climatechangedispatch--2020-06-23--If We Unquestioningly ‘Follow The Science,’ It Leads Us Nowhere

Written by Terence Corcoran on .
Posted in Latest news Surely one of the more embarrassing moments in Anderson Cooper ’ s career as the host of his CNN nightly show was the night back in May when he brought in 17-year-old Greta Thunberg as a star interview for a CNN Town Hall — not on the climate crisis , for which Thunberg has been famously treated as an expert of sorts , but on the COVID-19 crisis .
The link between COVID-19 and climate change is a little unclear , so presumably Cooper and Town Hall co-host Dr. Sanjay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thought Thunberg would bring some special wisdom and insight to the virus crisis .
The only advice from Thunberg , however , was to urge everyone to “ follow the science ” as suggested by Cooper , who seemed to be appealing to the 17-year-old for confirmation of his views : “ This is a time , it seems , that the global scientific community is so critically important and we ’ re really seeing how important it is to follow the science.
” Thunberg took that soft handoff from Cooper as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her claim that we should also be following the science on climate change .
“ People are starting to realize that we are actually depending on science and that we need to listen to scientists and experts .
And I really hope that stays , ” she said , adding that she also hoped it will apply to other crises “ such as the climate crisis and the environmental crisis.
” When it comes to COVID-19 , however , Thunberg seemed to have missed some of the science she said we should all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misinformation to believe initial reports that COVID-19 affected only the elderly .
“ During any crisis , it is always the most vulnerable people who are hit the hardest , and that is children , ” she proclaimed .
“ Yes , this does affect elderly people a lot , but we also have to remember that this is also a children ’ s rights crisis because children are the most vulnerable in societies .
Children do get the virus and they also spread it.
” The actual science shows , as we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the hardest hit , nor are they the most vulnerable .
Children are in “ extremely low risk ” of getting the disease and when they do get it they are more likely to be asymptomatic .
Few have died .
Welcome to FP Comment ’ s 22nd annual Junk Science Week , guided by our standard definition : Junk science occurs when scientific facts are distorted , the risk is exaggerated and the science adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda .
Both CNN and Thunberg are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science is more widespread today is unanswerable , but it seems fair to conclude that there have been few signs of retreat .
As we shall explore later this week , peer-review regimes continue to fail , correlations are propelled into causation , health risks converted into draconian legislation .
Calls to follow the science are heard almost daily from politicians and activists — and many scientists .
But what are they advocating ?
When a politician declares “ I believe in the science ” ( as per U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lack of knowledge about the science behind whatever policy is being promulgated .
And what if , as is too often the case , the science politicians are following is tainted and falls into the great science world where deliberate distortions and exaggerations — even fabrications — are common ?
Lest anyone believe that doesn ’ t happen , it ’ s worth recalling the famous words of Stephen Schneider , the late Stanford University climate scientist who — along with many others over the years — saw fudging and fakery as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the one hand , ” said Schneider , “ as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method .
On the other hand , we are not just scientists but human beings as well .
To do that we need to get some broad-based support , to capture the public ’ s imagination .
That , of course , means getting loads of media coverage .
So we have to offer up scary scenarios , make simplified , dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
” There is one area of science where a small blow — or maybe it will prove to be large — has been dealt to the “ scary scenarios ” that have driven climate policy over much of the past two decades .
That scenario is the work of the UN climate agency — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) — which produced a so-called “ business-as-usual ” scenario implying that without drastic action to curb carbon emissions the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Guelph University ’ s Ross McKitrick outlines on this page today that the official UN climate scenario known as RCP8.5 — cited by media and others to describe climate change risk — is a form of junk science based on assorted wrong-headed assumptions , including impossible projections of carbon emissions increases .
McKitrick concludes : “ If we want to avoid the RCP8.5 future scenario all we have to do is stop feeding it into climate models because that ’ s the only place it exists.
” If we just unquestioningly “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s where it seems to be leading , to places that don ’ t exist , to nowhere .
Read more at Financial Post

Written by Terence Corcoran on Jun 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Surely one of the more embarrassing moments in Anderson Cooper’s career as the host of his CNN nightly show was the night back in May when he brought in 17-year-old Greta Thunberg as a star interview for a CNN Town Hall — not on the climate crisis, for which Thunberg has been famously treated as an expert of sorts, but on the COVID-19 crisis.
The link between COVID-19 and climate change is a little unclear, so presumably Cooper and Town Hall co-host Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s medical expert, thought Thunberg would bring some special wisdom and insight to the virus crisis.
The only advice from Thunberg, however, was to urge everyone to “follow the science” as suggested by Cooper, who seemed to be appealing to the 17-year-old for confirmation of his views:
“This is a time, it seems, that the global scientific community is so critically important and we’re really seeing how important it is to follow the science.”
Thunberg took that soft handoff from Cooper as one might expect — as confirmation of her claim that we should also be following the science on climate change.
“People are starting to realize that we are actually depending on science and that we need to listen to scientists and experts. And I really hope that stays,” she said, adding that she also hoped it will apply to other crises “such as the climate crisis and the environmental crisis.”
When it comes to COVID-19, however, Thunberg seemed to have missed some of the science she said we should all be following.
She suggested it was misinformation to believe initial reports that COVID-19 affected only the elderly. “During any crisis, it is always the most vulnerable people who are hit the hardest, and that is children,” she proclaimed.
“Yes, this does affect elderly people a lot, but we also have to remember that this is also a children’s rights crisis because children are the most vulnerable in societies. Children do get the virus and they also spread it.”
The actual science shows, as we all now know, that children are not the hardest hit, nor are they the most vulnerable.
Children are in “extremely low risk” of getting the disease and when they do get it they are more likely to be asymptomatic. Few have died.
Welcome to FP Comment’s 22nd annual Junk Science Week, guided by our standard definition: Junk science occurs when scientific facts are distorted, the risk is exaggerated and the science adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda.
Both CNN and Thunberg are manifestations thereof.
Whether the politicization of science is more widespread today is unanswerable, but it seems fair to conclude that there have been few signs of retreat.
As we shall explore later this week, peer-review regimes continue to fail, correlations are propelled into causation, health risks converted into draconian legislation.
Calls to follow the science are heard almost daily from politicians and activists — and many scientists. But what are they advocating?
When a politician declares “I believe in the science” (as per U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren), it’s akin to admitting a lack of knowledge about the science behind whatever policy is being promulgated.
And what if, as is too often the case, the science politicians are following is tainted and falls into the great science world where deliberate distortions and exaggerations — even fabrications — are common?
Lest anyone believe that doesn’t happen, it’s worth recalling the famous words of Stephen Schneider, the late Stanford University climate scientist who — along with many others over the years — saw fudging and fakery as the proper role of scientists.
“On the one hand,” said Schneider, “as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
There is one area of science where a small blow — or maybe it will prove to be large — has been dealt to the “scary scenarios” that have driven climate policy over much of the past two decades.
That scenario is the work of the UN climate agency — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — which produced a so-called “business-as-usual” scenario implying that without drastic action to curb carbon emissions the world would plunge into economic and environmental hell.
Guelph University’s Ross McKitrick outlines on this page today that the official UN climate scenario known as RCP8.5 — cited by media and others to describe climate change risk — is a form of junk science based on assorted wrong-headed assumptions, including impossible projections of carbon emissions increases.
McKitrick concludes: “If we want to avoid the RCP8.5 future scenario all we have to do is stop feeding it into climate models because that’s the only place it exists.”
If we just unquestioningly “follow the science,” that’s where it seems to be leading, to places that don’t exist, to nowhere.
Read more at Financial Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-23--Al Gore And The Post-Pandemic Green Dictatorship

Written by Justin Haskins on .
Posted in Latest news Earlier in June , the World Economic Forum ( WEF ) , a highly influential nonprofit organization based in Europe , announced its plan to push for a “ Great Reset ” of global capitalism .
Among the many world leaders who have already backed the plan are Prince Charles from the United Kingdom ; Antonio Guterres , the U.N. secretary-general ; Bernard Looney , CEO of BP ; Ajay Banga , CEO of Mastercard ; Bradford Smith , president of Microsoft ; and Gina Gopinath , the chief economist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stated purpose of the “ Great Reset ” is to use the coronavirus pandemic as a justification to completely overhaul the entire global economy , including the U.S. economy , to make a more “ equitable ” world and to fight climate change , which has on numerous occasions been identified as the world ’ s next great “ crisis ” by advocates of the plan .
In an article published on the World Economic Forum ’ s website , WEF founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab said , “ Every country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must participate , and every industry , from oil and gas to tech , must be transformed .
In short , we need a ‘ Great Reset ’ of capitalism.
” At WEF ’ s June event , the organization announced the Great Reset will be the subject of its much larger January 2021 event in Davos , Switzerland , where world leaders gather every year to help develop and coordinate left-wing policy goals .
Importantly , the January 2021 Davos meeting is being billed as a “ twin summit ” by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to public and private meetings between the world ’ s most powerful business , government , and nonprofit leaders , the event will also feature collaborative meetings and planning sessions with a vast network of youth activists in the Global Shapers Community , a Switzerland-based nonprofit that has more than 7,000 members located in 400 cities around the world .
In the 2018–19 Global Shapers annual report , four key “ partners ” are listed , including the far-left Climate Reality Project ( CRP ) , which has worked with the Global Shapers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trainings.
” None other than former U.S. Vice President Al Gore co-founded the Climate Reality Project , and he still serves as the organization ’ s chairman .
In the 2019 annual report for Gore ’ s Climate Reality Project , CRP reported , “ we train these inspiring individuals [ in the Global Shapers Community ] to connect climate issues with key fights like hunger and social justice.
” The Climate Reality Project ’ s annual report further states , “ We also help Shapers hone their communications and organizing skills to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win .
“ Through these trainings – held at Shaper events around the world – we ’ re helping young leaders gain the skills to turn passion into real results , ” the report continues .
“ Many Shapers then train as Climate Reality Leaders to deepen their understanding of the crisis and build their advocacy and organizing skills even further.
” “ Climate Reality Leaders ” are climate activists trained by Gore ’ s Climate Reality Project to engage in local , regional , and national activism .
Among other things , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift their towns to 100 percent renewable electricity , ” as well as “ fight pipeline developments in frontline communities ” and “ organize climate strikes bringing hundreds of thousands into the streets.
” According to Gore ’ s organization , the Climate Reality Project has trained at least 1,350 Global Shapers over the past three years .
The Climate Reality Project ’ s close relationship with the Global Shapers Community proves that Gore is deeply connected to the “ Great Reset ” and will be closely involved with its rollout in 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with NBC ’ s Today television show , Gore evoked the “ Great Reset ” directly and called for radical economic changes to the world economy to fight climate change .
“ So , I think this is a time for a ‘ Great Reset , ’ ” Gore said during the interview , after describing the alleged economic benefits of renewable energy sources and electric cars .
“ We ’ ve got to fix a lot of these problems that have been allowed to fester for way too long .
And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tens of millions of new jobs , clean up the air , and reduce the death rate from pandemics , by the way , because the air pollution from burning fossil fuels heightens the death rates from coronavirus.
” “ So , this is a time for a reset to fix a bunch of challenges , first among them the climate crisis , ” Gore added .
Justin Haskins is editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com and the editorial director of The Heartland Institute .

Written by Justin Haskins on Jun 23, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Earlier in June, the World Economic Forum (WEF), a highly influential nonprofit organization based in Europe, announced its plan to push for a “Great Reset” of global capitalism.
Among the many world leaders who have already backed the plan are Prince Charles from the United Kingdom; Antonio Guterres, the U.N. secretary-general; Bernard Looney, CEO of BP; Ajay Banga, CEO of Mastercard; Bradford Smith, president of Microsoft; and Gina Gopinath, the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund.
The stated purpose of the “Great Reset” is to use the coronavirus pandemic as a justification to completely overhaul the entire global economy, including the U.S. economy, to make a more “equitable” world and to fight climate change, which has on numerous occasions been identified as the world’s next great “crisis” by advocates of the plan.
In an article published on the World Economic Forum’s website, WEF founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab said, “Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
At WEF’s June event, the organization announced the Great Reset will be the subject of its much larger January 2021 event in Davos, Switzerland, where world leaders gather every year to help develop and coordinate left-wing policy goals.
Importantly, the January 2021 Davos meeting is being billed as a “twin summit” by the World Economic Forum, because in addition to public and private meetings between the world’s most powerful business, government, and nonprofit leaders, the event will also feature collaborative meetings and planning sessions with a vast network of youth activists in the Global Shapers Community, a Switzerland-based nonprofit that has more than 7,000 members located in 400 cities around the world.
In the 2018–19 Global Shapers annual report, four key “partners” are listed, including the far-left Climate Reality Project (CRP), which has worked with the Global Shapers Community to “participate in global climate trainings.”
None other than former U.S. Vice President Al Gore co-founded the Climate Reality Project, and he still serves as the organization’s chairman.
In the 2019 annual report for Gore’s Climate Reality Project, CRP reported, “we train these inspiring individuals [in the Global Shapers Community] to connect climate issues with key fights like hunger and social justice.”
The Climate Reality Project’s annual report further states, “We also help Shapers hone their communications and organizing skills to mobilize their communities for climate action and win.
“Through these trainings – held at Shaper events around the world – we’re helping young leaders gain the skills to turn passion into real results,” the report continues. “Many Shapers then train as Climate Reality Leaders to deepen their understanding of the crisis and build their advocacy and organizing skills even further.”
“Climate Reality Leaders” are climate activists trained by Gore’s Climate Reality Project to engage in local, regional, and national activism.
Among other things, the Climate Reality Leaders work to “shift their towns to 100 percent renewable electricity,” as well as “fight pipeline developments in frontline communities” and “organize climate strikes bringing hundreds of thousands into the streets.”
According to Gore’s organization, the Climate Reality Project has trained at least 1,350 Global Shapers over the past three years.
The Climate Reality Project’s close relationship with the Global Shapers Community proves that Gore is deeply connected to the “Great Reset” and will be closely involved with its rollout in 2021.
Additionally, in a recent interview with NBC’s Today television show, Gore evoked the “Great Reset” directly and called for radical economic changes to the world economy to fight climate change.
“So, I think this is a time for a ‘Great Reset,’” Gore said during the interview, after describing the alleged economic benefits of renewable energy sources and electric cars.
“We’ve got to fix a lot of these problems that have been allowed to fester for way too long. And the climate crisis is an opportunity to create tens of millions of new jobs, clean up the air, and reduce the death rate from pandemics, by the way, because the air pollution from burning fossil fuels heightens the death rates from coronavirus.”
“So, this is a time for a reset to fix a bunch of challenges, first among them the climate crisis,” Gore added.
Justin Haskins is editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com and the editorial director of The Heartland Institute.
Read more at RedState
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-24--Fahren-Hype! Alarmists Freak As Arctic Temp Soars … By 0.4 Degrees

Written by Paul Homewood on .
Posted in Latest news PHEW , what a scorcher of a story from Mail Online !
It alarmingly informed us : ‘ The Arctic is thought to have recorded its hottest ever temperature of 100.4F ( 38C ) in Siberia , an astonishing 32F ( 18C ) above the normal level for this time of year.
’ Breathlessly , it went on : ‘ The mercury shot up to the unprecedented level in Verkhoyansk , 3,000 miles east of Moscow , as the region endures a summer heatwave .
Scientists had predicted the Arctic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2100 , meaning it is warming 80 years faster than previously thought.
’ The story says the current record for the hottest temperature in the Arctic is held by Prospect Creek , Alaska , which recorded 100F ( 38C ) in 1915 .
American weatherman Jeff Berardelli ( Mail Online incorrectly called him Beradelli ) , who describes himself as a ‘ Climate Change and Extreme Weather Communicator contributing to CBS News ’ , also weighed in on Twitter .
He said : ‘ Likely the hottest temperature ever recorded in the Arctic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Siberia this year is nothing short of remarkable .
For perspective , Miami has only reached 100F ( 38C ) once on record.
’ Yes , well .
So far , so scary .
However , even the babies who write for the Mail could surely spot the fly in the ointment – that this new record is only 0.4F higher than the previous one set in 1915 !
Hardly the apocalypse the man-made global warming lobby is trying to present .
As for Verkhoyansk itself , temperatures there reached 37.3C ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 30C-plus days .
So again , there is nothing remarkable about the latest weather at all , as you can see from these charts … Maybe Mail Online will now realize the story is only lukewarm at best .

Written by Paul Homewood on Jun 24, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
PHEW, what a scorcher of a story from Mail Online!
It alarmingly informed us: ‘The Arctic is thought to have recorded its hottest ever temperature of 100.4F (38C) in Siberia, an astonishing 32F (18C) above the normal level for this time of year.’
Breathlessly, it went on: ‘The mercury shot up to the unprecedented level in Verkhoyansk, 3,000 miles east of Moscow, as the region endures a summer heatwave.
Scientists had predicted the Arctic wouldn’t reach these levels until 2100, meaning it is warming 80 years faster than previously thought.’
The story says the current record for the hottest temperature in the Arctic is held by Prospect Creek, Alaska, which recorded 100F (38C) in 1915.
American weatherman Jeff Berardelli (Mail Online incorrectly called him Beradelli), who describes himself as a ‘Climate Change and Extreme Weather Communicator contributing to CBS News’, also weighed in on Twitter.
He said: ‘Likely the hottest temperature ever recorded in the Arctic happened today. What’s happening in Siberia this year is nothing short of remarkable. For perspective, Miami has only reached 100F (38C) once on record.’
Yes, well. So far, so scary. However, even the babies who write for the Mail could surely spot the fly in the ointment – that this new record is only 0.4F higher than the previous one set in 1915!
Hardly the apocalypse the man-made global warming lobby is trying to present.
As for Verkhoyansk itself, temperatures there reached 37.3C (99.1F) in 1988 during a succession of 30C-plus days. So again, there is nothing remarkable about the latest weather at all, as you can see from these charts …
Maybe Mail Online will now realize the story is only lukewarm at best.
Read more at Conservative Woman
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-24--The Peer-Review Process Is Bowing To The Mob

Written by Peter Shawn Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news Within the scientific community , the peer-review process is widely held to be the gold standard of reliability and veracity , offering readers a degree of confidence lesser papers simply can ’ t muster .
And so last month when The Lancet , one of the world ’ s most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals , announced a promising COVID-19 treatment had been proven to be not only ineffective but also a danger to anyone taking it , the ramifications were swift and far-reaching .
Recall that U.S. President Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hydroxychloroquine as a potential “ game-changer ” in the fight against COVID-19 .
Hopeful early results set off a flurry of in-depth trials and investigations around the world .
All that came to a screeching halt once The Lancet declared the drug to be a health hazard .
The World Health Organization and numerous other groups immediately halted their hydroxychloroquine research projects .
Science had spoken .
Two weeks later , however , the paper was embarrassingly withdrawn because the data could not be verified , and may well be false .
Given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s one of the biggest scientific humiliations in recent memory .
Yet aside from the urgency of the subject matter , there ’ s nothing particularly novel about this turn of events .
Grotesque errors occur with alarming regularity throughout the peer-reviewed academic press .
Any sense the process offers a guarantee of unimpeachable rigor and reliability is entirely misplaced .
And the future is looking even shabbier for science ’ s tarnished gold standard .
Despite the common perception peer review entails numerous experts carefully poring over a study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the actual process is far less impressive .
Reviewers are typically scholars in the field expected to do the work for free .
And they generally have time to give each paper only a cursory read to ensure it makes a novel and useful addition to existing literature .
While plenty of submitted papers are rejected by the peer-review process , it is not a system meant to catch egregious data errors or subterfuge .
A quick glance at the enormous data set compiled by Retraction Watch , which tracks retractions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways in which the peer-review process can fail .
Among the nearly 100 possible reasons listed are errors in data or analysis , plagiarism , misconduct , copyright violations , manipulation of results , irreproducible results , ethical violations , hoaxes , and outright fraud .
The daily stream of additions to Retraction Watch ’ s list of shame stands as a further testament to the inability of the peer-review process to catch underlying problems big or small .
Despite its outsized reputation , peer review is no guarantee of useful knowledge or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the conflict between competing theories and the relentless testing of other researchers ’ results to laboriously weed out erroneous or false conclusions — what philosopher Karl Popper called a process of conjecture and refutation .
Unfortunately , even this elemental nature of scientific progress is now under assault thanks to a brand new flaw in the peer-review process — fealty to the mob .
Earlier this month chemistry professor Tomas Hudlicky of Brock University in St. Catharines , Ont.
, had a peer-reviewed article published in the prestigious German journal Angewandte Chemie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a groundbreaking 30-year-old paper on synthetic organic chemistry and a discussion of how the field had changed in the past three decades .
As such , it contained a few parenthetical thoughts from Hudlicky on recent administrative innovations , including now-omnipresent university policies regarding equity , diversity , and inclusion .
In a footnote , he opined that “ These issues have influenced hiring practices to the point where the candidate ’ s inclusion in one of the preferred social groups may override his or her qualifications.
” Hudlicky ’ s premise that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unrepresented groups could impede efforts to hire the most meritorious candidate may be controversial to many , but it is certainly arguable .
Does not discriminate in favor of certain groups mathematically entail discrimination against others ?
The existence of numerous academic positions advertised as being open exclusively to certain minority groups suggests as much .
What Hudlicky discovered , however , is that his position is no longer even contestable .
Rather it is strictly forbidden .
Shocked that one of their own could express a heterodox opinion on the value of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies , chemistry professors around the world immediately demanded the paper be retracted .
Mob justice was swift .
In an open letter to “ our community ” days after publication , the publisher of Angewandte Chemie announced it had suspended the two senior editors who handled the article and permanently removed from its list of experts the two peer reviewers involved .
The article was also expunged from its website .
The publisher then pledged to assemble a “ diverse group of external advisers ” to thoroughly root out “ the potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels ” of the journal .
Not to be outdone , Brock ’ s provost also disowned Hudlicky in a press statement , calling his views “ utterly at odds with the values ” of the university ; the school then drew attention to its own efforts to purge unconscious bias from its ranks and to further the goals of “ accessibility , reconciliation , and decolonization.
” ( None of which have anything to do with synthetic organic chemistry , by the way . )
Brock ’ s knee-jerk criticism of Hudlicky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a formal complaint by another professor that the provost ’ s statement violates the school ’ s commitment to freedom of expression .
Hudlicky — who told Retraction Watch “ the witch hunt is on ” — clearly had the misfortune to make a few cranky comments at a time when putting heads on pikes is all the rage .
But what of the implications his situation entails for the entirety of the peer-review process ?
Given the scorched earth treatment handed out to the editors and peer reviewers involved at Angewandte Chemie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journals seem perfectly clear — peer reviewers are now expected to vet articles not just for coherence and relevance to the scientific field in question , but also for alignment with whatever political views may currently hold sway with the community-at-large .
If a publication-worthy paper comes across your desk that questions or undermines orthodox public opinion in any way — even in a footnote — and you approve it , your job may be forfeit .
Conform or disappear .
If it is now forbidden to question whether preferential hiring practices can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else is beyond the pale for peer reviewers ?
Consider all the other dearly held truths of our current cultural revolution regarding the value of Indigenous ways of knowing , the nature of gender and biology , climate change measurement , colonial history or the efficacy of pesticides and GMOs , the health risks of alcohol consumption .
Nearly every contentious topic has underlying social or political ramifications .
With moral purity inserted as a component to the internal processes for all academic publications , it will henceforth become impossible to pursue the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ False theories will remain dogma simply because no one is allowed to challenge them .
How many new and potentially successful concepts or ideas will never see the light of day simply because peer reviewers decide to reject publication out of fear for their own reputation and livelihood ?
Beyond the lamentable enforcement of conformity in academia through hiring practices and social pressure , now even the anonymous peer-review process may be perverted into active censorship of unpopular ideas .
For all its obvious flaws , peer review has endured because it offers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or perish on their own merit in the open market of scientific inquiry .
If Galileo had the opportunity to submit his scandalously unpopular theory of planetary movement to some ancient journal of astronomy reviewed by his peers , rather than the Inquisition of the Holy Roman Catholic Church , would he still have had to recant ?
Perhaps not in 1633 .
Today , however , he ’ d likely be burnt at the stake by the new guardians of the one true religion .
Read more at Financial Post

Written by Peter Shawn Taylor on Jun 24, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Within the scientific community, the peer-review process is widely held to be the gold standard of reliability and veracity, offering readers a degree of confidence lesser papers simply can’t muster.
And so last month when The Lancet, one of the world’s most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals, announced a promising COVID-19 treatment had been proven to be not only ineffective but also a danger to anyone taking it, the ramifications were swift and far-reaching.
Recall that U.S. President Donald Trump had earlier touted the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a potential “game-changer” in the fight against COVID-19.
Hopeful early results set off a flurry of in-depth trials and investigations around the world. All that came to a screeching halt once The Lancet declared the drug to be a health hazard.
The World Health Organization and numerous other groups immediately halted their hydroxychloroquine research projects. Science had spoken.
Two weeks later, however, the paper was embarrassingly withdrawn because the data could not be verified, and may well be false. Given the stakes involved with a global pandemic, it’s one of the biggest scientific humiliations in recent memory.
Yet aside from the urgency of the subject matter, there’s nothing particularly novel about this turn of events. Grotesque errors occur with alarming regularity throughout the peer-reviewed academic press.
Any sense the process offers a guarantee of unimpeachable rigor and reliability is entirely misplaced. And the future is looking even shabbier for science’s tarnished gold standard.
Despite the common perception peer review entails numerous experts carefully poring over a study’s results to ensure its validity, the actual process is far less impressive.
Reviewers are typically scholars in the field expected to do the work for free. And they generally have time to give each paper only a cursory read to ensure it makes a novel and useful addition to existing literature.
While plenty of submitted papers are rejected by the peer-review process, it is not a system meant to catch egregious data errors or subterfuge.
A quick glance at the enormous data set compiled by Retraction Watch, which tracks retractions in academic journals, reveals there are numerous ways in which the peer-review process can fail.
Among the nearly 100 possible reasons listed are errors in data or analysis, plagiarism, misconduct, copyright violations, manipulation of results, irreproducible results, ethical violations, hoaxes, and outright fraud.
The daily stream of additions to Retraction Watch’s list of shame stands as a further testament to the inability of the peer-review process to catch underlying problems big or small.
Despite its outsized reputation, peer review is no guarantee of useful knowledge or truth.
This can only be approached through the conflict between competing theories and the relentless testing of other researchers’ results to laboriously weed out erroneous or false conclusions — what philosopher Karl Popper called a process of conjecture and refutation.
Unfortunately, even this elemental nature of scientific progress is now under assault thanks to a brand new flaw in the peer-review process — fealty to the mob.
Earlier this month chemistry professor Tomas Hudlicky of Brock University in St. Catharines, Ont., had a peer-reviewed article published in the prestigious German journal Angewandte Chemie.
It was a retrospective look at a groundbreaking 30-year-old paper on synthetic organic chemistry and a discussion of how the field had changed in the past three decades.
As such, it contained a few parenthetical thoughts from Hudlicky on recent administrative innovations, including now-omnipresent university policies regarding equity, diversity, and inclusion.
In a footnote, he opined that “These issues have influenced hiring practices to the point where the candidate’s inclusion in one of the preferred social groups may override his or her qualifications.”
Hudlicky’s premise that mandated preferential treatment for job candidates from unrepresented groups could impede efforts to hire the most meritorious candidate may be controversial to many, but it is certainly arguable.
Does not discriminate in favor of certain groups mathematically entail discrimination against others?
The existence of numerous academic positions advertised as being open exclusively to certain minority groups suggests as much.
What Hudlicky discovered, however, is that his position is no longer even contestable. Rather it is strictly forbidden.
Shocked that one of their own could express a heterodox opinion on the value of de rigueur equity, diversity and inclusion policies, chemistry professors around the world immediately demanded the paper be retracted.
Mob justice was swift. In an open letter to “our community” days after publication, the publisher of Angewandte Chemie announced it had suspended the two senior editors who handled the article and permanently removed from its list of experts the two peer reviewers involved.
The article was also expunged from its website. The publisher then pledged to assemble a “diverse group of external advisers” to thoroughly root out “the potential for discrimination and foster diversity at all levels” of the journal.
Not to be outdone, Brock’s provost also disowned Hudlicky in a press statement, calling his views “utterly at odds with the values” of the university; the school then drew attention to its own efforts to purge unconscious bias from its ranks and to further the goals of “accessibility, reconciliation, and decolonization.” (None of which have anything to do with synthetic organic chemistry, by the way.)
Brock’s knee-jerk criticism of Hudlicky is now also under review, following a formal complaint by another professor that the provost’s statement violates the school’s commitment to freedom of expression.
Hudlicky — who told Retraction Watch “the witch hunt is on” — clearly had the misfortune to make a few cranky comments at a time when putting heads on pikes is all the rage.
But what of the implications his situation entails for the entirety of the peer-review process?
Given the scorched earth treatment handed out to the editors and peer reviewers involved at Angewandte Chemie, the new marching orders for academic journals seem perfectly clear — peer reviewers are now expected to vet articles not just for coherence and relevance to the scientific field in question, but also for alignment with whatever political views may currently hold sway with the community-at-large.
If a publication-worthy paper comes across your desk that questions or undermines orthodox public opinion in any way — even in a footnote — and you approve it, your job may be forfeit. Conform or disappear.
If it is now forbidden to question whether preferential hiring practices can have an impact on merit, what else is beyond the pale for peer reviewers?
Consider all the other dearly held truths of our current cultural revolution regarding the value of Indigenous ways of knowing, the nature of gender and biology, climate change measurement, colonial history or the efficacy of pesticides and GMOs, the health risks of alcohol consumption.
Nearly every contentious topic has underlying social or political ramifications.
With moral purity inserted as a component to the internal processes for all academic publications, it will henceforth become impossible to pursue the vital schema of conjecture and refutation.
False theories will remain dogma simply because no one is allowed to challenge them.
How many new and potentially successful concepts or ideas will never see the light of day simply because peer reviewers decide to reject publication out of fear for their own reputation and livelihood?
Beyond the lamentable enforcement of conformity in academia through hiring practices and social pressure, now even the anonymous peer-review process may be perverted into active censorship of unpopular ideas.
For all its obvious flaws, peer review has endured because it offers challenging new ideas the opportunity to flourish or perish on their own merit in the open market of scientific inquiry.
If Galileo had the opportunity to submit his scandalously unpopular theory of planetary movement to some ancient journal of astronomy reviewed by his peers, rather than the Inquisition of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, would he still have had to recant? Perhaps not in 1633.
Today, however, he’d likely be burnt at the stake by the new guardians of the one true religion.
Read more at Financial Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-24--Canadian Students School PM Trudeau On Oil And Gas

Written by David Solway on .
Posted in Latest news In a letter ( PDF ) that ’ s well worth reading , students at various universities across the country , members of a group called Students for Canada ( SEC ) , addressed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau , encouraging him to rescue and promote Canada ’ s ailing energy sector .
The letter is a powerful , meticulously documented and near-irrefutable report meant to counter an earlier petition by 265 academics—which I have referenced in a previous article for The Pipeline—urging Trudeau to shut down the oil and gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the relation of authority .
These students know infinitely more than the profs , technological and economic illiterates who proceed from purely ideological motives , whereas their student adversaries base their thesis on actual realities .
The two lead authors of the student letter are candidates in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences ; the competencies of the two lead authors of the academic letter are in Political Science and Sociology .
This should tell us something about relevant expertise .
( Ironically , the University of Alberta is home to both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Offering a vista of unexpected hope for the return of intellectual sanity to an ideological wasteland , these students have largely managed to resist the left-wing and “ social justice ” curriculum of the indoctrination factories our universities have become .
In four pages of resource-rich material and dispositive evidence , they have exhibited not only an informed concern for the country ’ s welfare but a thorough familiarity with the complexities and minutiae of energy production , industry safety standards , employment issues , technological innovation , and bread-and-butter outcomes , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stability and economic prospects .
They advocate fumigating the language around the Canadian energy sector .
“ The use of the terms ‘ tar sands ’ , ‘ war ’ , ‘ dead ’ , and ‘ bailout ’ tend to… trigger… anger and divisiveness.
” Loaded language is a sure-fire way to preempt debate .
Reputable contributors to a contentious issue need to invoke clarity of expression and neutral terminology .
“ Members of Geothermics understand that carefully chosen words can encourage people to listen and critically think about the issue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue involves oil and gas.
” After all , “ how can the Canadian oil and gas industry be ‘ dead ’ when Canadian Energy companies provide social benefits and are continuously developing clean innovations ?
” They argue that “ Canada has founded one of the most sustainable hydrocarbon development strategies in the world , ” from which other countries with similar oil reserves could learn .
They explain that “ global energy demands will continue to increase in the future and that renewable energy is not in a position to replace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come.
” Indeed , “ the totality of renewables supply only 7 % of global demand ( International Energy Agency , 2019 ) …illustrat [ ing ] that oil and gas are valuable natural resources , just like lithium , copper , uranium and iron ore , etc.
, needed to manufacture goods , medical supplies , electronics , outdoor gear , renewables , etc.
” They point out that Canada was “ ranked number one for Sustainable Development in 2019 relative to the world ’ s top oil exporters ( sdgindex.org ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponents of energy extraction and delivery regarding methane leaks “ is being continually mitigated with the decades of improvement created by companies subject to Canada ’ s oil and gas sector regulations.
” Further , the construction of Liquefied Natural Gas facilities is projected to add billions in new government revenue as well as “ provide for additional health care , schools , infrastructure and many other services to be filled by future graduating students.
” In addition , “ the geological and engineering knowledge from the oil industry is directly transferable towards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on exploiting moving fluids within the earth to capture/harness a different source of energy.
” Another technological breakthrough “ requiring advanced geoscience and engineering is the use of compressed air stored within sealed underground caverns , ” which can be recuperated to operate turbines generating electricity .
These are only some of the energy sector positives listed by the students .
The writers make only one mistake when regarding carbon as a destructive element and promoting the technology of carbon capture and storage to stimulate the production of clean energy , thus misunderstanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ verdant life .
Research and development in oil and gas , they maintain , entails “ consequences for all energy sources , such as the societal , ecological and geological impact of dams , the utility of land dedicated to solar farms , [ and ] the societal and ecological impacts of mining rare earth minerals for solar panels , batteries , and wind turbines.
” The argument is ingenious , detailing how oil and gas will lead to solar and wind .
This may or may not be so , but if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sop to the Greenies , it ’ s clearly bound to fail .
Radical environmentalists are concession-proof .
Moreover , wind farms , solar installations , and SpongeBob-looking photovoltaic panels disfiguring the landscape do not seem a reasonable innovation in countries already burdened by six months of dark winter and unreliable weather patterns .
One way or another , there is no immediate foreseeable replacement for oil and gas , as the students themselves admit .
By the same token , the anti-carbon brief is wholly misguided .
It is the staple delusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its hundreds of millions of gullible adherents .
Robert Zubrin has shown in a profoundly researched book , Merchants of Despair , that there exists robust scientific proof derived from ice core data and isotopic ratios in marine organism remains that Earth ’ s climate is a stable system , that CO2 emissions create surplus plant growth that in turn absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide—the proper form of carbon storage—thus restoring climate equilibrium over the long haul , and that under conditions of cyclical global warming agricultural productivity naturally increases and human life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Inconvenient Facts , which puts paid to the anti-carbon crusade , is equally essential reading .
Wrightstone , a geoscientist of 35 years experience , shows that the real threat to humankind is not carbon or Thermageddon but “ a group of men ( and women ) intent on imposing an agenda based on seriously flawed science.
” Bruce Bunker ’ s more recent The Mythology of Global Warming is as close to a clincher as one could hope to find .
Relying on reams of proven scientific data from the geologic record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming is a total myth.
” His pages need to be studied .
I should also mention Alan Fensin , an electronic engineer and NASA design consultant , who in Global Warming , The Carbon Dioxide Hoax , a very accessible account , demolishes the fable that a “ small trace gas called carbon dioxide [ is ] responsible for controlling our climate.
” Writing in the Wall Street Journal back in 2007 , Princeton physicist William Happer also highlighted the fact that “ Life on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at much higher CO2 levels than we see today.
” CO2 levels during the Ordovician Age of 440 million years ago were ten times higher than they are at present , yet the earth prospered .
As Science Daily reports , “ The Ordovician geologic period included a climate characterized by high atmospheric carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) levels , warm average temperatures , and flourishing life.
” These findings are disputed by left-wing sites like Skeptical Science ; physicist John Droz Jr. , writing in MasterResource : A Free-Market Energy Blog , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be pardoned for their single lapse from scientific rigor and environmental fact .
They are young and still have a lifetime of research and study ahead of them , enabling them to correct errors and incorporate ever more facts and discoveries into their world picture—and to find erudite and honorable teachers like Zubrin , Wrightstone and Bunker , among others .
They represent the best hope for the future of climatology and environmental studies—and for the recovery and growth of Canada ’ s energy production .
They are in their way a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy sector—its mental energy sector—which augurs well for the morrow if they can preserve their integrity , pursue their adventure into truth and withstand the ideological inroads of a faux-environmentalist pathology .
Their minds are in the right place , which is more than can be said for their politically-correct preceptors .
Read more at The Pipeline

Written by David Solway on Jun 24, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In a letter (PDF) that’s well worth reading, students at various universities across the country, members of a group called Students for Canada (SEC), addressed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, encouraging him to rescue and promote Canada’s ailing energy sector.
The letter is a powerful, meticulously documented and near-irrefutable report meant to counter an earlier petition by 265 academics—which I have referenced in a previous article for The Pipeline—urging Trudeau to shut down the oil and gas industry entirely.
The letter brilliantly reverses the relation of authority.
These students know infinitely more than the profs, technological and economic illiterates who proceed from purely ideological motives, whereas their student adversaries base their thesis on actual realities.
The two lead authors of the student letter are candidates in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences; the competencies of the two lead authors of the academic letter are in Political Science and Sociology.
This should tell us something about relevant expertise. (Ironically, the University of Alberta is home to both the students and the pedagogues.)
Offering a vista of unexpected hope for the return of intellectual sanity to an ideological wasteland, these students have largely managed to resist the left-wing and “social justice” curriculum of the indoctrination factories our universities have become.
In four pages of resource-rich material and dispositive evidence, they have exhibited not only an informed concern for the country’s welfare but a thorough familiarity with the complexities and minutiae of energy production, industry safety standards, employment issues, technological innovation, and bread-and-butter outcomes, all benefiting the country’s future political stability and economic prospects.
They advocate fumigating the language around the Canadian energy sector. “The use of the terms ‘tar sands’, ‘war’, ‘dead’, and ‘bailout’ tend to… trigger… anger and divisiveness.”
Loaded language is a sure-fire way to preempt debate. Reputable contributors to a contentious issue need to invoke clarity of expression and neutral terminology.
“Members of Geothermics understand that carefully chosen words can encourage people to listen and critically think about the issue to promote integrated solutions, especially if the issue involves oil and gas.”
After all, “how can the Canadian oil and gas industry be ‘dead’ when Canadian Energy companies provide social benefits and are continuously developing clean innovations?”
They argue that “Canada has founded one of the most sustainable hydrocarbon development strategies in the world,” from which other countries with similar oil reserves could learn.
They explain that “global energy demands will continue to increase in the future and that renewable energy is not in a position to replace [fossil fuels] for decades to come.”
Indeed, “the totality of renewables supply only 7% of global demand (International Energy Agency, 2019)…illustrat[ing] that oil and gas are valuable natural resources, just like lithium, copper, uranium and iron ore, etc., needed to manufacture goods, medical supplies, electronics, outdoor gear, renewables, etc.”
They point out that Canada was “ranked number one for Sustainable Development in 2019 relative to the world’s top oil exporters (sdgindex.org).”
The concern often cited by opponents of energy extraction and delivery regarding methane leaks “is being continually mitigated with the decades of improvement created by companies subject to Canada’s oil and gas sector regulations.”
Further, the construction of Liquefied Natural Gas facilities is projected to add billions in new government revenue as well as “provide for additional health care, schools, infrastructure and many other services to be filled by future graduating students.”
In addition, “the geological and engineering knowledge from the oil industry is directly transferable towards geothermal energy exploration, which is based on exploiting moving fluids within the earth to capture/harness a different source of energy.”
Another technological breakthrough “requiring advanced geoscience and engineering is the use of compressed air stored within sealed underground caverns,” which can be recuperated to operate turbines generating electricity.
These are only some of the energy sector positives listed by the students.
The writers make only one mistake when regarding carbon as a destructive element and promoting the technology of carbon capture and storage to stimulate the production of clean energy, thus misunderstanding the relation of carbon to fertility and verdant life.
Research and development in oil and gas, they maintain, entails “consequences for all energy sources, such as the societal, ecological and geological impact of dams, the utility of land dedicated to solar farms, [and] the societal and ecological impacts of mining rare earth minerals for solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines.”
The argument is ingenious, detailing how oil and gas will lead to solar and wind. This may or may not be so, but if intended as a tactical gesture, a sop to the Greenies, it’s clearly bound to fail.
Radical environmentalists are concession-proof. Moreover, wind farms, solar installations, and SpongeBob-looking photovoltaic panels disfiguring the landscape do not seem a reasonable innovation in countries already burdened by six months of dark winter and unreliable weather patterns.
One way or another, there is no immediate foreseeable replacement for oil and gas, as the students themselves admit.
By the same token, the anti-carbon brief is wholly misguided. It is the staple delusion of the global warming/climate change/extreme weather industry and its hundreds of millions of gullible adherents.
Robert Zubrin has shown in a profoundly researched book, Merchants of Despair, that there exists robust scientific proof derived from ice core data and isotopic ratios in marine organism remains that Earth’s climate is a stable system, that CO2 emissions create surplus plant growth that in turn absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide—the proper form of carbon storage—thus restoring climate equilibrium over the long haul, and that under conditions of cyclical global warming agricultural productivity naturally increases and human life immensely improves.
Gregory Wrightstone’s Inconvenient Facts, which puts paid to the anti-carbon crusade, is equally essential reading.
Wrightstone, a geoscientist of 35 years experience, shows that the real threat to humankind is not carbon or Thermageddon but “a group of men (and women) intent on imposing an agenda based on seriously flawed science.”
Bruce Bunker’s more recent The Mythology of Global Warming is as close to a clincher as one could hope to find. Relying on reams of proven scientific data from the geologic record, Bunker concludes:
“The premise that CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming is a total myth.”
His pages need to be studied. I should also mention Alan Fensin, an electronic engineer and NASA design consultant, who in Global Warming, The Carbon Dioxide Hoax, a very accessible account, demolishes the fable that a “small trace gas called carbon dioxide [is] responsible for controlling our climate.”
Writing in the Wall Street Journal back in 2007, Princeton physicist William Happer also highlighted the fact that “Life on earth flourished for hundreds of million years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today.”
CO2 levels during the Ordovician Age of 440 million years ago were ten times higher than they are at present, yet the earth prospered.
As Science Daily reports, “The Ordovician geologic period included a climate characterized by high atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, warm average temperatures, and flourishing life.”
These findings are disputed by left-wing sites like Skeptical Science; physicist John Droz Jr., writing in MasterResource: A Free-Market Energy Blog, demolishes its falsifications definitively.
The students can be pardoned for their single lapse from scientific rigor and environmental fact.
They are young and still have a lifetime of research and study ahead of them, enabling them to correct errors and incorporate ever more facts and discoveries into their world picture—and to find erudite and honorable teachers like Zubrin, Wrightstone and Bunker, among others.
They represent the best hope for the future of climatology and environmental studies—and for the recovery and growth of Canada’s energy production.
They are in their way a major part of the country’s energy sector—its mental energy sector—which augurs well for the morrow if they can preserve their integrity, pursue their adventure into truth and withstand the ideological inroads of a faux-environmentalist pathology.
Their minds are in the right place, which is more than can be said for their politically-correct preceptors.
Read more at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-24--Linking Climate Change To Floods Not Supported By Science

Written by Robert Muir And Bryan Karney on .
Posted in Latest news Nobel laureate Richard Feynman said it best : “ It doesn ’ t matter how beautiful your theory is , it doesn ’ t matter how smart you are .
If it doesn ’ t agree with experiment , it ’ s wrong.
” Testing theories with data is how theories are validated .
Yet the need to “ ‘ kick the tires ’ on a theory is often overlooked when the media assesses extreme weather .
A recent CBC News story headline declared : “ Yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rainfall , and it ’ s due to climate change , study confirms.
” According to the CBC , which carried the report on its flagship news show , “ Warmer temperatures due to climate change lead to wetter air , and we ’ ve seen more extreme rainfall and flooding across North America .
But is there really evidence that the two are related ?
Yes , there is.
” Well , no there isn ’ t .
The story was based on an Environment Canada study , Human influence has intensified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s what the CBC report missed : • The Environment Canada study presented theoretical projections from models that the data did not consistently validate .
In some regions , the models predicted changes and trends quite contrary to those reported and also contrary to measured data .
• It missed the big picture .
Watersheds are complex and precipitation is only one-factor affecting flood risk — warmer temperatures mean mitigating factors like less runoff from snowmelt .
The study referenced that fact , but not the CBC story .
The CBC ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) coverage also linked the Environment Canada study to “ sudden intense downpours , ” flash flooding , and sewer geysers .
It also neglected data contradicting model results , and limitations of the models in projecting such extreme events .
CBC and R-C coverage has been a problem in the past .
The R-C Ombudsman found that a reported increase in severe “ 100-year ” storms was not supported by data and required correction .
The CBC Ombudsman encouraged journalists to be “ clearer with their choice of tenses ” when separating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phenomena .
Yet CBC continues to report on urban flooding with statistics saying rainfall is now more frequent when those statistics are not observed in measured data at all but are rather from a numerical simulation model projecting the future .
There is an ongoing tendency to confuse models and actual data .
Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman , the author of Thinking , Fast and Slow , suggested we fall victim to cognitive biases by Thinking Fast , thus moving us away from the rational thought of Thinking Slow .
For example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reject a computationally complex judgment for an easily understood one .
It may be easier to point to neat model results as “ proof , ” particularly when these results confirm our expectation than to wade through noisy , conflicting observational data .
We can not argue that all floods are caused by climate change .
Fast reporting also missed key study details in the rainfall story , particularly key limitations .
The study itself says , “ Many of the physical processes that produce extreme rainfall occur at spatial scales smaller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by available models .
Local-scale events are not well captured.
” It also stated model results may diverge from observations in the west and central west — observations show decreases in extreme precipitation while all three models show increases .
In some regions , it turns out all models are “ wrong ” !
Are we merely being difficult here ?
If one- to five-day precipitation is projected to increase , does that not imply that there will be more runoff and flooding in large rural watersheds ?
Not necessarily .
Even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less snow , and thus less snowmelt .
Such mitigating factors are among the reasons the official attribution study for Alberta ’ s 2013 flood stated categorically that “ no anthropogenic influence can be detected for one-day and three-day surface runoff.
” A broader analysis of major floods across North America and Europe using observational data found “ the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone.
” Checking theories with data shows that there is yet no change in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look more directly at local data ?
For example , how about using rain data to check theoretical models ?
Data for 651 weather stations in Environment Canada ’ s Engineering Climate Datasets show that a mere 4.9 percent of annual maximum one-day rainfalls have to date shown a statistically significant increase .
And what about those shorter ( two hours or less ) , sudden intense downpours ?
For this large data set , that rainfall increased in only just over four percent of the cases .
These small increases , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , are relatively few and can be explained by chance .
So the evidence is lacking on changes in the particular rain events linked to urban flooding .
All of us , including the media , must embrace the reality that weather and infrastructure systems are complex with no simple answers .
Reporting accurately and fairly on complex phenomena means not glossing over model uncertainties or omitting conflicting data .
In promoting action on flooding , certainly a crucial priority , one CBC interviewee stated that “ time is not a luxury.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ let ’ s hope there ’ s time for some slow thinking about floods before we rush into fast decisions .
Read more at Financial Post

Written by Robert Muir And Bryan Karney on Jun 24, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman said it best: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Testing theories with data is how theories are validated. Yet the need to “‘kick the tires’ on a theory is often overlooked when the media assesses extreme weather.
A recent CBC News story headline declared: “Yes, we’re getting more extreme rainfall, and it’s due to climate change, study confirms.”
According to the CBC, which carried the report on its flagship news show, “Warmer temperatures due to climate change lead to wetter air, and we’ve seen more extreme rainfall and flooding across North America. But is there really evidence that the two are related? Yes, there is.”
Well, no there isn’t. The story was based on an Environment Canada study, Human influence has intensified extreme precipitation in North America. Here’s what the CBC report missed:
• The Environment Canada study presented theoretical projections from models that the data did not consistently validate. In some regions, the models predicted changes and trends quite contrary to those reported and also contrary to measured data.
• It missed the big picture. Watersheds are complex and precipitation is only one-factor affecting flood risk — warmer temperatures mean mitigating factors like less runoff from snowmelt. The study referenced that fact, but not the CBC story.
The CBC’s French service, Radio-Canada (R-C) coverage also linked the Environment Canada study to “sudden intense downpours,” flash flooding, and sewer geysers.
It also neglected data contradicting model results, and limitations of the models in projecting such extreme events.
CBC and R-C coverage has been a problem in the past. The R-C Ombudsman found that a reported increase in severe “100-year” storms was not supported by data and required correction.
The CBC Ombudsman encouraged journalists to be “clearer with their choice of tenses” when separating past, present, and future weather phenomena.
Yet CBC continues to report on urban flooding with statistics saying rainfall is now more frequent when those statistics are not observed in measured data at all but are rather from a numerical simulation model projecting the future.
There is an ongoing tendency to confuse models and actual data.
Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, the author of Thinking, Fast and Slow, suggested we fall victim to cognitive biases by Thinking Fast, thus moving us away from the rational thought of Thinking Slow.
For example, a “substitution bias” causes us to reject a computationally complex judgment for an easily understood one.
It may be easier to point to neat model results as “proof,” particularly when these results confirm our expectation than to wade through noisy, conflicting observational data. We cannot argue that all floods are caused by climate change.
Fast reporting also missed key study details in the rainfall story, particularly key limitations.
The study itself says, “Many of the physical processes that produce extreme rainfall occur at spatial scales smaller than those that can be reliably simulated by available models. Local-scale events are not well captured.”
It also stated model results may diverge from observations in the west and central west — observations show decreases in extreme precipitation while all three models show increases.
In some regions, it turns out all models are “wrong”!
Are we merely being difficult here? If one- to five-day precipitation is projected to increase, does that not imply that there will be more runoff and flooding in large rural watersheds? Not necessarily.
Even if precipitation increases, warmer weather might mean less snow, and thus less snowmelt.
Such mitigating factors are among the reasons the official attribution study for Alberta’s 2013 flood stated categorically that “no anthropogenic influence can be detected for one-day and three-day surface runoff.”
A broader analysis of major floods across North America and Europe using observational data found “the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone.”
Checking theories with data shows that there is yet no change in significant floods.
What if we actually look more directly at local data?
For example, how about using rain data to check theoretical models? Data for 651 weather stations in Environment Canada’s Engineering Climate Datasets show that a mere 4.9 percent of annual maximum one-day rainfalls have to date shown a statistically significant increase.
And what about those shorter (two hours or less), sudden intense downpours? For this large data set, that rainfall increased in only just over four percent of the cases.
These small increases, and their flip side (statistically significant decreases), are relatively few and can be explained by chance. So the evidence is lacking on changes in the particular rain events linked to urban flooding.
All of us, including the media, must embrace the reality that weather and infrastructure systems are complex with no simple answers.
Reporting accurately and fairly on complex phenomena means not glossing over model uncertainties or omitting conflicting data.
In promoting action on flooding, certainly a crucial priority, one CBC interviewee stated that “time is not a luxury.” Given the gaps in reporting, let’s hope there’s time for some slow thinking about floods before we rush into fast decisions.
Read more at Financial Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-24--The Flaw In Relying On The Worst-Case-Scenario Climate Model

Written by Ross McKitrick on .
Posted in Latest news Whenever you read a media story about how we ’ re heading toward a catastrophe if we continue operating “ business as usual ” — i.e.
, if we don ’ t slash carbon emissions — the reports are almost always referring to a model simulation using RCP8.5 .
And you can bet that nowhere in the story will they explain that RCP8.5 is an implausible worst-case scenario that was never meant to represent a likely base case outcome , or that scientists have begun castigating its usage as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The term RCP8.5 refers to a greenhouse gas emission scenario often used by scientists for climate model projections .
You might never have heard of RCP8.5 but you have definitely heard of forecasts based on it .
Listening to the politicians who make the strongest pleas for radical climate action , it is clear that their fears for the future are driven by RCP8.5 scenarios , yet it is also clear that they have no idea what it is or what is wrong with it .
RCP stands for “ Representative Concentration Pathways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) will accumulate in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel use over the coming century .
The United Nations ’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) generated a set of four RCP scenarios a decade ago , attaching to each a number indicating how much “ radiative forcing ” ( a measure of global warming potential ) each one generates .
In the middle are RCP4.5 and RCP6.0 , and at the top end is RCP8.5 , a scorcher that predicts historically unprecedented increases in global CO2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , consider its coal use trajectory .
From the 1920s to the year 2000 , global coal consumption stayed between 15 and 20 gigajoules per capita , peaking at 20 in 1960 , falling back to 15 by 2000 , then rising to about 23 earlier this decade with the sudden industrialization of China and India .
Groups like the International Energy Agency expect it will gradually return to the 15-20 gigajoule per capita range by 2040 .
The RCP8.5 scenario offers a different outcome .
Instead of a return to normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to about 30 gigajoules by 2040 , 45 gigajoules by 2060 , and 70 gigajoules by 2100 .
No one seriously believes this is even possible , including people who use RCP8.5 in their climate simulations .
A recent study by Matthew Burgess of the University of Colorado and coauthors , which is currently available in preprint form , pointed out that RCP8.5 doesn ’ t even make sense in its own modeled reality .
It projects so much economic growth that today ’ s poor countries will be richer in 2100 than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be nice if it happened ) , but they will also experience so much warming that they become uninhabitable wastelands .
How can both be true ?
RCP8.5 was created as an outlier ; an improbable worst-case scenario , not a likely business-as-usual forecast .
Yet countless scientists and economists have been using it as one .
You know how the game works : feed RCP8.5 into a climate model , observe the catastrophe , then call it the “ likely ” scenario if we don ’ t cut emissions .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more like the low end of the RCP range .
If you run a model with one of those , the future looks far less worrisome , the policy agenda is far less urgent and your study is far less likely to get any media attention .
Which may be why so many modelers prefer using RCP8.5 .
But last fall , in a commentary in Nature magazine , climate experts Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters scolded their colleagues for misleading the public this way and distorting the policy debate in the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Another analysis last fall by Zeke Hausfather et .
al .
compiled CO2 concentration forecasts from the ’ 70s onward .
The figure shown on this page is based on their data .
In the ’ 70s , scientists made CO2 projections through 2000 .
Reality came in near the bottom end .
And from the ’ 80s on , reality came in right at the bottom end .
The IPCC likewise has a history of playing up worst-case scenarios .
Prior to commissioning the RCP group , in 2000 the IPCC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( SRES ) , a set of emission paths ranging from low and slow CO2 growth to the infamous A1FI top-end scorcher , which climate modelers considered unrealistic at the time but which allowed the IPCC to issue scary-sounding “ up to six degrees ” warming forecasts .
In a column I published on this page on April 4 , 2002 , I noted that by the time it was shown to experts in early 2000 , A1FI had already overestimated global coal consumption growth in the ’ 90s by 40 percent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversy in 2002 when Ian Castles , the former chief statistician of Australia , and former OECD chief economist David Henderson wrote to the IPCC to inform it that the SRES team had used an incorrect formula for computing foreign exchange rates , which systematically exaggerated the growth and emissions forecasts in low-income countries .
In my own academic research , I have also found IPCC emissions scenarios to be exaggerated .
In two papers published in 2012 and 2013 , I and my coauthors compared the range of IPCC emission scenarios to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the range to be improbable compared to the lower half .
Thus for at least 30 years , when the IPCC and others have issued emission scenario ranges , the bottom end has always been the most realistic path and the rest has been exaggerated , yet the upper end gets all the media and academic attention .
RCP8.5 takes this distortion to new heights .
The purpose of global climate policy is to get us from the dangerous upper end of the forecast range down to the safe bottom end .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to understand is that we are already there .
In fact , we never left it .
We don ’ t need to kill the global economy to get onto an emissions path we ’ ve always been on .
If we want to avoid the RCP8.5 future scenario all we have to do is stop feeding it into climate models , because that ’ s the only place it exists .
Read more at Financial Post

Written by Ross McKitrick on Jun 24, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Whenever you read a media story about how we’re heading toward a catastrophe if we continue operating “business as usual” — i.e., if we don’t slash carbon emissions — the reports are almost always referring to a model simulation using RCP8.5.
And you can bet that nowhere in the story will they explain that RCP8.5 is an implausible worst-case scenario that was never meant to represent a likely base case outcome, or that scientists have begun castigating its usage as a prediction of a doomed business-as-usual future.
The term RCP8.5 refers to a greenhouse gas emission scenario often used by scientists for climate model projections. You might never have heard of RCP8.5 but you have definitely heard of forecasts based on it.
Listening to the politicians who make the strongest pleas for radical climate action, it is clear that their fears for the future are driven by RCP8.5 scenarios, yet it is also clear that they have no idea what it is or what is wrong with it.
RCP stands for “Representative Concentration Pathways,” or projections of how much carbon dioxide (CO2) will accumulate in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel use over the coming century.
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) generated a set of four RCP scenarios a decade ago, attaching to each a number indicating how much “radiative forcing” (a measure of global warming potential) each one generates.
RCP2.6 refers to a benign, low-end emission scenario with correspondingly minimal radiative forcing.
In the middle are RCP4.5 and RCP6.0, and at the top end is RCP8.5, a scorcher that predicts historically unprecedented increases in global CO2 emissions.
To appreciate how implausible RCP8.5 is, consider its coal use trajectory. From the 1920s to the year 2000, global coal consumption stayed between 15 and 20 gigajoules per capita, peaking at 20 in 1960, falling back to 15 by 2000, then rising to about 23 earlier this decade with the sudden industrialization of China and India.
Groups like the International Energy Agency expect it will gradually return to the 15-20 gigajoule per capita range by 2040.
The RCP8.5 scenario offers a different outcome. Instead of a return to normal, it projects coal use will rise to about 30 gigajoules by 2040, 45 gigajoules by 2060, and 70 gigajoules by 2100.
No one seriously believes this is even possible, including people who use RCP8.5 in their climate simulations.
It gets worse.
A recent study by Matthew Burgess of the University of Colorado and coauthors, which is currently available in preprint form, pointed out that RCP8.5 doesn’t even make sense in its own modeled reality.
It projects so much economic growth that today’s poor countries will be richer in 2100 than the wealthiest countries are today (which would be nice if it happened), but they will also experience so much warming that they become uninhabitable wastelands. How can both be true?
RCP8.5 was created as an outlier; an improbable worst-case scenario, not a likely business-as-usual forecast.
Yet countless scientists and economists have been using it as one. You know how the game works: feed RCP8.5 into a climate model, observe the catastrophe, then call it the “likely” scenario if we don’t cut emissions.
A more realistic business-as-usual scenario would look much more like the low end of the RCP range.
If you run a model with one of those, the future looks far less worrisome, the policy agenda is far less urgent and your study is far less likely to get any media attention.
Which may be why so many modelers prefer using RCP8.5.
But last fall, in a commentary in Nature magazine, climate experts Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters scolded their colleagues for misleading the public this way and distorting the policy debate in the process.
Exaggerated emission forecasts are nothing new. Another analysis last fall by Zeke Hausfather et. al. compiled CO2 concentration forecasts from the ’70s onward.
The figure shown on this page is based on their data. In the ’70s, scientists made CO2 projections through 2000. Reality came in near the bottom end. And from the ’80s on, reality came in right at the bottom end.
The IPCC likewise has a history of playing up worst-case scenarios.
Prior to commissioning the RCP group, in 2000 the IPCC issued the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), a set of emission paths ranging from low and slow CO2 growth to the infamous A1FI top-end scorcher, which climate modelers considered unrealistic at the time but which allowed the IPCC to issue scary-sounding “up to six degrees” warming forecasts.
In a column I published on this page on April 4, 2002, I noted that by the time it was shown to experts in early 2000, A1FI had already overestimated global coal consumption growth in the ’90s by 40 percent.
The SRES scenarios came in for more controversy in 2002 when Ian Castles, the former chief statistician of Australia, and former OECD chief economist David Henderson wrote to the IPCC to inform it that the SRES team had used an incorrect formula for computing foreign exchange rates, which systematically exaggerated the growth and emissions forecasts in low-income countries.
In my own academic research, I have also found IPCC emissions scenarios to be exaggerated.
In two papers published in 2012 and 2013, I and my coauthors compared the range of IPCC emission scenarios to historical trends and found the upper half of the range to be improbable compared to the lower half.
Thus for at least 30 years, when the IPCC and others have issued emission scenario ranges, the bottom end has always been the most realistic path and the rest has been exaggerated, yet the upper end gets all the media and academic attention. RCP8.5 takes this distortion to new heights.
The purpose of global climate policy is to get us from the dangerous upper end of the forecast range down to the safe bottom end.
But what users of climate projections need to understand is that we are already there. In fact, we never left it.
We don’t need to kill the global economy to get onto an emissions path we’ve always been on. If we want to avoid the RCP8.5 future scenario all we have to do is stop feeding it into climate models, because that’s the only place it exists.
Read more at Financial Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-24--Temp Hits 100 Degrees Above Arctic Circle, Just Like In 1915

Written by Anthony Watts on .
Posted in Latest news Over the past few days , the news media , social media , and even the Drudge Report have been overheating about a 100-degree temperature reading in Siberia .
For example , a trending tweet , below , claims Siberia is “ literally on fire ” : Prominent climate activist Bill McKibben , the founder of the climate activist organization , 350.org , tweeted on the 100-degree temperature recorded in Verkhoyansk Siberia : “ Siberian town tops 100 degrees F , the hottest temperature ever recorded north of the Arctic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to say.
” He ’ s scared ?
Well , what about the other times when it got that hot above the Arctic circle , before “ climate change ” became a social justice cause ?
For example , this Associated Press article says “ …it was 100 degrees on June 27 , 1915 , in Fort Yukon , [ Alaska ] according to official records of the National Weather Service .
Records date back to 1904.
” That pretty much cools down Bill ’ s claim of “ the hottest temperature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Both Verkhoyansk , Siberia , and Fort Yukon , Alaska , are well above the latitude that defines the Arctic Circle .
How is it that 105 years of global warming ago , when “ climate change ” wasn ’ t even a factor , that it got that hot ?
Inquiring minds want to know .
Or how about the fact that the 100-degree reading in Verkhoyansk , Siberia , this week topped Verkhoyansk ’ s previous record ( 37.3C / 99.1F ) by just 1 degree ?
Verkhoyansk ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1980s , more than 30 years of global warming ago .
Climate activists spreading alarm about Siberian summer temperatures are ignoring that the geography and meteorological patterns of Siberia make Siberia prone to both cold winters and hot summers .
Verkhoyansk has an extreme climate that dominated much of the year by high pressure .
This has the effect of cutting off the region from moderating temperature factors and facilitating long stretches with little cloud cover .
In the winter , this leads to extensive cold .
In the summer , the opposite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperatures .
According to the Moscow Times : “ Verkhoyansk holds the Guinness World Record for the highest recorded temperature range of 105 C , fluctuating from minus 68 C to a high of 37 C. The previous temperature record for the isolated town of around 1,300 residents stood at 37.3 C [ 99.1F ] in July 1988.
” In other words , such extremes are normal for this place .
With only 100 years of temperature records there , and the planet being billions of years old , it isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t measured the extremes of natural variation , both hot and cold , for Siberia .

Written by Anthony Watts on Jun 24, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Over the past few days, the news media, social media, and even the Drudge Report have been overheating about a 100-degree temperature reading in Siberia.
For example, a trending tweet, below, claims Siberia is “literally on fire”:
Prominent climate activist Bill McKibben, the founder of the climate activist organization, 350.org, tweeted on the 100-degree temperature recorded in Verkhoyansk Siberia:
“Siberian town tops 100 degrees F, the hottest temperature ever recorded north of the Arctic Circle. This scares me, I have to say.”
He’s scared? Well, what about the other times when it got that hot above the Arctic circle, before “climate change” became a social justice cause?
For example, this Associated Press article says “…it was 100 degrees on June 27, 1915, in Fort Yukon, [Alaska] according to official records of the National Weather Service. Records date back to 1904.”
That pretty much cools down Bill’s claim of “the hottest temperature ever recorded north of the Arctic Circle.”
Both Verkhoyansk, Siberia, and Fort Yukon, Alaska, are well above the latitude that defines the Arctic Circle.
How is it that 105 years of global warming ago, when “climate change” wasn’t even a factor, that it got that hot? Inquiring minds want to know.
Or how about the fact that the 100-degree reading in Verkhoyansk, Siberia, this week topped Verkhoyansk’s previous record (37.3C / 99.1F) by just 1 degree? Verkhoyansk’s previous record was set back in the 1980s, more than 30 years of global warming ago.
Climate activists spreading alarm about Siberian summer temperatures are ignoring that the geography and meteorological patterns of Siberia make Siberia prone to both cold winters and hot summers.
Verkhoyansk has an extreme climate that dominated much of the year by high pressure. This has the effect of cutting off the region from moderating temperature factors and facilitating long stretches with little cloud cover.
In the winter, this leads to extensive cold. In the summer, the opposite is true, leading to very high temperatures.
According to the Moscow Times:
“Verkhoyansk holds the Guinness World Record for the highest recorded temperature range of 105 C, fluctuating from minus 68 C to a high of 37 C. The previous temperature record for the isolated town of around 1,300 residents stood at 37.3 C [99.1F] in July 1988.”
In other words, such extremes are normal for this place.
With only 100 years of temperature records there, and the planet being billions of years old, it isn’t at all surprising that we still haven’t measured the extremes of natural variation, both hot and cold, for Siberia.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-06-24--Data Tampering: NASA GISS Changes Cooling To Warming, Alters Southeast Data

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news Today we look at the NASA data from six stations from the US Southeast region .
In every case , the trends were warmed up by what NASA calls “ adjusting ” .
Four of the six stations showed a clear cooling trend , which were then altered by NASA GISS ( pictured ) to show warming .
Another station saw its flat trend turned into warming , and another station had only modest warming but was altered to show stronger warming .
This is how NASA tells us the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century , when in fact it really hasn ’ t warmed much .
NASA ’ s own data tell the story .
First , we look at Greensboro , Alabama .
Here we see how warm it was in the 1930s , 1940s , and 1950s , but look what happened once NASA GISS scientists got their hands on the data : In Newnan , Georgia , NASA simply dropped all the inconvenient warm readings of the early 20th century , see below .
A cooling trend disappeared Orwellian style : In Hattiesburg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to produce warming .
It has nothing to do with CO2 , but instead has everything to do with fudging historical data : If these types of people are capable of unabashedly rewriting history , imagine that they wouldn ’ t think twice about at the ballot boxes this coming November .
Look at what they did to the data from the Little Mountain station in South Carolina : Well , at least there wasn ’ t any cooling recorded at the station of Cullowhee , North Carolina , as the next chart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to be some warming , and so cooled the early data so that we get a warming trend .
Finally , we look at what NASA did to the temperature data from Lake City , Florida , below .
A clear cooling trend was altered to show warming .
NASA GISS scientists obviously have no scruples about turning historical records into modern lies .
Anyone else would be put on the dock for such deceit – at least intensely investigated .
But NASA GISS scientists get away with it because they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told , and so who are we to question them – no matter how fishy it all appears ?
There ’ s no one to really police them .
Unless this stops , very dark tyrannical times lie ahead for us .
The alterations are systemic .
UPDATE : Here are the plots for a station in Tennessee ( no surprise here either ) : Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Jun 24, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
By Kirye and P. Gosselin
Today we look at the NASA data from six stations from the US Southeast region. In every case, the trends were warmed up by what NASA calls “adjusting”.
Four of the six stations showed a clear cooling trend, which were then altered by NASA GISS (pictured) to show warming.
Another station saw its flat trend turned into warming, and another station had only modest warming but was altered to show stronger warming.
This is how NASA tells us the US has been warming over the past century, when in fact it really hasn’t warmed much.
NASA’s own data tell the story.
First, we look at Greensboro, Alabama. Here we see how warm it was in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, but look what happened once NASA GISS scientists got their hands on the data:
In Newnan, Georgia, NASA simply dropped all the inconvenient warm readings of the early 20th century, see below. A cooling trend disappeared Orwellian style:
In Hattiesburg, Mississippi, cooling was also altered to produce warming. It has nothing to do with CO2, but instead has everything to do with fudging historical data:
If these types of people are capable of unabashedly rewriting history, imagine that they wouldn’t think twice about at the ballot boxes this coming November.
Look at what they did to the data from the Little Mountain station in South Carolina:
Well, at least there wasn’t any cooling recorded at the station of Cullowhee, North Carolina, as the next chart shows.
But NASA insists that it has to be some warming, and so cooled the early data so that we get a warming trend.
Finally, we look at what NASA did to the temperature data from Lake City, Florida, below. A clear cooling trend was altered to show warming.
NASA GISS scientists obviously have no scruples about turning historical records into modern lies. Anyone else would be put on the dock for such deceit – at least intensely investigated.
But NASA GISS scientists get away with it because they’re “experts”, we are told, and so who are we to question them – no matter how fishy it all appears?
There’s no one to really police them. Unless this stops, very dark tyrannical times lie ahead for us. The alterations are systemic.
UPDATE: Here are the plots for a station in Tennessee (no surprise here either):
GHCN V4 Unadjusted data show Waynesboro, State of Tennessee, has had a cooling trend since 1885!
But NASA changed the data.
I wonder why this kind of scientific deceit is accepted silently by many media?https://t.co/tSJN3Sdq9S
~#地球温暖化? #温暖化？ #気候変動 #ClimateChange pic.twitter.com/97qgDo8Mrt — キリエ (@KiryeNet) June 20, 2020
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print