG that properly forwarded National Water Well Association timesheet mishandlings to a prosecutor?
No professional board involved in that process.
Unless, you can produce detailed minutes of the alleged “professional board”. Minutes which include attendees, topics, discussions and meeting reports along with detailed minutes.
Shame, the Inspector Generals have not been so diligent the last decade. Perhaps, next year will see a return to proactive IG diligence.
But that was about the fraud with the time sheets right? And he still kept his job as a scientist even after that? But in your private universe every felony must have a life sentence instead of the one the law prescribed. Of course unless it’s someone you like or agree with. Then you probably suddenly will abide by the spirit of the law. But I don’t know, while such ruling on fraud is not a good character reference, for sure it does not mean someone is now morally incapable for all possible leadership positions two or three decades later. That is simply not how the US legal system is set up for or intends. To use this as some moral conviction, way more examples would be needed to show a pattern and some more recent ones.
Jay Lehr, was sentenced to six months in 1991 and his organization was fined $200,000 for falsifying employee time sheets on a government contract for the EPA.
USA V. LEHR, ET AL, Case Number: 2:91-CR-00068, Charges Filed 04/26/1991, U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio.
You are one virulent piece of work, this site didn’t have a rabid communist like most other climate truth sites. Welcome, I look forward to scanning past your hysterical nonsense for many days to come.
You’ve showed yourself a probable fraud by claiming a BSEE undergrad degree and that you went to med school. No wonder you refuse to state when and where you attended undergrad and grad school.
Pumpkin, I have made no claim whatsoever that I have a BSEE undergrad degree. When you’re losing do you always invent a narrative?
Here’s a golden opportunity to demonstrate which one of us has a spine and is honest. I have examined invertebrates with more spine than you!
My prediction is that it will remain silent or return and pivot or deflect off-topic to obfuscate.
He is 18-25 years old. Review his word usage.
Note slang. use and non use.
You did intel apply it.
From his statements he claims to by 70+ years old.
He is a Kid.
If you must feed the troll spoon feed him baby food.
Thanks for your empty, flaccid screed, SP! It reminds me to add the Heartland Institute to my list of deserving servants of the public trust that will receive a generous charitable contribution!
Santa has a lump of coal for you……
Losers back losers – why break your perfect record?
It really does get you when people don’t believe your lies.
Speaking of losers, just check the nearest mirror.
Au contraire, Nonscientia Impraecepta!
You respond with yet another empty, flaccid screed…. your intellectual trade mark.
Success is what allows me to generously support, both financially and intellectually, organizations and individuals focused on honest science, technology, and engineering!
No one condones fraud and Jay Lehr should be well ashamed .
Not every arm is pure (left, middle or right) in enterprise or government.
Jay wouldn’t have a job if it wasn’t for Heartland Institute.
Rightly or wrongly it’s a decision they made when no one else would touch him.
Anyway, you come here and hurl abuse at the drop of a hat.
Alarmist sites don’t even tolerate inconvenient questions (let alone abuse) before a ban is imposed.
Why don’t you lighten up and debate the science in a similar manner to say Mr Stokes?
Or are you 100% correct on every part of the science and therefore feel the need to impose your will on others who don’t share your convictions?
Since when was truth, abuse? I’m all for debating science – haven’t seen any on this website in a decade or more. Classic example was using Roy Spencer’s May report as the factual basis of comments more than 95% of the brainwashed refused to accept what he gave us – if I regurgitated what he wrote. Repeating what Roy posted attracted negative votes – can’t discuss science with such closed, vacuous, brainwashed, pernicious and dogmatic minds. North Korea would be envious to have such volunteers.
So why bother posting? You know from that point it just becomes trolling.
Why come here if there’s no science?
What are you worried about?
Are you being paid to aggressively comment on WUWT?
I suggest you save yourself the stress and concentrate on left-wing blogs where your comrades will agree with you.
He’s an SJW who is hoping to attract chicks by taking on the man.
I think you give him too much credit. He’s merely a child in his mother’s basement seeking attention.
Declaring that he’s wrong because of his past isn’t truth.
Debating science? That would be a first, all you have ever done is scream that anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid, illiterate, or in the pay of big oil.
“I’m all for debating science –”
I’ll make it easy for you…..
Science is testable…..what test has it passed?
It is easy to denigrate the things that have been published here by just saying there hasn’t been any science in a decade. However, it is quite another to back that up with any sort of examples or evidence. As is typical for you, you have not provided anything other than your opinion. It is possible (and quite likely) that you wouldn’t recognize science if you saw it. It is also possible that you don’t read everything here. Another possibility is that, despite your espoused concern about fraud and lying, you are actually engaging in lying for the hyperbolic effect. Regardless of your motivation, you are really just contributing to the noise level and not even deconstructing any of the scientific claims (Yes, they exist here despite your de-Nye-al!). Your immature whining and insulting has become tiresome. If you are the scientist that you would like us to believe you are, surely you can put your time to more constructive use than personal abuse. You are giving scientists a bad name.
” You are giving scientists a bad name”
That would be true if anyone actually believed his BS about being a scientist. Since his posts lack credibility in that regard, and he has spectacularly failed to back up any of his claims with any kind of evidence, I’d said all he could do is give trolls pretending to be scientists a bad name.
You can remember back a whole decade? You were like 2 then weren’t you?
I read an article the other day that claimed one’s memory doesn’t really kick in until you are about two years old. I can’t remember what I was doing when I was two. 🙂
Tom Abbott – June 9, 2018 5:02 am
Very few people actually can “consciously” remember those early years. That environmental data is still stored in the brain’s neurons, but it requires a “freaky” stimuli to trigger a recall of it.
Anyway,the words “memory”, … “mind” … and “brain” ….. are often times used interchangeably, but in actuality the “brain” is a physical organ, ….. the “mind” is the brain’s per se “operating program” that controls the different body functions ….. and “memory” can mean several different things.
Memory is both inherited and environmental data/info that is stored in the DNA of the brain’s neurons.
Memory is the stored “enviro data/info” that can be “recalled” (remembered) by one’s conscious mind.
Memory is the “data/info” that is stored in neurons and is only accessible to the sub-conscious mind.
Anyway, one’s “inherited” memory kicks in as soon as their mother’s egg is fertilized by their father’s sperm and it controls all pre-natal development, the birthing process, post-birth development, inherited survival instincts, etc., …. and especially the uploading, storing and self-programming via the environmental data/info uploaded by the sense organs.
So “Yes”, it is a reasonable “guess” for one to state that “one’s memory doesn’t really kick in until you are about two years old” ….. simply because it is in reference to the brain’s “self-programming” ability and their “conscious memory” development, …. and thus one can’t very well have an active “conscious memory” until such time that their sense organs have uploaded enough environmental data to be “linked” together for “recalling” for them to be “conscious about”.
“Since when was truth, abuse? I’m all for debating science – haven’t seen any on this website in a decade or more.”
Hmm… Truth is abuse when you say that Jay is not to be believed (ever) and perpetually impugned (as you have) because of a mistake for which he was punished and as far as we the public knows, rehabilitated. Unless you have proof that his current acts are wrong, I don’t see the relevance of your raising something that has been resolved. This is not Puritan 1620. They don’t give out red letters anymore, do they?
The USA is odd in that it punishes people perpetually using self-righteous posturing by those who never got caught.
I have a read a number of your posts. Generally you do not debate, you toss some facts and make many unsupported allegations. That is not scientific debating.
It is very unlikely you have been reading this site for more than 10 years. I think that is a crafted sentence intended to give the reader the impression you really did, but giving room to say later you read some older posts. Climate science has been debated on WUWT for a long time. I know that because I have been reading it.
I think some of the responses you provoke are childish and I do not condone them and I don’t vote them up. It is usually in response to something childish you wrote first. Generally speaking, the tone of your posts is intended to demean people, not present ideas or facts. That is unfortunate. I think it undermines the credibility of your debating points.
CAGW alarmism makes numerous, overlapping and even contradictory claims with a general reliance on projections based on a short time period. Those who make claims are required, if they wish to be believed, to demonstrate why. The root assertions that without GHG’s the atmosphere would be -18 C and that water vapour forcing is 0.8 W per 1 W of CO2 forcing are demonstrably incorrect. All derivative calamitous predictions also incorrect, however fancily they are dressed.
Just so you know, after reading your first comment in a thread to see if you are behaving well, if I find it not so I skip the rest. So if you have something useful to contribute do it in the first post so relevant ideas are not lost.
To the others, I suggest doing the same thing. Trollish behaviour (do not label anyone a troll) should not be rewarded.
What motivated Lehr to invent and market the megawatershed? It has all the earmarks of the bogus climate change promotions. It’s a reason that I keep Heartland somewhat at arms length.
Once again, the alarmists know that they can’t refute the science, so they attack the man instead.
Of course, you fail to mention his fraud was over signing timesheets supplied by employees, NOTHING to do with the science… In other words, an accounting issue, not a science issue. But that doesn’t help your case, does it?
Fraud is fraud, period!
Don’t feed the troll. It is obvious that this kid lives in the basement in his parents house. Keep on subject and don’t let his attack on the science presenter get us off the science. The science he can not refute,
SP – tell that to the IPCC; they are world experts in promoting fraudulent and unsubstantiable claims
BS on steroids!
You’ve declared yourself to be an expert. Over and over again.
Surely you can come up with something a little more substantive than “BS”.
That’s a pretty simplistic attitude.
But then again, you are pretty simplistic.
SP: I agree, and feel that dishonesty should be condemned. How about the guy (Gleich?) who forged documents in order to attack the Heartland Institute (?). Correct me if you can, my memory is failing.
I sure wish this system would let us see who voted up or down on these posts.
I would love to know who would down vote this one.
Other systems that I’ve used you could get the list by hovering your mouse over the ‘+’ or ‘-‘ symbols.
some would say that there is lots o different kinds of fraud, some of it illegal, some of it not.
misrepresenting ones self, ones credentials, ones experience is fraud … no question about that.
by your statement “Fraud is fraud, Period!” you have lumped yourself into the equivalence of the other fraudsters; the ones that you seem to be claiming are evil.
Now, weather you like it or not, that is going to rattle around in your subconscious for a while … all the little neurons pumping around trying to reconcile the lies/hypocrisy. Generally what comes from too much of that kind of thing is anger, depression, or some form of manic behavior to distract yourself from the obvious … that you are a bad person.
Keep lashing out at others for the same kind things that you are guilty of and things will get worse for you, not better.
Actually there is a great difference between an accounting fraud and a scientific fraud.
Unfortunately too many of us sign documents without having properly read them. All that I gather from reports is that the case involved inflated time sheets. Those who certify the time sheets of their employees without having checked them are certainly liable for the fraud.
I know nothnig about the case but it would appear from the relatively light sentence that the Court beleived that the fraud was not commited by Lehr for personal profit.
So sayith: Solomon Green
The only way it is possible for a clerk, foreman or supervisor to “check/verify the time sheet(s) of an employee” ….. is for said clerk, foreman or supervisor to keep their own record of each employee’s “start/stop” time and then compare it to what the employee recorded. Or to “look-over” every employee’s shoulder when they “sign on” or ”sign off” work.
“Fraud is fraud, period!”
Since you claim to be an “expert” but have completely failed to provide any evidence backing up that claim (and your posts show that claim for the lie that it is), I’d say you are the fraud, SP. Fraud is fraud, period!
Scientia Praecepta—-“. It is time to haul Heartland into Court for their attempts to defraud and harm USA citizens with their climate fiction and science denial.”
OK, genius, please show us some actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming, instead of ad hominems and insults.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser” Unknown author
PS: You are right – it is time to haul people into court – the climate criminals at the IPCc, the CRU, the fabricator of the hockery stick, that coal train=death train guy and, of course Gore.
I suppose SP would defend Peter Gleick’s admitted fraud.
DR, Jay Lehr, Heartland Institute Science Director, knows the EPA well – he’s a felon who did time for defrauding EPA. If this goes like Heartland’s other junk science attempts to defeat justice in Court, it will be tossed with admonishments from the bench.
As much as I dislike to accept your point in this one, I got to accept it as valid.
With this move Heartland is showing that at least it is completely blind or completely stupid.
Which it means, that at this point Heartland Institute and it’s help is only to be considered as at the very least an unaffordable dead weight or an unacceptable risk, regardless of intentions.
At this point you have 54 likes, after this you will get 55….
Hopefully EPA and Mr Pruitt, the EPA administrator will consider that there is no much difference in between the Heartland position and the Federal court judge……
So quoteith: whiten …….
As my dear ole long dead Daddy would say, …… “They shouldn’t be arresting and convicting one (1) accused fraudster (Jay Lehr) ….. for defrauding another fraudster (the EPA).”
We should really stop using the expression “green blob”. It should be reserved for Exxon’s pioneering work with real green blobs, i.e. algae to make fuel.
Sure Gang Green is far more descriptive and appropriate.
There is an old lawyers advice ‘Never ask a question in court you don’t know the answer for!’
So don’t ya just love it when you can see their “gottya” moment turning around and biting them right on the ar*e!! 🙂 🙂
This is just a publicity stunt. Unless Pruitt has access to a time machine documents supplied in 2018 cannot be used to respond to a freedom of information request asking for what EPA records Pruitt used in 2017 when making statements about climate change.
“The Heartland Institute several years ago submitted the Climate Change Reconsidered series to the agency”
Old carpenters rule = measure twice cut once
for you read twice write once!!
If that was the case then it would have been trivial for the EPA to produce them assuming that Pruitt had actually read them. Or perhaps it is a rather blatant attempt to get Pruitt to lie and state that he relied on these documents irrespective of whether or not he did. Given that the EPA have had almost a year to find these documents and produce them it is surprising that they have refused to do so if indeed it were the case that Pruitt had read them. So again it appears to be nothing more than a publicity stunt by the Heartlands Institute that will not advance the FOI request one bit.
I dont **************************** care about any of this bullshit. The true question is which science is correct the science of climate scientists and their computer models or the science of Willie Soon , Tony Heller, Chris Essex, Pat Frank, Richard Lindzen, Christopher Monckton (although not a scientist, his understanding of all sides of the debate), Willis Eschenbach (statistician who knows almost everything about climate science), Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, and John Christy. You know which side I am picking.
How do you propose that people decide which group of scientists is correct? Unless you have a Ph.D. in a relevant field you are going to have to rely on expert opinion and then you have to decide which experts – the 97% of climate scientists who believe that CO2 is the dominant effect or the extremely small number who dispute it. I am curious to know why you decide to believe one group of experts over another.
You might want to check the qualifications of almost everyone in Climate Science that is called an expert it is actually not surprising the field is a mess.
Percy. I’m nowhere NEAR being a scientist. But I can look at data and call BS. For example, when I’m told that extreme weather is getting extremier, more frequent, more destructive, I can look at the data and see that the opposite is true.
One easy way to tell which scientist is correct is to examine their predictions.
None of the predictions from the alarmist camp have come true.
Ummm…. they said the planet would warm… it has.
They said sea ice would melt…. it is
They said the sea would rise….. it is.
“Ummm…. they said the planet would warm… it has.
They said sea ice would melt…. it is
They said the sea would rise….. it is.
All of those things were already happening, have happened many times. Those aren’t predictions.
Percy: That 97% figure has been long since laughed out of court. Do you know how it was derived? Check on it.
Would that 97% be those 74 of 77 from the Cook Survey?
If you state a lie often enough the gullible tend to think it is true
“How do you propose that people decide which group of scientists is correct?”
Science is predictive. One only needs to look at the success/fail ratio of the predictions of the groups of scientists. No “experts” needed to do that, especially when the failure rate is 100%.
Percy, many (if not all) of the names on alan’s list are among the so called 97%. (better reframe your question)…
Percy Jackson, that 97% statement was BS. There is no consensus.
So claimith: Percy Jackson
Percy J, ….. your mimicry of asinine, disingenuous and literally idiotic statements such as the above “97%” thingy ……. is proof-positive that you are little more than a miseducated CAGW believing “lemming” …… or an avid proponent of CAGW because of your ve$ted intere$t$ in said.
SP, – You are one of the better trolls we have seen on WUWT. Have you been here before? Do you have some valid references? Or other posts on this site?
Since, the early days. However, I long gave up trying to comment because the old style was cumbersome and disjointed, managed like a Zimbabwean government office, with a plethora of uneducated commentators well experienced in prejudiced feelings and conspiracies. It was a home for racist conservatives running on ideological cognitive dissonance.
When Watts, put tail between legs and slunk away from honoring his agreements with the folk at BEST, showing no fortitude and backbone – it was clear that quantity was no substitute for quality and integrity with the site having little to contribute to science other than noise.
Now that the comment system has made a change for the better – I may comment more often and usually focus entirely on correcting talking points and memes. They are so easy to spot – there is no original work emanating from the thousands of climate science sites and it is a broad echo chamber that operates in unison by accident more than design as it is like hordes of alchemists waiting for that eureka moment. It is a highly dangerous community in that ever since the right wing made fact-believing optional this chosen ignorance has applied to everything they do.
Cognitive dissonance is rampant on the right who value obnoxious ignorance as a virtue. It is sad that you can lead conservatives to wisdom, but you can’t make most of them think! Those that do think, have long left this group think ,of rigid ideology. How ironic that the US, long a worldwide bastion of education and scientific achievement, should now be earning a global reputation for rampant scientific illiteracy. All in the name of ideology …
SP – your verbosity is an attempt at appearing clever when in fact you are simply a pratt who is besotted with the sound of your own keyboard.
SP – I’m sorry about your angst. I suggest a healthy dose of humility. Often anger at other people is a sign of internal struggles. Also humility will let you see the hypocrisy in your own life (we all have it and are often blind to it).
I think SP’s real name is Dunning Kruger.
And now, fortunately for you, the comment system is allowing you to clearly demonstrate that Mr. Watts wasn’t sunk so low as your posting might indicate but was rather near the top of the barrel that you appear to be reaching up to locate the bottom of.
“and usually focus entirely on correcting talking points and memes.”
Ridicule is all you have left because you have no ability to counter scientific facts. You don’t engage in any “correction” other than to claim you are right without evidence. Your self delusion borders on psychosis. Obnoxious ignorance describes you perfectly.
Mikey mann , is that you mikey
Wait, I think it’s actually a chatbot creating haiku, not a pimple-faced 12-year old after all.
More undocumented ranting at the scientist instead of debating the science. The reason? This child can not argue the science.
I see no “science” in SP’s latest screed. Only angry “undocumented ranting.”
Curry would run away from that list, with the only exception being herself. Monckton is a complete waste of any scientists time, and Heller is the king of cherry picks.
Funny how solar irradiation is low, but temps keep climbing. In past 30 years many of those people have predicted that the earth would cool because of the sun, and they keep moving the goalposts. Actual climate scientists have been saying that each decade will be warmer.
You know which side I’m on: logic.
Got news for you, temperatures have been falling for two years.
Absent the recent El Nino, there has been no warming for 20 years.
Logic can be used to make lies sound true.
I’m on the side of the data, of which you have none.
Two years? Oh my. The long-term trend must be falling. When did you move the goalposts to two years ago? Answer: right after new records were set.
Absent the latest El Nino? Did you try removing the last La Nina just just to see what would happen? Maybe tell us what happens to the trend is you use only El Nino years. That would be more telling than using one of the strangest cherry-picks I have read in a long time. Who removes the warmest years to prove the earth is not warming?
You used no logic. I would say those are strange cherry picks. Not sure what data you’re using, since ground stations and satellite measurements show warming. And since solar irradiance is low, something has to be keeping the heat trapped. It rhymes with arbon mydockside
Alley, thank you for admitting that you can’t argue the actual science.
Only a fool uses abnormal advents as their endpoints. Fools or someone who’s only goal is deceiving. I’ll wait to see which category you fall into.
“Fools or someone who’s only goal is deceiving. I’ll wait to see which category you fall into”
I think by now the answer is so obvious that even the most oblivious can tell which is the case.
“Got news for you, temperatures have been falling for two years.”
“Absent the recent El Nino, there has been no warming for 20 years.”
“Only a fool uses abnormal advents as their endpoints.”
You start a 2 year descent at the peak of an El Niño, and you want to start a 20 year period slow down with an El Niño, but ignore the El Niño at the end.
“Two years? Oh my. The long-term trend must be falling.”
One thing was left out: This temperature decline is taking place while CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is supposed to make things get hotter according to the Alarmists, but it’s not happening, at least for the last two years. So somebody’s speculation appears to be wrong.
“One thing was left out: This temperature decline is taking place while CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.”
You should look at some of the posts here from two years ago, when temperatures were reaching record highs. They all made it clear that at least some of the warming was caused not by CO2 but by an El Niño.
Well now that El Niño has gone and temperatures are returning to something more like normal. Temperature are still above where they were before the El Niño and the long term warming trend is continuing.
Tricky one, asking me to pick a side between “the science of climate scientists”, or the science of a group of people including Tony Heller and Christopher Monckton. May have to get back to you on that one.
I love it when trolls try to pretend that there are no scientists who disagree with them.
Then they trot out a group of people with no science degrees as proof that their side does do science.
MarkW…..find me the name of a reputable climate scientist who does not think mans adding of CO2 is warming our planet. Just one.
Don’t be talking “trash”, …… Simon, ….. you know damn well that any name(s) that MarkW would cite, ….. you would declare non-reputable.
Actually my point is every scientist on that planet knows that part of the warming is caused by us. Spencer, Christie, Curry. They just don’t think it will cause a lot of damage. So mindlessly stating “there is no proof” or connection as MarkW often does is not backed by anyone with half a brain.
Simon, that was a sneaky disingenuous response, …. to CYA, ….. but sorry bout that.
First you stated this, to wit:
“ mans adding of CO2 is warming our planet” June 9, 2018 2:12 pm
Then you tried to protect your arse by stating this, to wit:
“that part of the warming is caused by us. ” June 10, 2018 12:42 pm
So “YES”, manmade “heat islands” are keeping the air temps elevated, ….. and “NO”, man’s emissions of CO2 are not causing increases in air temperatures.
Well done, ColA.
I liked our last set of trolls so much better.
benben was actually reasonable and I was making an effort to turn him to the Dark Side.
Too bad he left us. Now we have this pair.
Tony, au contrare, Sciency Preppy is a brilliant fellow, who also happens to be a classic example of why their side is losing as badly as they are. It’s very good to have him around for the entertainment value. Watch him d’ny that they are even losing badly which is fine. The important point is not our perceptions of how they are faring, rather, the actual reality of how they’re faring. (and this clown is a classic example of why)…
fonzie, I would tend to agree that SP’s attitude and behavior turns people off and if he was capable of some self-reflection he would understand that his insults and patronizing remarks are ultimately counterproductive. While he is an annoyance, I suspect that after the novelty wears off, the commenters here will start to ignore him in the same way that someone who lives near a stock yard just acclimates to the smell. I haven’t seen him provide anything other than make claims he isn’t willing or able to substantiate, so he isn’t really doing any damage to the skeptic position. On the other hand, he is making a good case that those who don’t have any substantive criticism resort to attacking individuals, thus invalidating his claims.
Clyde, so far he looks to be the lightest weight of trolls. (very articulate, but lacking in scientific acumen) Can’t imagine him sticking around very long. (if he does, it shouldn’t be too difficult neutering him)…
I miss Griff. SP and Percy J are too much.
“I miss Griff.”
I told y’all so.
I guess we could think of Scientia Pretentious as someone, who while trying to impress us with his vocabulary, is giving us the opportunity to exercise and reinforce our own vocabularies by presenting us with words we don’t usually see. There is always a silver lining to a cloud, no matter how dark.
Griff has moved to Heller’s website.
Heller has my sympathies.
(markus, yer a hoot… ☺)
You jumped to a gotya moment without reading the letter from The Heartland:-
“Heartland has submitted these volumes in digital form during EPA comment periods in the past, and we are certain physical copies were also sent to the agency.
In the event an Obama-era ideologue at EPA disposed of or destroyed those volumes, we have enclosed them in this package for your use in answering Judge Howell’s order.”
That sentence in the letter if nonsense. If an official had destroyed them then there is no way that Pruitt could have used them before making his statements in 2017. Therefore they cannot be used to answer Judge Howell’s order.
Destruction of official documents is a felony. That is why EPA staffers are keeping silent on this issue.
Say the documents were preserved, Pruitt wins the argument.
Say the documents were destroyed, go to prison.
Have a nice day.
Wow, that is some strange logic. Pruitt did not have access to any climate related documents before taking over the EPA? Wasn’t he chosen because he did have background on the subject? Are you suggesting that EPA archives and memos are the only correct information about climate?
The question was about what Pruitt knew and how he came to that conclusion, not what was or is in EPA documentation.
“Are you suggesting that EPA archives and memos are the only correct information about climate?”
I agree. Pruitt could have acquired his opinions on CAGW before he went to the EPA.
The court procedure could go something like this: “Judge, my buddy Freeman Dyson of MIT convinced me that CO2 was not harmful to humans or the atmosphere and is not a control knob for the Earth’s climate. And I know lots of other experts who say the same thing. Do you want me to produce these expert witnesses?”
A blinder played old boy. Cheers muir russell.
Pruitt did not have to have read them to make his statement; But he is perfectly entitled to produce evidence that was held by the EPA and which supports that statement he made.
I’m guessing PJ is a lawyer, in that he cares more about legality then truth.
The NIPCC documents were available to all from Heartland and via WUWT as soon as they were compiled.
Bare in mind, the first act of the guilty in any case is to try to get damning evidence exuded form the case so as to not rule out reasonable doubt.
“Bare in mind, the first act of the guilty in any case is to try to get damning evidence exuded form the case so as to not rule out reasonable doubt.”
I don’t think this means what you think it means.
Dang. Was supposed to be excluded. CLearly my cl vanished
I’ll “bare” that in mind. 😉
Percy, unless he had previously seen them before being appointed. He was not compelled to forget everything he had read prior to his appointment.
What I find fascinating is the belief both by the judge and our various trolls, that only EPA documents can be used to form a personal opinion.
That was my impression also; that they thought they were being clever by asking for EPA documents that prove CO2 is not a primary contributor of increased temperatures.
That’s rather like asking for Catholic Church documents that prove Christ did not exist.
However, since Heartland’s documents were in response to an EPA request for comment, they become “EPA documents”.
Most of the papers listed in the document were available in 2017.
As an unrelated aside, it appears the Conservatives have taken a majority in Ontario, leaving the ‘carbon is icky-poo!’ Liberals with only a handful of seats. Hopefully we’ll see a repeat at the Federal level next year.
Now there is going to be a constitutional crisis in Canada because at least 3 provinces are going to be opposing Trudeau’s new carbon taxes. Trudeau wants to tax Canadian business an extra $35 billion over 5 years to lower the worlds temperature by the year 2100 by 5/1000 of a degree C. Meanwhile China is pushing out increases of 4% a year which is 3.5 times what Canada will have lowered after 5 years.
Apparently the Liberals have gone from running the province to not having enough seats to be an official party. Good one!
Yes, it is. And the leadership is completely oblivious to the trainwreck they are creating.
The Heartland Institute is well named! Keep piling the indisputable evidence up… and ignore the strident squealing from those fattened hogs feeding from the trough of the AGW/Climate Change Industry!
What the world needs is to put CO2 on trial? With a prosecution team and a defence team. The problem would be to pick an impartial jury. I dont think there are 12 human beings on the planet that know enough science that are sitting on the fence. All the smart ones already know that it is a scam. And the ones that dont know it is a scam arent smart enough to decide the case.
There’s another category. Those who are smart enough to know that it’s a sc@m, but who’s income is dependent on the sc@m continuing.
The Heartland documentation is timely and useful.
But Pruitt needs only to point out that over the last 20 years human emissions of CO2 have climbed exponentially (thanks, China, India, Germany etc.) but temperatures have increased very little – insignificant statistically.
Meanwhile, every one of the IPCC’s 130 odd computer models “projects” very significant warming.
Even a hostile Court should struggle with that inconvenient fact.
Good for them
Well done, Heartland Institute. It must be very hard for politicians worldwide to naysay alarmist scientists. Winston Churchill had the rare talent of being able to differentiate between real experts and wrong’uns. His judgment depended on whether such experts actually got results.
Heartland. Same group (and in some cases same people) who continued to say smoking is not bad for you decades after all other organizations told them to stop lying, and the very last group to convince the unwitting that second-hand smoke is perfectly fine for your kids.
I wonder what people on this site would say if the Koch brothers funded an organization and hired skeptics like Curry to determine if the temp graphs were accurate? Do you think they’d believe the results, or do they have to wait for results to make a decision?
A true test with skeptics would be great. Will it ever happen? Would skeptics believe the results?
The posts of the current batch of trolls have several common points:
1. Ad hominem attacks on people and organizations with whom the disagree and
2. The belief that one must rely on experts to form one’s opinions on AGW/climate change.
Facts, not opinions, are the bases of science. The empirical data (facts) exists. This includes raw data as well as adjusted/homogenized/filled-in data. Many of the regulars on this site have have reviewed both data sets. Personally I find the raw data more persuasive than data which has been manipulated to support an author’s conclusion.
Why are so many people on this site unaware of what ad hominem means? Pointing out facts about Heartland is not ad hominem. Heartland DID promote smoking, and was paid by Phillip Morris to do so. Look it those facts. Heartland was also the very last group to say that second-hand smoke was a problem.
I do believe we should reply of the experts. Who else should we believe? People with no advanced education or credentials or a literature degree?
Facts are the basis of science. Facts: earth is warming, CO2 is a primary forcing.
Fact: raw data shows more warming than adjusted data.
Judith Curry must be cringing at the lack of understanding of how adjustments work by most of her readers.
Go ahead and find the raw data more persuasive, because it’s a silly thing to do. Are temps at noon supposed to be treated the same was as temps in the morning or in the evening? No, of course not.
Are outliers supposed to be eliminated? Of course.
The truth for ground statins is that the number of adjusted temps upward are the same as the number that were adjusted down. But ocean temp adjustments really lowered the trend.
Why are you advocating for a warmer trend?
Stating or implying that Heartland should be ignored because of your claims is an ad hominem.
Why is it that trolls have to lie about what they have been doing as well as what others have said?
There is still not a shred of evidence that second hand smoke is a problem.
As always, the troll declares that it is only science when it agrees with him.
There isn’t a shred of evidence to imply, much less prove that CO2 is a primary forcing. Models are not evidence. Especially models that fail every form of validation.
As to your other facts, none of them are.
I know someone who had bypass surgery and of course his heart surgeon told him not to smoke anymore, and the patient asked the doctor about second-hand smoke since he lived with a smoker, and the doctor said: “Don’t worry about it.”
Alley, I believe it is you who does not understand what an ad hominem attack is. It is about attacking the source of an argument rather than the substance of the argument. While the statement may be true, it is still appropriate to refer to it as an ad hominem attack because it is not addressing the issues of climate. It instead is speaking to the subjective assessment of the organization based on previous activities unrelated to climate. To put it in perspective, if someone came up with a new twist on String Theory, it would not be appropriate to bring up the fact that he was previously convicted of beating his wife.
I could take issue with some of your supposed climate facts, but I’m going to pass on it.
Is this the Brooks Hurd (of ice core fame)?
You know the trolls have lost when they have to make up lies.
Heartland’s comments were about second hand smoke, and those comments are still supported by the evidence.
Just because a bunch of politicians jump on a band wagon, doesn’t prove that they are correct.
In the last two posts MarkW has refereed to trolls. I rest my case. Mark there is loads of data supporting second hand smoke increases your chance of disease. Anyone with an IQ over 50 gets that.
Second-hand smoke comes in two flavors: chronic (as from a spouse) and occasional (as in a visit to a restaurant with a smoking section). The data claiming that occasional exposure as harmful is what was most disputable. If Heartland pointed out the latter only, or mostly, it is unfair to implicitly accuse them of denying the bad effects of chronic exposure.
Has Pruitt or the EPA made any response to the Freedom of Information request?
I agree that a simple plot of temperature against CO2 is all that is necessary to show how bad the correlation is, and so Pruitt should not have difficulty producing something.
However, I also agree that producing evidence he has been given after he made the statement, would be incorrect.
Perhaps the lack of the ‘Hot Spot’ will come up as well. One can only hope.
“I agree that a simple plot of temperature against CO2 is all that is necessary to show how bad the correlation is, and so Pruitt should not have difficulty producing something.”
Here’s my attempt.
If you prefer here’s one with satellite data
Without seeing trends, such a plot is meaningless.
It also assumes that the only factor that matters is CO2.
Basically you are proclaiming to correlation proves causation.
When you look at the data on a year by year basis you can see that temperatures move all over the place while CO2 is going up steadily.
Finally, remove the data from the recent El Nino, and your trend line disappears.
“Without seeing trends, such a plot is meaningless.”
The trend is the blue line.
“It also assumes that the only factor that matters is CO2.”
It assumes nothing. If CO2 was the only factor that matters all the dots would be on the line.
“Basically you are proclaiming to correlation proves causation.”
Not making any claims about causation. The claim I was responding to was that a simple plot of temperature to CO2 would show how bad the correlation was. My plot just demonstrates there is a significant correlation.
“When you look at the data on a year by year basis you can see that temperatures move all over the place while CO2 is going up steadily.”
Yes. It shows that there are other factors than CO2 that affect temperature on a year to year basis.
“Finally, remove the data from the recent El Nino, and your trend line disappears.”
It doesn’t. Even leaving the last three years of the UAH chart still shows a significant correlation.
Bellman, we all know that both temperature and co2 have been on the rise. Were it not the case, we wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place. (we’d all be out playing golf instead)…
(all right, which one of you nerds didn’t like my comment?)
(that’s better… ☺)
Try looking here for ones with proper supporting detail
and for a bit of fun
So when you said “a simple plot of temperature against CO2 is all that is necessary to show how bad the correlation is”, you meant using land temperature, limiting it to a 15 year period and using monthly values despite the strong seasonal curve of CO2.
“I agree that a simple plot of temperature against CO2 is all that is necessary to show how bad the correlation is, and so Pruitt should not have difficulty producing something.”
No, because there is no global temperature. It’s a fantasy. Sure you could plot CO2 against individual station records, provided they are continuous. But averaging different stations together is a major no-no.
Actual science at EPA? That is a change!
I don’t understand how the EPA is held to account for the statements of its new director. He is entitled to his opinions , whether they reflect a “consensus”within the EPA or not. The employees of the department now number as the stars in the sky. Are they all of one mind? The overreach of the court should be challenged in my opinion.
Any competent judge would have tossed the FOIA from the beginning.
Asking the incoming EPA chief to provide the EPA (and only EPA) documents that he used to form an opinion is ridiculous.
Not only this federal judge has allowed for so long, wrongly and unjustly, this FOIA case to persist, but now this judge has gone too far by issuing an order to the EPA Administrator directly in connection with a subject matter tightly connected and within the administrators duty and power….A direct attempt to infringe in the EPA status power and duty and also the same towards the Administrator of this Federal agency itself….
Not even the Federal government, the President, the Congress or the DOJ has such power over the EPA or the EPA administrator, at such an extent as this Judge is going and gone for, as that will infringe with the separation of power and the independence of government and legal institution as per Legislation and Constitution of the Nation.
In this one the outcome will be simple, either at some point the EPA current Administrator will resign or be removed (the actual intent and the aim of this judge), or this Federal judge will resign or be removed from this case.
All will depend in the next move of Mr Pruitt, the EPA Administrator.
Either where Mr Pruitt will comply to this judge order, or whether Mr Pruitt will decide to “fire” back at this judge (as expected in this case by an EPA Administrator, in such a circumstance).
I don’t know if the Heartland science mentions anything about a recent study of which Hansen was part of, but the study says that about 115K years ago, the earth was slightly warmer (globally) than today.
Why is this pertinent? Because the levels of the all-evil control knob (CO2) were about 280 PPM then.
Kramer, no need to go back that far. Much of the Holocene was warmer than today, if the proxies are to be believed. Personally I’m skeptical of anything before actual thermometers were used.
Greenland used to have farmers living there. That’s pretty good evidence that it was warmer in the recent past than it is now, and humans were not burning fossil fuels in mass quantities then, either.
The “Hottest Year Evah! meme of NASA and NOAA is ridiculous and totally unjustified.
The most recent “Hottest Year Evah!” was 1934 and temperatures have not exceeded it to this very day. So, the truth is we have been in a temperature downtrend since 1934 and the year 2016 fell short of 1934 by 0.4C. The temperatures are declining since Feb 2016, so the downtrend from 1934 continues.
“Greenland used to have farmers living there. That’s pretty good evidence that it was warmer in the recent past than it is now,”
That’s evidence that it was warmer in Greenland. I’m not a member of the global climate bandwagon.
Did the Heartland Institute stop having their climate conference?
Public Peer Review. The Book produced by the Heartland would be a great source for a “Public Peer Review.” I’m sure most Climate Alarmists would claim that the document didn’t contain peer-reviewed research. If that is the case, Climate Alarmists should be forced to either accept the findings by the Heartland, or defend in public why it is wrong. That book provides a great way to force transparency upon the secretive field of Climate Science and its childish peer review process.
So now FOIA means “provide evidence for your claims”, apparently.
What about gun control? Someone said that it’s needed. FOIA that.
What about Russia hacked the DNC? Someone claimed that, it needs to be FOIA-ed.