Researchers Claim to Have ‘Invalidated’ EPA’s Core Global Warming ‘Finding’
By Tom Blumer
A peer-reviewed research report published last week by three highly qualified researchers with the agreement of seven others similarly accomplished charges that the entities reporting historical and current worldwide temperatures have adjusted their data to show global warming which has not actually occurred.
The media non-coverage of the research report — “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding” — is consistent with its virtual refusal to acknowledge the existence of many other studies released in 2016 and so far this year which have cast serious doubt on human-caused global warming as supposedly “settled science.”
At Breitbart in early June, UK-based writer and longtime climate change skeptic James Delingpole referred readers to a collection of “80 Graphs From 58 Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming” published this year alone. The person who accumulated that collection, Kenneth Richards, is a “professor of environmental economics and policy and an affiliated professor of law at the IU Maurer School of Law.”
Richards’ recent post arrived just five months after a December post documenting “60 (2016) Scientific Papers Affirm Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.” The pace of climate change-skeptical studies is increasing.
Readers relying solely on the establishment press would be aware of none of this. How many papers by qualified authors need to be published before the “97 percent” consensus on human-caused warming disintegrates? (Answer: It already did years ago, but the press won’t admit it.)
Late Wednesday, the Daily Caller finally broke the ice, and covered the “Validity of Data” study released on June 27 (bolds are mine throughout this post):
Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data
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 GAST (Global Average Surface Temperature) 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.
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.
… Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”
“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, aretotally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.”
In 2009, the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” claimed that its regulating authority was based on the following:
Scientific consensus shows that as a result of human activities, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are at record high levels and data shows that the Earth has been warming over the past 100 years, with the steepest increase in warming in recent decades.
The research paper discussed above claims that reported “warming” is only occurring in adjustments to underlying data and is not actually occurring on Planet Earth. If so, its contention that the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” belongs in the trash is correct.
Press reports have routinely and eagerly reported as undisputed facts that very recent years have been the “warmest ever.” As might be expected, Seth Borenstein at the Associated Press eagerly promoted such claims earlier this year, insisting that “For third-straight time, Earth sets hottest year record.”
Well, if that’s so obvious, one would think that Penn State professor Michael E. Mann, the creator of the infamous global warming “hockey stick,” would be willing to show the world the data he used in creating the scary chart which supposedly predicted all of this.
Nope. In yet another climate-related development the press is almost certain to ignore as long as possible, it has become clear that Mann would rather face serious potential legal consequences than open up his work to scrutiny.
Principia-Scientific.org, a group dedicated to scientific research which follows the “traditional scientific method” (as opposed to “Post-normalism … where policy and outcome dictate the kind of ‘science’ needed to justify it”), has the details:
Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit (against now-79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball — Ed.) in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. …
… As Dr. Ball explains:
“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”
… Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. … (Under Canadian law) Mann is now proven to have wilfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.
… The perpetrator of the biggest criminal “assault on science” has now become clear: Dr Mann, utterly damned by his contempt of the court order to show his dodgy data.
If Mann really does suffer legal consequences in this and other cases (the linked article also notes that this development helps columnist and talk show host Mark Steyn in his legal defense against a separate Mann lawsuit), the press will have a tough time explaining away its decades-long complicity in this assault on science. Watching them try should be entertaining.