Anti Warming News

This is an Admin / Moderator NO GO ZONE. You're on your own.

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4129
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:28 am

Likely coldest April since 1895 – U.S. farmers delay planting crops
April 26, 2018

See the video HERE!

Delingpole: Earth in ‘Greatest Two-Year Cooling Event in a Century’ Shock
April 26, 2018
26 Apr 2018 – Our planet has just experienced the most extreme two-year cooling event in a century. But where have you seen this reported anywhere in the mainstream media?

You haven’t, even though the figures are pretty spectacular. As Aaron Brown reports at Real Clear Markets:
From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era.
To put this temperature drop in context, consider that this is enough to offset by more than half the entirety of the global warming the planet has experienced since the end of the 19th century.

(more here)
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4129
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:23 pm

Pruitt’s rule ending secret science is pro-science, pro-consumer
04/29/18
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s proposed rule to increase public access to scientific data makes eminent sense, since transparency is a cornerstone of the scientific process. The public should have access to data that agencies use to pass regulations that impose economic burdens and limit consumer choice.

Pruitt modeled this rule after the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act (H.R. 1430, S. 1794), sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). This legislation and the proposed rule are designed to provide greater access to data used to justify significant and costly federal regulations.

According to the most recent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) report on the cost of federal regulations, EPA rules are the most expensive in the federal government, and the agency’s claimed benefits are also the highest. OMB explains “the large estimated benefits of EPA rules” emanate from the EPA air quality program and are “mostly attributable to” reductions in PM2.5, which refers to airborne particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. Yet, the agency has never made the key data on PM2.5 available.

One key study with unavailable data is the Harvard University Six Cities Study, which EPA uses to justify very stringent air quality regulations. This 1993 study is a statistical analysis that reported an association between the lifespans of people in six cities and the levels of PM2.5 found in the air. It claims that people who live in cities with higher PM2.5 have a life expectancy that is two to three years shorter than those in cities with lower PM2.5.

Harvard researchers claim the study participants — whose medical information is part of that data — never agreed for their information to be released, even if their names were excluded.

Sound scientific research should be designed so that data can be made available — with the approval of the subjects — without releasing individual identities. But today, many researchers apparently would rather not release data, making it difficult for others to challenge their results.

This reality has fostered an abundance of scientific mischief, including the propensity for researchers to work the data until it generates a positive finding. What James Mills of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development lamented in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine holds true today: If you torture your data long enough, they will tell you whatever you want to hear.

Researcher John P.A. Ioannidis has demonstrated that most positive associations in scientific literature are false. The scope of this problem is also detailed by the National Association of Scholars in the recent report, The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science. The authors highlight one outrageous case where professor Brian Wansink literally bragged on a blog how he schooled one of his students on how to churn data to generate positive results and get them published.

Efforts are underway among some scientific researchers to address this crisis, and Pruitt’s proposed rule may help. After all, if researchers want their work to be useful to regulators, they will need to start operating more transparently.

Ironically, left-of-center critics say that transparency requirements are anti-science. One critic warns that the costs associated with compliance are simply too high, pointing to a Congressional Budget Office report that said implementing the HONEST Act would cost $250 million a year, as the EPA would have to devote staff to removing confidential information from data. Even if true, this is a modest amount, given that EPA regulations cost around $394 billion a year, according to estimates developed by Clyde Wayne Crews in his report 10,000 Commandments.

Moreover, EPA has plenty of funds within its $8 billion budget to pay for transparency. Heritage Foundation analyst Diane Katz suggests a number of programs that could easily be cut to save the agency billions of dollars a year.

Activists have also made pleas based on the costs to the industries they seek to regulate, which is another ironic twist. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists recently released EPA internal e-mails (obtained via Freedom of Information request) that some say indicate the rule will harm business. Their “evidence” is that EPA Deputy Administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Nancy Beck indicated in e-mails that she was concerned about costs to industry and potential challenges with the pesticide and chemical approval processes.

Yet, it appears that Beck simply recommended revisions to a draft version to address such potential concerns. Certainly, it’s reasonable to avoid unnecessary barriers to innovation, but transparency should not be sacrificed because it’s inconvenient.

In the end, transparency is more likely to reduce the costs for businesses and consumers, who ultimately pay the high costs of misguided regulations.

From THIS article on The Hill!
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4129
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Sat May 19, 2018 4:20 am

Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?
By Aaron Brown
April 24, 2018
Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.

The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998. If someone is tempted to argue that the reason for recent record cooling periods is that global temperatures are getting more volatile, it's not true. The volatility of monthly global average temperatures since 2000 is only two-thirds what it was from 1880 to 1999.

None of this argues against global warming. The 1950s was the last decade cooler than the previous decade, the next five decades were all warmer on average than the decade before. Two year cooling cycles, even if they set records, are statistical noise compared to the long-term trend. Moreover, the case for global warming does not rely primarily on observed warming; it has models, historical studies and other science behind it. Another point is both February 1998 and February 2016 were peak El Niño months so the record declines are starting from high peaks—but it's also true that there have been many other peak El Niño months in the past century and none were followed by such dramatic cooling.

My point is that statistical cooling outliers garner no media attention. The global average temperature numbers come out monthly. If they show a new hottest year on record, that's a big story. If they show a big increase over the previous month, or the same month in the previous year, that's a story. If they represent a sequence of warming months or years, that's a story. When they show cooling of any sort—and there have been more cooling months than warming months since anthropogenic warming began—there's no story.

More HERE!
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4129
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:07 pm

How about this for muh-russia collusion!! Which is linked to demonKKKrats.......again!!! :roll:

Russia funneled cash to Greens to cripple energy
June 21, 2018

Image
CFACT’s kicked off a new billboard on busy I-10 in Louisiana which reads, “Russia funneled Green groups millions of dollars to oppose fracking & cripple American energy,” and asks, “How’s that for COLLUSION?”

The billboard campaign was spearheaded by CFACT’s Graham Beduze and Adam Houser.

Russia wants to reduce and eliminate competition to its energy exports with the goal of keeping prices high and the world, particularly Europe, dependent on Russian energy.

What better allies could Putin find but the free world’s network of Green pressure groups?

Russia’s actions are well documented in a detailed report released by the U.S. House of Representatives this year.

You can read details about what Russia’s been up to at CFACT.org from CFACT scholars Bonner Cohen here and Paul Driessen here.

Question: Are Russia’s Green allies useful idiots, or willing partners in its anti-energy campaigns? (more here)
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2943
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by exhaustgases » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:36 pm

And again we see who the real Russian collusionists are, yup the demoncrat party of course.

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4129
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:29 pm

Looks like the research Emails that were sent between these "warming" conspirators will be released after all!! So looking like Mann and the rest of his cohorts are going to have their proverbial asses in a sling! Would be nice if the Federal Government would sue them to get all that "research grant" money back they were paid to perpetrate this fraud on the world!!

WINNING: Arizona Appellate Court decides Hockey Stick emails must be released

Press Release from FME Law
July 3, 2018
Arizona Appellate Court Decides Hockey Stick Emails Must Be Released Despite the University’s Appeal.

One thousand seven hundred and sixty-three days ago, on behalf of its client, the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, PLLC (FME Law) asked the University of Arizona to hand over public records that would expose to the world the genesis of what some consider the most influential scientific publication of that decade – the Mann-Bradley-Hughes temperature reconstruction that looks like a hockey stick.

The University refused.

On February 26th of this year, and after submissions of legal briefings that now fill two banker’s boxes, and three trips to the Appellate Court, the trial court ordered release of the documents, giving the University 90 days to disclose the documents in a word-searchable form. Three days before the deadline, the University filed a motion asking the trial court to “stay” the disclosure of the public records while they appealed the case. In a 13 word decision, the trial court found “the requested relief is not warranted.”

The University then asked the Appellate Court for a stay, arguing that once the documents were released, “that genie could not be put back in the bottle,” in the event the trial court’s decision was reversed.

Yesterday, a mere six days after filing of the final legal brief on the motion for a stay, the Appellate Court issued a seven-word decision:

“Motion for Stay Pending Appeal is DENIED.”
More on this HERE and HERE!

The List =;
Image
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

RevTheory
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3993
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:45 am

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by RevTheory » Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:13 pm

I guess they're ignorant, "deniers" like everyone else that doesn't tow the liberal line.

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2943
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by exhaustgases » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:54 am

Good news Ken, I hope the demoncrats here can see it and wake up to the lies of the climate religion.

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by gmrocket » Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:47 am

Ken0069 wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:23 pm
Pruitt’s rule ending secret science is pro-science, pro-consumer
04/29/18
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s proposed rule to increase public access to scientific data makes eminent sense, since transparency is a cornerstone of the scientific process. The public should have access to data that agencies use to pass regulations that impose economic burdens and limit consumer choice.

Pruitt modeled this rule after the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act (H.R. 1430, S. 1794), sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). This legislation and the proposed rule are designed to provide greater access to data used to justify significant and costly federal regulations.

According to the most recent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) report on the cost of federal regulations, EPA rules are the most expensive in the federal government, and the agency’s claimed benefits are also the highest. OMB explains “the large estimated benefits of EPA rules” emanate from the EPA air quality program and are “mostly attributable to” reductions in PM2.5, which refers to airborne particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. Yet, the agency has never made the key data on PM2.5 available.

One key study with unavailable data is the Harvard University Six Cities Study, which EPA uses to justify very stringent air quality regulations. This 1993 study is a statistical analysis that reported an association between the lifespans of people in six cities and the levels of PM2.5 found in the air. It claims that people who live in cities with higher PM2.5 have a life expectancy that is two to three years shorter than those in cities with lower PM2.5.

Harvard researchers claim the study participants — whose medical information is part of that data — never agreed for their information to be released, even if their names were excluded.

Sound scientific research should be designed so that data can be made available — with the approval of the subjects — without releasing individual identities. But today, many researchers apparently would rather not release data, making it difficult for others to challenge their results.

This reality has fostered an abundance of scientific mischief, including the propensity for researchers to work the data until it generates a positive finding. What James Mills of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development lamented in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine holds true today: If you torture your data long enough, they will tell you whatever you want to hear.

Researcher John P.A. Ioannidis has demonstrated that most positive associations in scientific literature are false. The scope of this problem is also detailed by the National Association of Scholars in the recent report, The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science. The authors highlight one outrageous case where professor Brian Wansink literally bragged on a blog how he schooled one of his students on how to churn data to generate positive results and get them published.

Efforts are underway among some scientific researchers to address this crisis, and Pruitt’s proposed rule may help. After all, if researchers want their work to be useful to regulators, they will need to start operating more transparently.

Ironically, left-of-center critics say that transparency requirements are anti-science. One critic warns that the costs associated with compliance are simply too high, pointing to a Congressional Budget Office report that said implementing the HONEST Act would cost $250 million a year, as the EPA would have to devote staff to removing confidential information from data. Even if true, this is a modest amount, given that EPA regulations cost around $394 billion a year, according to estimates developed by Clyde Wayne Crews in his report 10,000 Commandments.

Moreover, EPA has plenty of funds within its $8 billion budget to pay for transparency. Heritage Foundation analyst Diane Katz suggests a number of programs that could easily be cut to save the agency billions of dollars a year.

Activists have also made pleas based on the costs to the industries they seek to regulate, which is another ironic twist. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists recently released EPA internal e-mails (obtained via Freedom of Information request) that some say indicate the rule will harm business. Their “evidence” is that EPA Deputy Administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Nancy Beck indicated in e-mails that she was concerned about costs to industry and potential challenges with the pesticide and chemical approval processes.

Yet, it appears that Beck simply recommended revisions to a draft version to address such potential concerns. Certainly, it’s reasonable to avoid unnecessary barriers to innovation, but transparency should not be sacrificed because it’s inconvenient.

In the end, transparency is more likely to reduce the costs for businesses and consumers, who ultimately pay the high costs of misguided regulations.

From THIS article on The Hill!
The EPA lost its way years ago and has morphed into a snakes nest of over regulation and a wing of the left political party

Now they fear the public having access to ALL info and not understanding it, because we are stupid, then panicking for no reason.

When what they want is for them to make us panic for no reason....

Pretty funny

RevTheory
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3993
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:45 am

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by RevTheory » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:59 pm

This is interesting. I'm sure these guys are "uninformed deniers" too.

“But those were the theories Hansen used, and they don’t fit the data. The bottom line is, climate science as encoded in the models is far from settled.”

Cato Institute climate scientists Patrick Michaels and Ryan Maue wrote that “surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect.”

So do you look at the data and adjust your theory or do you stick to your guns and re-re-re-adjust the data to fit your theory while demonizing the scientists who compiled it because the debate is "settled"?

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/resea ... 2018-07-04

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7768
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by 1989TransAm » Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:09 pm

Like I have said, follow the money. Whether it is from the Obama administration or the Russians.

User avatar
Ken0069
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4129
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:25 am
Location: Historic Appomattox County, Va
Contact:

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by Ken0069 » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:54 am

1989TransAm wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:09 pm
Like I have said, follow the money. Whether it is from the Obama administration or the Russians.
Dr. Roy Spencer, PHD wrote:Until climate science is funded independent of desired energy policy outcomes, we can continue to expect climate research results to be heavily biased in the direction of catastrophic outcomes.
I would guess that the "catastrophic outcomes" predictions coming out now are more because the hoaxters are trying to cover their asses for all the lies they have told in the past to get that government grant money!!

I also keep wondering how long it's going to take Secretary Pruitt to fire that piece of shit Gavin Schmitt over at NASA? He's the one that keeps modifying the RAW temperature data from the 1930s/40s to prove warming today that isn't really happening. It's only warming in these papers that Schmitt is putting out and of course the "warmers" at NOAA are following his lead!
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Big Boyz Toyz!

Global Warming Is a FRAUD!

GRTfast
Expert
Expert
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by GRTfast » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:02 pm

Ken0069 wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:54 am
1989TransAm wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:09 pm
Like I have said, follow the money. Whether it is from the Obama administration or the Russians.
Dr. Roy Spencer, PHD wrote:Until climate science is funded independent of desired energy policy outcomes, we can continue to expect climate research results to be heavily biased in the direction of catastrophic outcomes.
I would guess that the "catastrophic outcomes" predictions coming out now are more because the hoaxters are trying to cover their asses for all the lies they have told in the past to get that government grant money!!

I also keep wondering how long it's going to take Secretary Pruitt to fire that piece of shit Gavin Schmitt over at NASA? He's the one that keeps modifying the RAW temperature data from the 1930s/40s to prove warming today that isn't really happening. It's only warming in these papers that Schmitt is putting out and of course the "warmers" at NOAA are following his lead!
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/20 ... ell-exxon/

The actual liars exposed. Interesting how Ken never calls out those lying to keep business as usual. Speaks to his bias. What a clown.

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7768
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by 1989TransAm » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:14 pm

So it is all the oil companies fault. Bwhahahahahaha ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

GRTfast
Expert
Expert
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:26 am

Re: Anti Warming News

Post by GRTfast » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:29 pm

1989TransAm wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:14 pm
So it is all the oil companies fault. Bwhahahahahaha ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That’s not what I said. It’s documented that they conducted their own private studies, understood what the major drivers for climate change were, and worked to suppress it for “business as usual” financial gain. Do you deny these facts?

Post Reply