Pages

Saturday, April 29, 2017

An Important Synopsis

Official Press Release on Second Edition

On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot,”  The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding

James P. Wallace III, John R. Christy, and Joseph S. d’Aleo
Abridged Research Report
Second Edition, April 2017

A just released peer reviewed climate science Research Report has proven that it is all but certain that EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false. All research was done pro bono. (ed. Which means "free" to all recent college graduates who can only regurgitate environmentalism.)

This research failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO
2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that were analyzed. 

The tropospheric and surface 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 analysis results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible.

The analysis results invalidate EPA’s CO
2 Endangerment Finding, including the climate models that the EPA has claimed can be relied on for policy analysis purposes. 

Moreover, these research results clearly demonstrate that once the solar, volcanic and oceanic activity, that is, natural factor, impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no Natural Factor Adjusted Warming at all. 
The authors of this report claim that there is no published, peer reviewed, statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO
2 concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. And, EPA’s climate models fail to meet this test.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Note:  This is the first paper of this kind we have seen in spite of the many scientists opposed to the idea of "man-caused global warming."  The promoters of this concept are all government scientists or Federal grant recipients of which there could be 62,222 at $90,000 per year given the money they are granting every year while research on the seas and the potentials therein goes wanting.  AV  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please comment and make suggestions.