Global warming alarmists are extremely fond of the phrase “97% of climate scientists agree.” In their minds that ENDS ALL ARGUMENTS. They don’t need to defend their “argument.”
OK. Let’s then look at some scientific facts. The data compiled here was gathered by credible individuals (Footnote 1). It was reviewed and confirmed as valid by many respected scientists (Footnote 2). Included among these is the Former Chair of EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, a Professor of Atmospheric Science at University of Missouri, a faculty member of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado, and a former Senior Analyst and Manager for the US Environmental Protection Agency.
As a scientist who was a reviewer or editor for scientific journals with more than 40 years experience, I am well schooled in spotting questionable data.
With that said, let’s look at some of the findings of the paper authored by these “climate change deniers.” The objective of their research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY (this is the East Anglia University data – Footnote 3), are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes.
The principle finding was that each new version of Global Average Surface Temperature has exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. Statistically this is a virtual impossibility. Every temperature revision cannot be invariably “upward” unless one’s intent is to prove that global warming “is real” whether or not it is actually happening.
“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.“
And thanks to JM for sending this to me.
Footnote 1: Authors
Dr. James P. Wallace III – Dr Wallace has a Ph.D. in Economics (yes, it’s not “climate science,” but has 50 years experience in mathematical modeling – the entire foundation of global warming alarmism). The data that goes into the models is from “climate science” but it’s all math and computers after that (i.e., climate science credentials are irrelevant and math science credentials are paramount).
Joseph S. D’Aleo – Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel. He was chairman of the American Meteorological Society‘s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. So, again, not a “climate scientist (did not complete his Ph.D), but highly knowledgeable in this area.
Dr. Craig D. Idso – Again, his Ph.D. is not in climate science, however, Dr. Idso is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Association of American Geographers, Ecological Society of America, The Geological Society of America, and served as co-editor of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). He is the former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, Missouri.
Reviewers of the document who confirm its scientific validity:
Dr. Alan Carlin
Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc. Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group
Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
East Anglia University is the site of the worst academic activity I have witnessed as a scientist. What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Of the many anti-science activities of the research group the most damning was the revelation (via email threads) that document the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by their dubious methods.