OT: Scientists just published an entire study refuting Scott Pruitt on climate change

Trump's head of EPA is obviously a complete whack-job, no surprise there.
Scientists just published an entire study refuting Scott Pruitt on climate change
http://wapo.st/2rpe0sD
AND, here is the actual study from Lawrence Livermore.
http://go.nature.com/2rpi9ge
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7, Stormin' Norman wrote:

x
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:36:33 PM UTC-4, Stormin' Norman wrote:

The devil is in the details:
"Method used for correcting TMT data Trends in TMT estimated from microwave sounders receive a substantial contr ibution from the cooling of the lower stratosphere8,9,10,11. In ref. 8, a r egression-based approach was developed for removing the bulk of this strato spheric cooling component of TMT. This method has been validated with both observed and model atmospheric temperature data9, 36, 37. Correction was pe rformed at each observational and model grid-point. Corrected grid-point da ta were then spatially averaged over 82.5°N–82.5°S. Furth er details of the correction method are provided in the Supplementary Infor mation."
In other words, "corrections" were applied to the raw data to extract cooling components to wind up with a warming trend. Are these legitimate corrections? Are there other valid corrections that could have been made that show no warming? What does the raw data show? These are the questions that climate skeptics legitimately point to. And when there is an atmosphere where if you disagree with the methods, you're cut off from funding, subpoenaed by Congress for all your contacts and all your records, driven out of your university position, there is plenty of room for serious doubts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 09:08:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

Are they valid corrections? You mean when compared to the complete and utter denial of the facts as interpreted by a lawyer, Scott Pruitt?
The key phrase in what you quoted above is: "a regression-based approach was developed for removing the bulk of this stratospheric cooling component of TMT"
As these publications are subject to peer review and scrutiny and, as the scientists from Lawrence Livermore have gone out of their way to present clear empirical evidence, I can find no reason to doubt their overall general conclusions, most certainly not when compared to the unsubstantiated assertions of an attorney.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 12:54:29 PM UTC-4, Stormin' Norman wrote:

ntribution from the cooling of the lower stratosphere8,9,10,11. In ref. 8, a regression-based approach was developed for removing the bulk of this str atospheric cooling component of TMT. This method has been validated with bo th observed and model atmospheric temperature data9, 36, 37. Correction was performed at each observational and model grid-point. Corrected grid-point data were then spatially averaged over 82.5°N–82.5°S. Fu rther details of the correction method are provided in the Supplementary In formation."

d

ur

A good reason to be skeptical is what I cited. If you question manmade global warming, your funding is cut off, you're treated as a nut job pariah, Congress subpoenas you for all your contacts for the last 10 years, you don't get promoted, etc. Any of these "corrections" involve judgement as to what should be corrected, what needs to be corrected and it's difficult not to be biased in what you do, even if it's not intentional.
Here are some graphs of earth temperature that show what Pruitt was talking about:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/2 01301-201312.png
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/468_newsPage-468.jpg
There sure appears to be a leveling off of temp over the last ~20 years, with temp going sideways within a range. So, when you then have to apply "corrections" to the data which filters out cooling effects and voila, now you have an increase in temp, yeah, I think the skeptics have a point.
most certainly not when compared to the

That's irrelevant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 10:16:15 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

Do you have actual empirical evidence of the above being endemic across all governments and all scientific organizations which receive full or partial government funding? Or, are you referencing anecdotal, possibly emotional claims, which have been promoted by the alt-right and others who deny climate change?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/1/17 5:38 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

the change in climate that happens when you believe that corporations know what's best for humanity...that should only be allowed by lawyers without science backgrounds who are senators
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 9:22:51 PM UTC-4, ZZyXX wrote:

There are just as many vested interests, big winners, big money to be made, all the potential for corruption of govt from companies and proponents of the alternative energy sources. How much money has Al Gore, who's just an individual, already made, for example?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/1/17 7:16 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

what are YOUR qualifications to determine anything
I've noticed that

conservatism is a terminal disorder

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My own are having been a member of the environmental movement in its early days and finding out through personal experience what a craven group of lying left-wing control-freak communistic scumbags those people are. This has not changed over time, if anything it has gotten worse. In some cases they are even the same people. The global warming/climate change scam is rife with corruption and lies. What it is really about is money and power.
I could not be happier with President Trump for pulling the U.S. out of that unconstitutional, unratified international treaty. It was worth electing him just for that, and I have no doubt there is much more to come in dismantling 0bummer's dictatorial "legacy." I can also guarantee you that I will never reduce my so-called carbon footprint regardless of whatever nonsense that the Left may manage to pull off in the future.
If you want qualifications, Reid Bryson (the father of modern climate science) called human-caused global warming "a bunch of hooey." I'll take his word over yours all day long.
Liberalism is a disease that needs to be wiped out. Maybe leftists should all go and off themselves in order to save Brother Earth.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 4:33:50 PM UTC-4, Roger Blake wrote:

I've lost respect for most environmentalists for similar reasons. They are just extremists who want to block everything, whether it's a new needed power line or even a windmill. They advocate all kinds of green solutions, but deny that you still need power lines and some kind of energy. For example, they advocate windmills, but when it comes time to finally build them, then they are opposed to them too, because it will kill some birds. And if they are right about global warming and that it's so serious we're all gonna get flooded and die in a few decades, why are they continuing to block nuclear plants? Sure nukes have some serious problems, but they are clearly better than ruining the whole planet.

The thing with this agreement was that it was entirely voluntary. Trump didn't have to pull out, he could have just changed the targets or slowed the progression as he pleased. That would have been simple and avoided the serious discord with our allies. And it's totally disengenous to say that he's going to negotiate a new, better agreement. You have 290 countries, the deal is done, and they aren't going to re-negotiate anything, so why is Trump trying to fool people with BS again? And why won't King Trump answer the simple questions that the press is asking, starting with does he still believe it's all a fraud? I think Trump gave this whole topic the 5 min attention span that he gives just about anything. And he even made a fool of himself again by saying he represents the people of Pittsburgh, not Paris. 80% of Pittsburgh voted for Hillary, the mayor has said that the city will try to comply with the Paris accords on it's own.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/2/17 5:38 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

Failure to answer the question noted

Life is a joyous wonderful learning experience...except for you.
conservatism is a terminal disorder
Perhaps you believe that

still demonstrating the conservative need to call those they disagree with names as if they are still in kindergarten
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/3/17 1:53 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

name calling isn't about moral high ground, it's about poor parentage

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/3/17 3:59 PM, ZZyXX wrote:

I forgot to add "and poor parenting"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/3/17 5:54 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

nice try, but what explains YOUR childish behavior?

as I've repeatedly told you, I am in no way related to you or any of your family members
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/4/17 5:12 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

wow, that frustration is really raising your blood pressure
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/4/17 6:20 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

the only elderly person here is you EOLM. stop projecting your frustration on me and enjoy the rest of your life...you can even save money by buying short dated foods
who can do nothing about Trump being

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/6/17 12:41 PM, trader_4 wrote:

try this page
https://thinkprogress.org/why-abortion-clinics-need-buffer-zones-8d5e9c59ddaf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:13:15 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

Ad hominem attacks and an overly emotional response? I did not intend to upset you and was unaware you were so fragile.
Unfortunately, providing a letter from a congressman proves only that he wrote a letter asking for information. This one was not even anecdotal evidence, it was simply diversionary wallpaper.

You have done it again, you have made a blanket statement about the treatment received by all climate change skeptics. That means that all CC skeptics, all over the world, are treated in the same fashion. Of course this is entirely fallacious, you cannot support this broad, sweeping assertion with empirical evidence. At best, you can produce some ad hoc examples to support your claims.
Additionally, it is irrelevant how skeptics are treated. If the skeptics can produce empirical evidence that scientifically refutes a theory, then that brings an end to the theory. So far, no skeptics have been able to do anything but make political noise and put forth conspiracy theories.

You support your "opinion" with a logical fallacy. Your personal fear or distrust of science, along with trans fat and cholesterol have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the current climate change theories. At best this is an inadvertent diversion, at worst it is intellectually disingenuous.

I implied no such thing and assume no responsibility for your erroneous inferences and personal insecurities.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 1:16:58 PM UTC-4, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Better look up the definition of ad hominem. I responded specifically to what you claimed.

Of course nothing would satisfy you, you think what I provided was ad hominem.

Nice. So, having Congress demand your contacts, your records for the last 20 years because you're a skeptic is now irrelevant.
If the

It only does that if the other side accepts the empirical evidence. And note what I just showed you was actually done with the empirical data that was used to refute Pruitt. Those that wrote that piece had to adjust the satellite data of the last 20 years to make it show the earth warming. They REMOVED cooling effects that were present. If they were trying to prove the opposite, it would be easy and convenient to not do the "adjustments". Either the atmosphere warmed over that period or it did not. And note that these same geniuses did not tell us 20 years ago that the temp would go sideways for the next 20 years. It's only now, AFTER THE FACT, that they need all kinds of explanations and "adjustments" to keep their version of reality going.
So far, no skeptics

I don't distrust all science, in fact, I'm an engineer that understands and respects science. What you don't recognize is that when there are trillions of dollars involved, agendas, scientists who have been committed to some position for a long time, it's not easy to be open to being wrong.
along with trans fat and cholesterol have

Of course it's directly relevant. It shows how the best science got it wrong. And how America was lead down the wrong path, sickening and killing millions. Scientists, doctors, were sure that fats found naturally in food were very bad for you and that replacing them with transfat, starch, and sugar was a great idea. We had decades of people eating fat free crap, loaded with carbs, eating pile of pasta because it had no fat. The result? Way more fat people than before, a diabetes epidemic. And now the scientists are actually banning transfats. If they can get the science wrong on that, set national policy wrong based on it, of course it's directly relevant to the fact that they could be wrong on manmade global warming too. And note that in the above, there were big business interests involved, pushing their agenda, with big winners and losers, just like with global warming.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.