Pathetic. I find ZERO discussion of the reasons for which NOAA, NASA and Hadley adjusted their datasets. Instead we find analyses that do nothing but say "it went down here and up there so they were obviously trying to make the warming look worse and these adjustments were invalid". That's bullshit. And, of course, this was NOT published in a refereed journal. Wordpress is nothing more than self-publishing.
*******************************************************************************
From:
Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming | Dana Nuccitelli
Working backwards from a politically-motivated conclusion
The claim is based on what can charitably be described as a white paper, written by fossil fuel-funded contrarians
Joseph D’Aleo and
Craig Idso along with James Wallace III. Two months ago, D’Aleo and Wallace published
another error-riddled white paper on the same website with fellow contrarian
John Christy; both papers aimed to undermine the EPA’s Endangerment Finding.
The Endangerment Finding concluded that the scientific research clearly shows that carbon pollution endangers public health and welfare via climate change impacts, and therefore according to the US Supreme Court, the
EPA must regulate carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. Conservatives who benefit from the fossil fuel status quo and oppose all climate policies have
urged the Trump administration to go after the Endangerment Finding.
Both papers are rife with flaws because they start from a desired conclusion – that the science underpinning Endangerment Finding is somehow wrong – and work backwards trying to support it. In
this paper, the contrarians try to undermine the accuracy of the global surface temperature record, which has been
validated time and time again. They don’t bother trying to hide their bias – the paper refers to “Climate Alarmists” and speaks of invalidating the Endangerment Finding.
The errors in the white paper
The paper itself has little scientific content. Using charts taken from climate denier blogs, the authors claim that every temperature record adjustment since the 1980s has been in the warming direction, which is simply false. As Zeke Hausfather pointed out, referencing work by Nick Stokes, roughly half of the adjustments have resulted in cooling and half in warming. Moreover, the net adjustment to the raw data actually r
educes the long-term global warming trend:
. What does that say about other board members in here?
