Where is the MSM when 4 former EPA chiefs disagree with Obama global warming?

[CrusaderFrank]

The Decline Hiders will ignore this

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[rdean]

who all happen to be Republicans

Once I got to that part, I stopped reading.

Look who right wingers put on the "Science committee".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The AGWcult could end the debate by posting any scientific experiments that show a 120ppm increase in CO2 raising temperature and simultaneously lowering ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[bendog]

When asked this question by Jeff Sessions..

Senator Jeff Sessions says:
"The President on November 14th 2012 said, ‘The temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted, even ten years ago.’ And then on May 29th last year he also said - quote - ‘We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.’ Close quote.

So I would ask each of our former Administrators if any of you agree that that’s an accurate statement on the climate. So if you do, raise your hand.”
"Thank you," said Senator Sessions. "The record will reflect no one raised their hand."

That’s a 100 per cent consensus that the President’s words were not an “accurate statement”.
- See more at: Four former EPA chiefs refuse to endorse Obama's claims about global warming | Poor Richard's News

NOT ONE single hand of the EPA saying they agree with obama's wild ass claim!!!

Why this need to lie?

Republican EPA chiefs to Congress: Act on climate

 

[ClosedCaption]

When asked this question by Jeff Sessions..

Senator Jeff Sessions says:
"The President on November 14th 2012 said, ‘The temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted, even ten years ago.’ And then on May 29th last year he also said - quote - ‘We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.’ Close quote.

So I would ask each of our former Administrators if any of you agree that that’s an accurate statement on the climate. So if you do, raise your hand.”
"Thank you," said Senator Sessions. "The record will reflect no one raised their hand."

That’s a 100 per cent consensus that the President’s words were not an “accurate statement”.
- See more at: Four former EPA chiefs refuse to endorse Obama's claims about global warming | Poor Richard's News

NOT ONE single hand of the EPA saying they agree with obama's wild ass claim!!!

Why this need to lie?

Republican EPA chiefs to Congress: Act on climate

[MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION] lol

 

[sealybobo]

When asked this question by Jeff Sessions..

Senator Jeff Sessions says:
"The President on November 14th 2012 said, ‘The temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted, even ten years ago.’ And then on May 29th last year he also said - quote - ‘We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.’ Close quote.

So I would ask each of our former Administrators if any of you agree that that’s an accurate statement on the climate. So if you do, raise your hand.”
"Thank you," said Senator Sessions. "The record will reflect no one raised their hand."

That’s a 100 per cent consensus that the President’s words were not an “accurate statement”.
- See more at: Four former EPA chiefs refuse to endorse Obama's claims about global warming | Poor Richard's News

NOT ONE single hand of the EPA saying they agree with obama's wild ass claim!!!

Of course! four former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, who all happen to be Republicans - See more at: Four former EPA chiefs refuse to endorse Obama's claims about global warming | Poor Richard's News

4 x

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Those scientific experiments (that the AGWcult can never reproduce for us) cut across party lines

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[healthmyths]

The purpose of the thread was asking why the MSM doesn't show these 4 EPA chiefs NOT agreeing with Obama's global warming statements.

Wouldn't this be news? Or because it doesn't support what the MSM "BELIEVES" don't show!

Once again this shows WHY only 82% of Americans don't believe the network news!

The purpose of your thread is to deceive by selective editing. The four agreed that global warming is undeniable, the only disagreement is the pace. So you cite only their disagreement with the pace Obama presented.

How about this "selective editing"???
Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.

Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming | Fox News

There are over 11,000 weather stations around the world measuring land, air and sea temperatures, as well as satellites, ships and aircraft that also take measurements. https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_observation_networks_systems.php

So the basis of "global warming" theory has been these 11,000 weather stations around the world.
So again explain to a novice like me :
when NOAA closes 600 stations because they've distorted temperatures..
and

when "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations,
those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

 

[Rambunctious]

When asked this question by Jeff Sessions..

Senator Jeff Sessions says:

poor paid shill...

all four are republican appointees\

p.s. Ruckelshaus campaigned for Obama because he said you loons are irrational on environmental issues.

Be careful Jill you're embarrassing yourself even more than usual.

 

[g5000]

When asked this question by Jeff Sessions..

Senator Jeff Sessions says:
"The President on November 14th 2012 said, ‘The temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted, even ten years ago.’ And then on May 29th last year he also said - quote - ‘We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.’ Close quote.

So I would ask each of our former Administrators if any of you agree that that’s an accurate statement on the climate. So if you do, raise your hand.”
"Thank you," said Senator Sessions. "The record will reflect no one raised their hand."

That’s a 100 per cent consensus that the President’s words were not an “accurate statement”.
- See more at: Four former EPA chiefs refuse to endorse Obama's claims about global warming | Poor Richard's News

NOT ONE single hand of the EPA saying they agree with obama's wild ass claim!!!

But do they agree that climate change is happening?

Yes.

 

[g5000]

From the OP link:

They were the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman, the Honorable William K Reilly, the Honorable William D Ruckelshaus, and the Honorable Lee M Thomas - a couple of years in the hyper-regulatory bureaucracy apparently sufficing to earn one a prenominal honorific for life. - See more at: Four former EPA chiefs refuse to endorse Obama's claims about global warming | Poor Richard's News

So take a look at this Op-Ed piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html

Notice it is authored by those same four people.

There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.

/thread

 

[MACAULAY]

When asked this question by Jeff Sessions..

Senator Jeff Sessions says:

poor paid shill...

all four are republican appointees\

p.s. Ruckelshaus campaigned for Obama because he said you loons are irrational on environmental issues.

Be careful Jill you're embarrassing yourself even more than usual.

-------------------------------------

Loons can't be taught shame.

There are some things you just can't do.

 

[edthecynic]

The purpose of the thread was asking why the MSM doesn't show these 4 EPA chiefs NOT agreeing with Obama's global warming statements.

Wouldn't this be news? Or because it doesn't support what the MSM "BELIEVES" don't show!

Once again this shows WHY only 82% of Americans don't believe the network news!

The purpose of your thread is to deceive by selective editing. The four agreed that global warming is undeniable, the only disagreement is the pace. So you cite only their disagreement with the pace Obama presented.

How about this "selective editing"???
Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.

Well, I will explain it, but you won't like it because those stations produce the exact opposite effect from what you claim. You see scientists do not plot the raw temperature readings to establish a warming or cooling trend. The raw temperatures are used to establish a 30 year average for that station and then individual temperatures are measured and plotted according to their deviation from that 30 year average. These deviations are called "anomalies." So if the station is near a heat source it produces a higher average that the individual temperature is measured against that then in turn produces a lower anomaly. Since it the anomalies that indicate the trend, having the station near a heat source makes it appear that there is less warming, not more.

When the deniers complained about the poorly sited stations and demanded their removal, they were removed. When the warming trend increased after their removal as a result, the deniers then bitched about the reduced number of stations and cried foul again. It just shows how little the deniers understand about anything.

 

[healthmyths]

The purpose of your thread is to deceive by selective editing. The four agreed that global warming is undeniable, the only disagreement is the pace. So you cite only their disagreement with the pace Obama presented.

How about this "selective editing"???
Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.

Well, I will explain it, but you won't like it because those stations produce the exact opposite effect from what you claim. You see scientists do not plot the raw temperature readings to establish a warming or cooling trend. The raw temperatures are used to establish a 30 year average for that station and then individual temperatures are measured and plotted according to their deviation from that 30 year average. These deviations are called "anomalies." So if the station is near a heat source it produces a higher average that the individual temperature is measured against that then in turn produces a lower anomaly. Since it the anomalies that indicate the trend, having the station near a heat source makes it appear that there is less warming, not more.

When the deniers complained about the poorly sited stations and demanded their removal, they were removed. When the warming trend increased after their removal as a result, the deniers then bitched about the reduced number of stations and cried foul again. It just shows how little the deniers understand about anything.

I don't believe a word you wrote because who in the f...k are YOU???
NOT one substantiation from any source. For all I know you made all that up!
At least I provide links that you can disprove.
So until as a truly intelligent person would do i.e. include substantiation for your statements YOU are full of CRAP!

 

[edthecynic]

How about this "selective editing"???
Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.

Well, I will explain it, but you won't like it because those stations produce the exact opposite effect from what you claim. You see scientists do not plot the raw temperature readings to establish a warming or cooling trend. The raw temperatures are used to establish a 30 year average for that station and then individual temperatures are measured and plotted according to their deviation from that 30 year average. These deviations are called "anomalies." So if the station is near a heat source it produces a higher average that the individual temperature is measured against that then in turn produces a lower anomaly. Since it the anomalies that indicate the trend, having the station near a heat source makes it appear that there is less warming, not more.

When the deniers complained about the poorly sited stations and demanded their removal, they were removed. When the warming trend increased after their removal as a result, the deniers then bitched about the reduced number of stations and cried foul again. It just shows how little the deniers understand about anything.

I don't believe a word you wrote because who in the f...k are YOU???
NOT one substantiation from any source. For all I know you made all that up!
At least I provide links that you can disprove.
So until as a truly intelligent person would do i.e. include substantiation for your statements YOU are full of CRAP!

I am a retired physicist and therefore understand how anomalies work and why scientists use anomalies to give ACCURATE trend data. You might try picking up a book so you would know whether your "links" are misleading you or not.

Start with the definition of an anomaly:

a·nom·a·ly
əˈnäməlē/
noun
plural noun: anomalies
1.
something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.


Then move to its use in the handling of temperature data:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

Background Information - FAQ

What is a temperature anomaly?

The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

What can the mean global temperature anomaly be used for?

This product is a global-scale climate diagnostic tool and provides a big picture overview of average global temperatures compared to a reference value.

snip/

Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?

Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region's average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

How is the average global temperature anomaly time-series calculated?

The global time series is produced from the Smith and Reynolds blended land and ocean data set (Smith et al., 2008). This data set consists of monthly average temperature anomalies on a 5° x 5° grid across land and ocean surfaces. These grid boxes are then averaged to provide an average global temperature anomaly. An area-weighted scheme is used to reflect the reality that the boxes are smaller near the poles and larger near the equator. Global-average anomalies are calculated on a monthly and annual time scale. Average temperature anomalies are also available for land and ocean surfaces separately, and the Northern and Southern Hemispheres separately. The global and hemispheric anomalies are provided with respect to the period 1901-2000, the 20th century average.

Why do some of the products use different reference periods?

The national maps show temperature anomalies relative to the 1981–2010 base period. This period is used in order to comply with a recommended World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Policy, which suggests using the latest decade for the 30-year average. For the global-scale averages (global land and ocean, land-only, ocean-only, and hemispheric time series), the reference period is adjusted to the 20th Century average for conceptual simplicity (the period is more familiar to more people, and establishes a longer-term average). The adjustment does not change the shape of the time series or affect the trends within it.

 

[healthmyths]

Well, I will explain it, but you won't like it because those stations produce the exact opposite effect from what you claim. You see scientists do not plot the raw temperature readings to establish a warming or cooling trend. The raw temperatures are used to establish a 30 year average for that station and then individual temperatures are measured and plotted according to their deviation from that 30 year average. These deviations are called "anomalies." So if the station is near a heat source it produces a higher average that the individual temperature is measured against that then in turn produces a lower anomaly. Since it the anomalies that indicate the trend, having the station near a heat source makes it appear that there is less warming, not more.

When the deniers complained about the poorly sited stations and demanded their removal, they were removed. When the warming trend increased after their removal as a result, the deniers then bitched about the reduced number of stations and cried foul again. It just shows how little the deniers understand about anything.

I don't believe a word you wrote because who in the f...k are YOU???
NOT one substantiation from any source. For all I know you made all that up!
At least I provide links that you can disprove.
So until as a truly intelligent person would do i.e. include substantiation for your statements YOU are full of CRAP!

I am a retired physicist and therefore understand how anomalies work and why scientists use anomalies to give ACCURATE trend data. You might try picking up a book so you would know whether your "links" are misleading you or not.

Start with the definition of an anomaly:

a·nom·a·ly
əˈnäməlē/
noun
plural noun: anomalies
1.
something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.


Then move to its use in the handling of temperature data:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

Background Information - FAQ

What is a temperature anomaly?

The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

What can the mean global temperature anomaly be used for?

This product is a global-scale climate diagnostic tool and provides a big picture overview of average global temperatures compared to a reference value.

snip/

Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?

Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region's average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

How is the average global temperature anomaly time-series calculated?

The global time series is produced from the Smith and Reynolds blended land and ocean data set (Smith et al., 2008). This data set consists of monthly average temperature anomalies on a 5° x 5° grid across land and ocean surfaces. These grid boxes are then averaged to provide an average global temperature anomaly. An area-weighted scheme is used to reflect the reality that the boxes are smaller near the poles and larger near the equator. Global-average anomalies are calculated on a monthly and annual time scale. Average temperature anomalies are also available for land and ocean surfaces separately, and the Northern and Southern Hemispheres separately. The global and hemispheric anomalies are provided with respect to the period 1901-2000, the 20th century average.

Why do some of the products use different reference periods?

The national maps show temperature anomalies relative to the 1981–2010 base period. This period is used in order to comply with a recommended World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Policy, which suggests using the latest decade for the 30-year average. For the global-scale averages (global land and ocean, land-only, ocean-only, and hemispheric time series), the reference period is adjusted to the 20th Century average for conceptual simplicity (the period is more familiar to more people, and establishes a longer-term average). The adjustment does not change the shape of the time series or affect the trends within it.

You defined yourself when you wrote:
"You might try picking up a book so you would know whether your "links" are misleading you or not."

Where were my links "misleading"?
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

Here is a link to US Senate Committee on the Environment that lists in detail 400 scientists who disagree with the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport


You wrote: For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. "Anomalies" not the temperature?
Then why not tell the public these are NOT temperatures but averages of temperatures?

You state the "BASE PERIOD" is 1981 - 2010.
WHY are you excluding the rest of at least American history as the below..
In answering another question related to my 2000 climate study of weather stations around the world and here in the U.S. since 1880, I found that the Depression-wracked decade of the 1930s was the warmest period in at least 120 years, even surpassing the blistering 1990s or the recent decades of the early 2000s.
The coldest decade since 1880 was the 1970s worldwide, a time when many respected climatologists thought that we were heading into a new 'Little Ice Age' or worse. The second coldest decade was the 1940s, which included World War II and my birth in 1942.
NOAA closes 600 poorly-sited weather stations - Coeur d'Alene Press: Weather Gems

Finally there is NOT any disagreement regarding "climate change"....!
What people like me and logical people like you should be is skeptical of the "chicken little, sky is falling", "everything a scientist (physicist) says is TRUE i.e. consensus" and especially our current government's position which is to put America out of business using "global warming" scare tactics.

 

[Freewill]

When asked this question by Jeff Sessions..

Senator Jeff Sessions says:

poor paid shill...

all four are republican appointees\

p.s. Ruckelshaus campaigned for Obama because he said you loons are irrational on environmental issues.

So your conjecture is that four people are willing to openingly lie yet Obama the proven beyond any doubt liar is telling the truth. Well that is not surprising coming from the side whose whole agenda is predicated on lies. Obama attack sthat which is easy. He can't do a damn thing about the economy so why try? He can't do anything in the world so why try? So he makes problems so he can solve them, like DADT and his LIE about GW.

From NOAA:

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

Keep on supporting lies from a liar and quite frankly people might start thinking you too are a liar. The choice is up to you.

 

[Darkwind]

Oh good. The standard now is we can ignore the EPA chief(s) if they are of a political party we disagree with.

So, the current EPA chief can be safely ignored because of the appointment by a Democrat.

Good to know.

I guess we need to check the political affiliation of every scientist who claims climate change is man made. After all, if they are democrats, they can be written off as partisan hacks.

 

[Freewill]

From the OP link:

They were the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman, the Honorable William K Reilly, the Honorable William D Ruckelshaus, and the Honorable Lee M Thomas - a couple of years in the hyper-regulatory bureaucracy apparently sufficing to earn one a prenominal honorific for life. - See more at: Four former EPA chiefs refuse to endorse Obama's claims about global warming | Poor Richard's News

So take a look at this Op-Ed piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html

Notice it is authored by those same four people.

There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.

/thread

It appears that their concern with the truth was the "rate" of increase remark. clearly if you go back 30 years NOAA will tell you the Earth has warmed. Go back to 2000 and damn no warming at all, according to NOAA. Maybe that was their problem.

 

[Freewill]

When asked this question by Jeff Sessions..

Senator Jeff Sessions says:
"The President on November 14th 2012 said, ‘The temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted, even ten years ago.’ And then on May 29th last year he also said - quote - ‘We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.’ Close quote.

So I would ask each of our former Administrators if any of you agree that that’s an accurate statement on the climate. So if you do, raise your hand.”
"Thank you," said Senator Sessions. "The record will reflect no one raised their hand."

That’s a 100 per cent consensus that the President’s words were not an “accurate statement”.
- See more at: Four former EPA chiefs refuse to endorse Obama's claims about global warming | Poor Richard's News

NOT ONE single hand of the EPA saying they agree with obama's wild ass claim!!!

Actually there was 100% consensus on the reality og global warming by the 4 Republican EPA heads!

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=6175f79b-e1ae-49a2-b09f-249b9cd64425

Testimony of William D. Ruckelshaus
Before the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
June 18th, 2014
Thank you Senators Whitehouse, Sessions and other members
of the Subcommittee for convening this hearing on a matter of
enormous consequence for our future.
Several months ago, after talking with one another, the four former
EPA administrators sitting in front of you found we were convinced by
the overwhelming verdict of scientists that the earth was warming and
that we humans were the only controllable contributor to this
phenomenon. Given those facts we all signed an op ed piece that
recommended that America get serious about reducing our contribution
to changing the world’s climate rather than simply sitting back and
accepting the avoidable consequences.
If anything, new reports in the last three months have made the
need to act even more urgent. It is hard to believe that there is any
question of that.

Funny though, the data from NOAA seems to indicate that since 2000 there is no real warming, what changed?

When can I expect my climate to change? I really wish we would turn into a tropical climate this temperate climate with it snow really sucks. So let me know when something other then the weather, you know the weather we can not use as proof against GW, will change. Thanks I am looking forward to the warmth.