“Since publishing my last two posts here and here on the Church and White (“C&W”) 2011 sea level dataset, some folks have queried why I didn’t use the Church and White 2013 dataset instead. The answer is simple. It’s because of the hockeystick.
What hockeystick, you might ask? Why, the C&W hockeystick … the figure below shows the difference between the C&W 2013 and the C&W 2011 data.” click here
“Professor Garth Paltridge, formerly a chief scientist with Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Division of Atmospheric Research, says that the behavior of certain members of the climate science establishment is “seriously threatening the public’s perception of the professionalism of scientists in general.” “ click here
“This document proposes a regulation intended to strengthen the transparency of EPA regulatory science. The proposed regulation provides that when EPA develops regulations, including regulations for which the public is likely to bear the cost of compliance, with regard to those scientific studies that are pivotal to the action being taken, EPA should ensure that the data underlying those are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation. In this notice, EPA solicits comment on this proposal and how it can best be promulgated and implemented in light of existing law and prior Federal policies that already require increasing public access to data and influential scientific information used to inform federal regulation.” click here
“Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule on Tuesday to prevent the agency from relying on scientific studies that don’t publish the underlying data.” click here
“This was a huge problem for Barack Obama, because he wanted to be remembered for healing the planet and slowing the rise of the seas. So I predicted over three years ago that the satellite data would be massively tampered with to make the hiatus disappear.” click here
“Half the results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are probably wrong. John Ioannidis, now a professor of medicine at Stanford, made headlines with that claim in 2005. Since then, researchers have confirmed his skepticism by trying—and often failing—to reproduce many influential journal articles. Slowly, scientists are internalizing the lessons of this irreproducibility crisis. But what about government, which has been making policy for generations without confirming that the science behind it is valid?” click here