Trump's head of EPA is obviously a complete whack-job, no surprise
Scientists just published an entire study refuting Scott Pruitt on
AND, here is the actual study from Lawrence Livermore.
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
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.
Are they valid corrections? You mean when compared to the complete
and utter denial of the facts as interpreted by a lawyer, Scott
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.
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
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
Here are some graphs of earth temperature that show what Pruitt was
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
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?
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?
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.)
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
Nice. So, having Congress demand your contacts, your records for the
last 20 years because you're a skeptic is now irrelevant.
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.
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.