Some years ago, my West Virginia hunting and fishing buddy was invited to appear on a local television station high in the mountains with an animal rights activist, a young vegan mother who brought her one-year-old daughter with her.

In the midst of the discussion after the young lady argued that we humans ought to stop treating animals as our inferiors, my friend turned to her and asked a simple question. “After the show, you will have to drive back down the mountain with your daughter and I’m wondering what you would do if, as you round a curve, you see a raccoon or rabbit in the road and you have a choice: You can hit and probably kill it or you can swerve and possibly lose control of your car endangering you and your child. What would you do?”

Scientists at Australia’s main medical research agency say that fluoride in drinking water is safe after analyzing 60 years of research and 3,000 scientific studies.

Researchers found that fluoride in water has no adverse health effects at the levels used in Australia, and that the substance is not linked to low IQ, cancer, or cognitive problems. The only result was reduction of the effects of tooth decay by 26 to 44 percent in children. 

“It shows that community water fluoridation as it’s used in Australia today is effective at reducing tooth decay and is not associated with any general negative health effects,” Anne Kelso, CEO of Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, told reporters.

This is the ultimate fact sheet for debunking what has become the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s most potent regulatory weapon — the claim that fine particulate matter (soot and dust called PM_2.5) in outdoor air kills people. This sheet will be updated regularly as needed. This will be Version 1 (September 22, 2016). Please let me know if you have comments/suggestions.

The Claim. Since the 1996, EPA has claimed that fine particulate matter in outdoor air (PM_2.5) causes death.

The EPA’s position is that:

• ANY inhalation of PM_2.5 can cause death;
• Death from PM_2.5 may occur within hours of inhalation (i.e., “short-term” or literally “sudden death”) and that;
• Long-term (i.e., years or decades) exposure to PM_2.5 can cause premature death.

EPA claims that natural and manmade PM_2.5 causes as many as 500,000 deaths annually. [1]

NOAA claimed yesterday that Angola and Namibia had their hottest month ever last month, even though they don’t have any thermometers there.

NOAA Sets An All-Time Fraud Record In August | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

NASA also shows Namibia and Angola very hot, 1-4C above normal.

NASA has no thermometers in Namibia, and only one in Angola, at Luanda.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data

Luanda was warmer in the 1970’s, but NASA adjusted the 1970’s warmth away.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

The thermometer at Luanda is located next to the airport tarmac in the middle of very dense city of nearly three million people.

The “record heat” in southwest Africa is based on one tampered station, located next to a giant piece of asphalt in the middle of a rapidly growing city.

Luanda city has the highest rate of population growth in Africa, a local study shows.  According to the study presented by the Sweden embassy in Angola, Luanda is set to have 9 million inhabitants by 2030.

Many surveys have named the city as the world’s most expensive. One the negative side, Luanda is ranked among the 25 dirtiest cities in the world.

Luanda’s population growth rate highest in Africa – Africa Review

Instead of reducing recent temperatures to compensate for UHI, NASA cooled past temperatures. If Gavin set out to commit fraud, what would he do differently?

Much of the hysteria over atmospheric CO2 arises from ignoring the past which provides the context for interpreting the present.  Recently, one scientist suggested that climate researchers should be schooled in geology before commenting on climate change.  Instead of that, of course, most of them are based in environmentalism.  So as a public service this post presents some excellent and time-tested evidence produced by Dr Guy LeBlanc Smith.  h/t Jeff Hayes

It’s a bit like being savaged by a sheep. Anthony Watts and his psychotic sidekick Willis the drug-addled cowboy are at it again. They’re trying to undermine the work of Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller, who gave an excellent presentation at our highly successful London Conference. Their theory covers the underlying physical principles which determine surface temperature across a range of solar system bodies with radically different parameters in terms of insolation, surface pressure, atmospheric composition and rotation rates. There’s not a snowball in hell’s chance of Watts or Willis understanding it, as they amply demonstrated last time they had a go.  

We create crude global wind pattern maps (Figure 1). The problem is they are theoretical and based on a false premise known as the three cell global circulation pattern.

Figure 1

The empirical evidence does not support the three cell system, yet, like the greenhouse analogy, it still appears in most textbooks. Figure 2 is from NOAA’s “Fun for kids” current website.

Figure 2

One of the best recent (1997) reconstructions shows the complexity (Figure 3).

Figure 3

What effectively disappeared in the better approximation, or at best is a seasonal phenomenon, is the Ferrel Cell. The diagram indicates its transitory nature by labelling it the “indirect” Ferrel Cell. Again the diagram shows average conditions for both Hemispheres, but there is a considerable difference between them because of the different land water configurations.

I provide a proof that alternative energy production technologies (wind, solar, ocean energy, biofuels, etc.) necessarily burn more fossil fuel, per quantum of energy generated, than the energy production technologies that directly burn fossil fuel.

(Note: Hydro-electricity is “renewable” but it is not an “alternative” energy.)

If this were not the case, or if there was a realistic potential for this not to be the case, then alternatives could be more economical on a true-coast basis and would be experiencing a consequential surge in development and implementation, without disproportionate (per energy quantum) public investment.

Whereas, the global reality looks like this:

The increases in the insignificant alternatives are tied to disproportionate government investment, incentives, and subsidies, which transfer artificially high costs to citizens and users. As soon as government commitments are reduced or terminated the sector crashes [1].

Coastlines are actually gaining in size in a warming world, confounding climate change claims they would shrink as sea levels rise.  

A new study by the Dutch Deltares Research Institute shows the Earth is actually gaining more land than it’s losing, disputing claims that #Climate Change is causing increased sea level rise. The study showed our planet actually gained 107,000 square miles over the past three decades, including 21,000 square miles of coastline. That means continents are gaining in size, and not shrinking.

Conversely, the study showed the Earth had only lost 71,000 square miles of land during this same time period, including 12,500 square miles of shoreline. Some scientists have held that in a warming world, the coastlines would be the first casualties as melting ice sheets poured excess water into the oceans. Even President-Elect #Obama said in 2008 that his winning the election meant the rise of the oceans would now begin to slow. Turns out the oceans didn’t need his help after all.

Executive summary can be found here and the paper can be found here.

Research Report Executive Summary

Background

On December 15, 2009, EPA issued its Green House Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding, which has driven very significant and costly regulations beginning with CO2. Focusing primarily on the time period since 1950, EPA’s Endangerment Finding predicated on Three Lines of Evidence, claims that Higher CO2 Emissions have led to dangerously Higher Global Average Surface Temperatures.

Relevance of this Research

The assumption of the existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot (THS){ is critical to all Three Lines of Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding.

The Polar Ocean Challenge expedition – aka Ship of Fools II – has escaped from the Arctic by the skin of its teeth. 

It was supposed to show how amazingly navigable the Arctic Circle has become now that climate change is supposedly melting the polar ice caps at a dangerous and unprecedented rate. But according to one observer who has followed their progress closely (see comments at Paul Homewood‘s place), the intrepid explorers – including a 14-year-old boy – came within just two days of calamity, after being hampered by unexpectedly large quantities of a mysterious substance apparently made of frozen water.

The US EPA will be shuddering following this research announcement by a large group of scientists and reviewers.

The most important assumption in EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding has been conclusively invalidated

Research Report Executive Summary

Background

On December 15, 2009, EPA issued its Green House Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding, which has driven very significant and costly regulations beginning with CO2. Focusing primarily on the time period since 1950, EPA’s Endangerment Finding predicated on Three Lines of Evidence, claims that Higher CO2 Emissions have led to dangerously Higher Global Average Surface Temperatures.

Relevance of this Research

The assumption of the existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot (THS){ is critical to all Three Lines of Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding.

Stated simply, first, the THS is claimed to be a fingerprint or signature of atmospheric and Global Average Surface Temperatures (GAST) warming caused by increasing GHG/CO2 concentrations[1]. The proper test for the existence of the THS in the real world is very simple. Are the slopes of the three temperature trend lines (upper & lower troposphere and surface) all positive, statistically significant and do they have the proper top down rank order?

Second, higher atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs concentrations are claimed to have been the primary cause of the claimed record setting GAST over the past 50 plus years.

Third, the THS assumption is imbedded in all of the climate models that EPA still relies upon in its policy analysis supporting, for example, its Clean Power Plan�recently put on hold by a Supreme Court Stay. These climate models are also critical to EPA’s Social Cost of Carbon estimates used to justify a multitude of regulations across many U.S. Government agencies.

Objectives of the Research

The objective of this research was to determine whether or not a straightforward application of the proper mathematical methods would support EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant. Stated simply, their claim is that GAST is primarily a function of four explanatory variables: Atmospheric CO2 Levels, Solar Activity, Volcanic Activity, and a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon called the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO.)

The first objective of this research was to determine, based on the very considerable relevant and credible tropical temperature data evidence, whether or not the assumed THS actually exists in the real world.

The second related objective was to determine whether, adjusting ONLY for ENSO impacts, anything at all unusual with the Earth’s temperatures seemed to be occurring in the Tropics, Contiguous U.S. or Globally. It is a well-known meteorological fact that, other things equal, El Ninos lead to a global scale warming and La Ninas a global scale cooling, whose magnitudes are related to their ENSO strengths.

The third objective was to determine whether the rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations alone can be shown to have had a statistically significant impact on the trend slopes of often -publically -quoted temperature data.

It should be noted that in carrying out this research project, every effort was made to minimize complaints that this analysis was performed on so-called “cherry picked temperature data”. To avoid even the appearance of such activity, the authors divided up responsibilities, where Dr. Christy was tasked to provide temperature data sets that he felt were most appropriate and credible for testing the THS as well as the two other EPA Endangerment Finding hypotheses. All told, thirteen temperature time series (9 Tropics, 1 Contiguous U.S. and 3 Global) were analyzed in this research. The econometric analysis was done by Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC, and when completed, cross checked by the two other authors as well as seven reviewers.

Findings of the Research

These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.

Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA�s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate�13 times in fact�that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts are shown in this research to involve both changes in solar activity and the well-known 1977 Pacific Climate Shift.

Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, the research strongly implies that there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures.

Finally, regarding the credibility of these research findings, the temperature data measurements that were analyzed were taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques. Needless to say, if regardless of data source, the results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible.

PDF of this Executive Summary here.

See full abridged 68 page report here. The authors and reviewers all highly recommend that you read the PREFACE which explains the methodology and will help you better understand the detailed temperature analyses.

—————–

Study Authors & Reviewers

Authors

Dr. James P. Wallace III
Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC
50 Years Mathematical Modelling Team Management
Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University
M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University
B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University

Dr. John R. Christy
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama State Climatologist and Director of the Earth Science System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Lead Author, Contributing Author and Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments.
Awarded NASA�s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
Elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society in 2002

Joseph S. D�Aleo
Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Elected AMS Fellow
BS, MS Meteorology University of Wisconsin
ABD NYU Air Resources, Honorary Doctorate VSC
45 years operational and research meteorology

———

Reviewers

Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana � Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

Dr. Craig D. Idso
Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Ph.D., Geography, Arizona State University
M.S., Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
B.S., Geography, Arizona State University

Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology

Atmospheric research scientist Dr. Philip Klotzbach at Twitter here tweeted a chart showing that accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has not risen at all in 30 years, despite earlier massive hype and hollering by climate scientists and media, who insist “man-made” global warming is causing more frequent and intense cyclones.

This year, as every year, there has been much excitement in the media about ‘catastrophic’ melting of Arctic sea-ice, run-away melting, tipping points, death spirals and “ice-free” summers.

There has been the usual guessing game about when exactly the minimum will / has occurred and what the ice area or extent will be on that day. 

Claims of ‘ice-free’ conditions at some time in the summer have been bandied about for years in various forms but as the reality sinks in that it’s not as bad as some had claimed, the dates when this is expected happen have often been pushed out beyond the life expectancy of those making the claims.