Climate scam has dwarfed those before? No, it’s bad but the air pollution scam has caused much more harm

Something I find quite troubling is that people from our side who are all worked up about the warmer claims are ignoring the junk science that is used to create the air pollution regime of the EPA, that has just as much of a detrimental effect on the US economy.

In fact, did you know that the EPA uses theire junk science air pollution death claims to justify their Clean Power Plan? DID YOU, NO YOU DIDN’T, but that’s OK, your congressmen didn’t know either. In fact it’s hard to tell what they know about the EPA claims on air pollution death effects.

Here at JUnkScience we have INFORMED YOU that there are no deaths at all, when the EPA claims 300 thousand or more deaths. As Lisa Jackson said–small particle air pollution produces the same effects as cancer.

Here’s Tom Harris on the bogus climate claims.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/

Washington Times

August 23, 2015

Deceptive temperature record claims

By Tom Harris

The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.

NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.

But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.

So, the new temperature records are meaningless. Neither agency knows whether a record was set.

Such misrepresentations are now commonplace in NOAA and NASA announcements. They are regularly proclaiming monthly and yearly records set by less than the uncertainties in the measurements. Scientists within the agencies know that this is dishonest.

They also know that calculating so-called global average temperatures to hundredths of a degree is irrational. After all, there is very little data for the 70 percent of Earth’s surface that is ocean. There is also little data for mountainous and desert regions, not to mention the Antarctic. Much of the coverage is so sparse that NASA is forced to make the ridiculous claim that regions are adequately covered if there is a temperature-sensing station within nearly 750 miles. This is the distance between Ottawa, Canada, and Myrtle Beach, S.C. cities with very different climates. Yet, according to NASA, only one temperature sensing station is necessary for the two cities and the vast area between them to be adequately represented in their network.

In the final analysis, it is no more meaningful to calculate an average temperature for a whole planet than it is to calculate the average telephone number in the Washington D.C. phone book. Temperature, like viscosity and density, and of course phone numbers, is not something that can be meaningfully averaged. “Global temperature” does not exist.

In their award winning book, “Taken By Storm” (2007), Canadian researchers Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick explain: “Temperature is not an amount of something [like height or weight]. It is a number that represents the condition of a physical system. In thermodynamics it is known as an intensive quantity, in contrast to quantities like energy, which have an additive property, which we call extensive in thermodynamics.”

Even if enough accurate surface temperature measurements existed to ensure reasonable planetary coverage (it doesn’t) and to calculate some sort of global temperature statistic, interpreting its significance would be challenging. What averaging rule would you use to handle the data from thousands of temperature-sensing stations? Mean, mode, median, root mean square? Science does not tell us. For some groups of close temperature measures (and NASA and NOAA are dealing with thousands of very close temperatures), one method of calculating an average can lead to a determination of warming while another can lead to a conclusion of cooling.

Even if you could calculate some sort of meaningful global temperature statistic, the figure would be unimportant. No one and nothing would experience it directly since we all live in regions, not the globe. There is no super-sized being straddling the planet, feeling global averages in temperature. Global warming does not matter.

Future generations are bound to ask why America closed its coal-fueled generating stations, its cheapest, most plentiful source of electric power, and wasted billions of dollars trying to stop insignificant changes in imaginary phenomena.

The sad answer will be that it had nothing to do with the realities of science, technology or economics. The tragic blunder is based on satisfying political expedience for a privileged few, egged on by vested financial interests, and supported by largely uninformed activists granted the media platforms needed to sway public opinion. As Jay Lehr, science director of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute said, “It is a scam that dwarfs all others that have come before.”

Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

Advertisements

2 responses to “Climate scam has dwarfed those before? No, it’s bad but the air pollution scam has caused much more harm

  1. You Americans don’t know how lucky you are……
    Here in CHC NZL we are stuck with a PM10 limit of 50 ug/cu.m while you are allowed 150…..
    We are said to have a ‘PM problem’ but the problem is the ridiculously low limit and not the actual concentration; if we were in the USA or Europe we would be OK….People are now scared to use their wood burners and children and older folk [including me] are getting asthma etc. from breathing the cold air [not the PM] in our under-heated houses. About 20 years ago some fanatics unilaterally set these unrealistic limits and now nobody in the govt. will accept or correct the problem………..they see our local limits as being inferior to those elsewhere!

  2. I have a sneaky suspicion that coal will make a come back, now that stocks are tanking and Soros is buying it up!.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s