The environmentalism debate has been in progress for decades. Factions claim that they have solid, irrefutable science behind their theories, but they cannot all be correct since many of their conclusions contradict each other.
So what are we to make of this? Here’s an example of the problem.
A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published [global average surface temperature (GAST)] data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.
This is just the problem we’ve been addressing. Proponents of the climate change theory predict doom, and propose draconian measures. Then we learn from equally qualified scientists that the theory might be wrong, thereby rendering those proposals useless or even very costly diversions of resources.
The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.
Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.
Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.
In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.
So are these “adjustments” deliberate attempts to try to validate a position this is simply not true?
The Obama-era document used three lines of evidence to claim such emissions from vehicles “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”
D’Aleo and Wallace filed a petition with EPA on behalf of their group, the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC). They relied on past their past research, which found one of EPA’s lines of evidence “simply does not exist in the real world.”
Their 2016 study “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”
“In sum, all three of the lines of evidence relied upon by EPA to attribute warming to human GHG emissions are invalid,” reads CHCC’s petition. “The Endangerment Finding itself is therefore invalid and should be reconsidered.
Given the seriousness of the allegations and predictions made by the proponents of the theory that global climate change is not only real but also caused by human activities with ultimately disastrous consequences, objective research and findings are crucial. Especially before we are subjected to another powerful agency with widespread powers to regulate and fine.
Source: Daily Caller
There is NO doubt – man made global warming/cooling/climate change IS A LIE.