The Orwellian Nature of the “March for Science”
Despite Saturday’s so-called “March for Science,” the almost simultaneous release of a Second Edition of a Research Report showing the exact opposite of what some of the marchers claim to be the conclusions of climate science has brought home the Orwellian reality that the marchers have gotten their claims concerning what the science says exactly backwards. The Climate March website says their forces of “The Resistance” won’t tolerate institutions that try to “skew, ignore, misuse or interfere with science.” If the marchers really support science, they should be supporting climate skeptics, not the climate alarmists. How Orwellian can you get? The science is clear.
The authors of a pathbreaking August 2016 research report, discussed here, released today a Second Edition of their report. The conclusions disproving the validity of USEPA’s three lines of evidence for their 2009 Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases and the lack of a statistically significant effect of increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) on global and tropical temperatures remain the same. The analysis, however, is both more elegant and easier to understand. It demonstrates that natural factors involving solar, volcanic and oceanic activity fully explain the Earth’s tropospheric and surface temperatures and that atmospheric CO2 plays no significant role.
Research Report Disproves the Alarmists’ Basic Claim
This report and the earlier edition go far beyond this by disproving the alarmists’ basic claim that increases in atmospheric CO2 result in global warming. The Research Report results can be replicated using the basic data that the authors are willing to provide, most unlike the elaborate global climate models relied on by climate alarmists. Both the First and Second Editions have been extensively peer reviewed by experts in the relevant fields. So the reports have all the characteristics of good science, and should have the support of anyone who supports science, which the marchers claim to represent.
Climate skeptics have long argued that fluctuations in global temperatures are not primarily due to human-caused emissions of CO2 from using fossil fuels to improve their lives, and have generally attributed these fluctuations to changes in the sun, our source of heat and light. The importance of solar variations and other natural fluctuations has now been shown to be the case despite many tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent by the US and other governments to try to disprove the obvious and mislead the public on this central scientific issue in the climate debate.
So the new Edition does not contradict any of the conclusions reached last fall, but now provides a more understandable and common sense explanation for fluctuations in global and tropical temperatures. Nothing that USEPA, the UN, or even President Obama have done, or even could have done, could have any significant effect on Earth’s temperatures. The effect of their attempts to do so will be to line the pockets of “renewable” energy sources at the expense primarily of the less well-off both in the US and the rest of the world and of decreasing the productivity of green plants and humans by discouraging the use of fossil fuel energy and thus CO2 emissions.
Previously climate skeptics have raised myriad reasons why reducing human emissions would have little effect on global temperatures despite alarmist arguments based on elaborate computer models that are inherently incapable of accurately representing the climate and have never been validated. These climate models invariably predict that higher CO2 levels will lead to higher temperatures. The Research Report invalidates this conclusion 14 separate times using different databases. It robustly invalidates the argument that reductions in CO2 emissions as advocated by the UN and the Obama Administration will have a significant effect on global temperatures. So government-decreed reductions are a total waste of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars and very harmful to job creation, economic growth, and the poor.
Official Press Release on Second Edition
On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot” & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding
James P. Wallace III, John R. Christy, and Joseph S. d’Aleo
Abridged Research Report
Second Edition, April 2017
A just released peer reviewed climate science Research Report has proven that it is all but certain that EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false. All research was done pro bono.
This research failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that were analyzed. The tropospheric and surface temperature data measurements that were analyzed were taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques. Needless to say, if regardless of data source, the analysis results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible.
The analysis results invalidate EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding, including the climate models that EPA has claimed can be relied upon for policy analysis purposes. Moreover, these research results clearly demonstrate that once the solar, volcanic and oceanic activity, that is, natural factor, impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no Natural Factor Adjusted Warming at all. The authors of this report claim that there is no published, peer reviewed, statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. And, EPA’s climate models fail to meet this test.
Read more at www.carlineconomics.com
Trackback from your site.