THE MISLEADING IMPLICATION THE REALITY He didn't deny science he merely advised that scientists still debate the issue We've cited numerous studies confirming that Trump Picks Scott Pruitt Climate Change Denialist to Lead EPA Such disagreement indeed persists For decades Scientists switched between warning of global cooling and global warming They were not consistent The famous hockey stick graph used in Al Gore's film and cited as proof that dangerous warming was about to occur was later discredited w the author exposed as a fraud Scott Pruitt ISAScience Denier Numerous dire cimate change predictions failed CNN to materialize proving that there's significant flaws in the data & modeling See Citations CONTRARY TO POPULARNARRATIVE THERES NOT NECESSARILY A CONSENSUS ON GLOBAL WARMING ITS NOT ASSIMPEAS VON USANDSAVETHE WORLDD OR ADMIT VOUHATESCIENCESu WAC Trump's choice to head the EPA Scott Pruitt has been widely maligned in the media as a “prominent denier of climate science” 1 This portrayal of Mr Pruitt however isn't justified What Pruitt actually said was far less offensive than “I deny science” Rather as voiced in his op-ed he merely stated that “Healthy debate is the lifeblood of American democracy and global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time That debate is far from settled Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind That debate should be encouraged” 2 This isn't a denial of science It's an acceptance that much ambiguity exists within the scientific research and has for quite some time INCONSISTENT WARNINGS To start let's review the lack of historical consistency In a 1950 article entitled “Is the World Getting Warmer” we were warned of global warming stating “In the United States long-term climatological records which have been accumulating over many years indicate that the weather is becoming warmer and drier” 3 But in 1958 geophysicist Maurice Ewing and geologist William Donn warned of a coming ice-age rather than an age of increased warming 4 5 In 1965 an environmental report written by the President's Science Advisory Committee flipped the script again warning President Johnson about global warming rather than of a coming ice-age advising “an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide could act much like the glass in a greenhouse to raise the temperature of the lower air” 6 But in 1970 a Washington Post's article entitled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future” again went back to warning the public of a coming ice-age 7 and in 1972 geologists George J Kukla and R K Matthews wrote to President Nixon also warning of the supposed “new ice age” 8 In 1974 Time magazine released an article on global COOLING advising that “when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades” 9 In 1975 the New York Times also released an article on global cooling citing a scientific study from the National Academy of Sciences which warned of “an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that has governed the planet's climate for the past 10000 years” 10 In 1976 however the tone began to flip back towards warming with scientists concluding “The data are scanty We cannot be sure that these temperature fluctuations are be not the result of natural causes but Because of the rapid diffusion of CO2 molecules within the atmosphere both hemispheres will be subject to warming due to the atmospheric greenhouse effect” 11 And by 1979 after studying early computer models the somewhat stronger case for global warming appeared to solidify in a report entitled “Carbon Dioxide and Climate A scientific Assessment” which warned of the socioeconomic impacts of global warming 12 FRAUD EXPOSED Then a major scientific controversy occurred In 1998 climatologist Michael E Mann along with others developed new statistical models to produce global temperature patterns creating a now infamous graph known as “the hockey stick graph” 13 It was dubbed “hockey stick” because the line representing temperature was relatively perpendicular through most of the graph until it spiked straight up at the far right end projecting large and sudden temperature increases in the near future 14 This finding supposedly ended all debate and cemented cause for concern It was widely circulated widely cited referenced as the basis for Al Gore's Oscar winning film “An Inconvenient Truth” and used to foment fear and stir up support for drastic regulations Many years later however it was thoroughly and widely discredited 1516 Mann had used a controversial subset of tree ring records from high and arid mountains in the US Southwest The scientists who published that original data Graybill and Idso 1993 had specifically warned that the ring widths should not be used for temperature reconstruction and in particular warned that their 20th century portion is unlike the climatic history of the region and is probably biased by other factors” 16 Never the less Mann used this data and in addition “exaggerated the significance of the bristlecones so as to make their chronology out to be the dominant global climatic pattern rather than a minor and likely inaccurate regional one” 16 His method also appeared to remove the “medieval warm period” which previously suggested a period of several hundred years which was warmer than our present day It also appeared to remove the “little ice age” which occurred after the medieval warm period which had strongly suggested that average temperatures fluctuate throughout history 15 Doing so allowed Mann to misrepresent history and claim that the climate was mostly stable for about a thousand years up until the present where he concluded that 1998 was the warmest year of the last millennium “This claim was not in reality supported by data” 16 “Furthermore Mann put obstacles in place for subsequent researchers wanting to obtain his data and replicate his methodologies most of which were only resolved by the interventions of US Congressional investigators and the editors of Nature magazine both of whom demanded full release of his data and methodologies some six years after publication of his original Nature paper 16 Most damning of all? “Mann had re-done his hockey stick graph at some point during its preparation with the dubious bristlecone records excluded and saw that the result lost the hockey stick shape altogether collapsing into a heap of trendless noise However he never pointed this out to readers” 16 Lastly he also indicated that he had confirmed the statistical significance of his results “yet when the scores were later revealed they showed no such thing and by then he had taken to denying he had even calculated them” 16 Essentially he was caught lying in an attempt to foster a career advancing research paper Though exposed as a fraud the damage had already been done and numerous citizens politicians and activists have bought into it ever since To this day many individuals still believe in the supposed scientific consensus that began to emerge before this supposedly authoritative research was discredited NOT A CONSENSUS So why to this day do people still routinely hear the talking point “97% of scientists agree” when it comes to global warming? In 2013 Australian scientist John Cook - author of the book Climate Change Denial Heads in the Sand - analyzed 12000 abstracts summaries of studies and claimed “97% of climate papers stating a position on human-caused global warming agree global warming is happening and we are the cause” 17 The problem? His method of review was so unthoughtful that it entirely distorted the results Using the qualifier “papers taking a position” Cook subjectively identified 34 percent of the papers as having supposedly expressed an opinion on anthropogenic climate change and of that 34% since 33% appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change in his assessment he then divided 33 by 34 and got 97% But as the National Review points out “When David Legates a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research recreated Cook’s study he found that 'only 41 papers' of the 11944 had endorsed what Cook claimed they endorsed” That's only 03% of all 11944 papers or “1% of the 4014” that had specifically expressed an opinion In addition “several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted” 18 Attempting to right this false public narrative a 2015 NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus advised the following “The claim of 'scientific consensus' on the causes and consequences of climate change is without merit On the contrary there is extensive evidence of scientific disagreement about many of the most important issues that must be resolved before the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming can be validated” 19 If interested in learning more about the many disagreements scientists have regarding climate change science you're encouraged to read this cited paper FAILED PREDICTIONS This isn't to say that Global Warming might not be true it's simply to point out the extraordinary degree of ambiguity which exists within the research complicated further by the numerous failed predictions by global warming alarmists For instance experts claimed the Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 They were proven wrong 20 While a 2013 IPCC report claimed that Antarctica was losing significant amounts of land ice a 2015 NASA study used satellite data to debunk that notion and confirm that the Antarctic ice sheet actually gained in size nearly every year since 1992 21 In a 1985 study alarmists warned that “Beginning in a decade or two scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps raising the level of the seas flooding coastal areas eroding the shores and sending salt water far into fresh-water estuaries” Again we know this did not occur 22 In 2007 UN scientists claimed the world only had eight years left to avoid the worst effects of global warming 23 Eight years has passed and global devastation has yet to occur Even Secretary of State John Kerry warned back in 2009 that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013 Not in 2050 but four years from now Make no mistake catastrophic climate change represents a threat to human security global stability and - yes - even to American national security Again this dire prediction never materialized but no politician seems to answer for these fear tactics which empower them 24 And that's not all For decades the global warming alarmists were insisting that inclining CO2 levels were akin to pollution which would wreak havoc on our environment Contrary to their projections however 28 years of satellite data have confirmed that the increased CO2 levels actually contributed to INCREASING global vegetation since plants need CO2 to live 25 And in addition to the above failed predictions many continue to push the theory that natural disasters have been on the rise due to global warming But per a 2014 International Federation of the Red Cross Natural Disaster Report globally there's actually been a decline in losses due to natural disasters “Moreover US hurricane and tornado activity trends since 1950 have remained flat or are decreasing respectively” 26 Lastly and most uncomfortable for those who insisted devastation was around the corner satellite data confirms there's essentially been NO global warming since our last peak in 1997-1998 27 CONCLUSION To conclude with full disclosure we at WAC are not climatologists We're admittedly speaking outside our field of economics and are understandably limited in that sense We can't be entirely sure if global warming is a legitimate concern or not What we CAN offer however is an economist's perspective one which seeks to verify statistical significance looks for flaws in predictive modeling looks for replication of results looks for sampling set errors which inadvertently or purposely skew results one which examines historical literature and cross references old predictions with reality and one which questions the legitimacy of public policy responses What we can conclude is that there exists much ambiguity with this issue Yes most scientists agree that the Earth has generally warmed since 1800 Yes many agree that at least some part of this warming was partially the result of human existence Yes many scientists agree that CO2 levels have likely increased The disagreements however are largely over the depth of our presumed impact if it's mostly natural or not whether it's actually linked to CO2 levels whether it's reasonable to allocate resources towards alleviation efforts and whether successfully alleviating climate change is even within the realm of plausibility It's absolutely sensible to debate these finer points and doing so doesn't mean one is ignoring evidence A scientist for instance might be unconvinced that temperature levels are following CO2 levels while believing that climate largely fluctuates over time yet they may still accept that we're presently in a moderate warming phase and that humans are indeed a minor contributor to that They could believe this despite also believing that our impact is so negligible that it's unreasonable to adopt reactionary socioeconomic policies which damage economic growth in a vain effort to combat moderate climate changes Unfortunately in today's toxic political atmosphere such a stance would have a scientist labeled “a science denier” despite their views falling within the parameters of current research As Mr Pruitt correctly concluded the intricacies of this debate are “far from settled” and discussion “should be encouraged” It's not as simple as “join us in saving the world” or “admit you hate science” ___________________________ Sources 1 httpwwwcnncom20161207politicstrump-picks-scott-pruitt-to-head-epa 2 httpwwwnationalreviewcomarticle435470climate-change-attorneys-general 3 httpwwwsaturdayeveningpostcomwp-contentuploadssatevepostis-the-world-getting-warmer-1950pdf 4 httpsciencesciencemagorgcontent12332071061 requires subscription 5 httpharpersorgarchive195809the-coming-ice-age an article about citation 4 with no subscription required for those without a subscription to sciencemagorg 6 httpdgestanfordedulabscaldeiralabCaldeira%20downloadsPSAC%201965%20Restoring%20the%20Quality%20of%20Our%20Environmentpdf 7 httppqasbpqarchivercomwashingtonpost_historicaldoc147902052html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABSFT&type=historic&date=JAN%2011%201970&author=Washington%20Post%20Staff%20WriterBy%20David%20R%20Boldt&pub=The%20Washington%20Post&edition=&startpage=&desc=Colder%20Winters%20Held%20Dawn%20of%20New%20Ice%20Age 8 httpwwweconomonitorcomblog200910an-important-letter-sent-to-the-president-about-the-danger-of-climate-change 9 httpwwwwsjcomarticlesnotable-quotable-global-cooling-1430348637 10 httpwwwwmconnolleyorguksciiceageny-times-1975-01-19pdf 11 httpsciencesciencemagorgcontent1934252447 12 httpswwwnapeducatalog12181carbon-dioxide-and-climate-a-scientific-assessment can be downloaded after logging in as a guest 13 httpwwwglobal-warming-and-the-climatecommann%27s-hockey-stick-climate-graphhtml 14 httpsenwikipediaorgwikiFileT_comp_61-90pdf photo of graph only 15 httpa-sceptical-mindcomthe-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick 16 httpwwwrossmckitrickcomuploads48084808045hockey-stick-retrospectivepdf 17 httpwwwskepticalsciencecomnewsphp?f=97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013 18 httpwwwnationalreviewcomarticle425232climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle 19 httpswwwheartlandorg_template-assetsdocumentspublications12-04-15_why_scientists_disagreepdf 20 httpwwwtelegraphcoukscience20161007experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201 21 httpswwwnasagovfeaturegoddardnasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses 22 httpwwwnytimescom19850512weekinreviewideas-trends-continued-a-dire-long-range-forecasthtml 23 httpswwwtheguardiancomenvironment2007may05climatechangeclimatechangeenvironment 24 httpwwwpolitifactcomtruth-o-meterstatements2009sep02john-kerrykerry-claims-arctic-will-be-ice-free-2013 25 httpwwwwndcom201604oops-rising-co2-proves-beneficial-to-greening-earth 26 httpnotrickszonecom20151010inconvenient-truths-2014-global-natural-disasters-down-massively-no-trend-in-tornadocyclones-since-1950#sthashWxMPF2Isdpuf 27 httpwwwclimatedepotcom20160112satellites-no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-8-month Meme

found @ 769 likes ON 2016-12-13 15:22:56 BY ME.ME