Tag Archives: science integrity

A common error in environmental studies is an incorrect or inappropriate baseline

“Positioning of regional temperature reconstructions seem completely reversed with Arctic and NH anomalies plotting colder than Antarctic anomalies. Whether by design or chance, using the 1961-1990 baseline visually amplifies present day warming and suppresses known past natural events like the MWP.” click here

USEPA issues supplemental notice of regulatory science transparency rule

“This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) includes clarifications, modifications and additions to certain provisions published on April 30, 2018. This SNPRM proposes that the scope of the rulemaking apply to influential scientific information as well as significant regulatory decisions. This notice proposes definitions and clarifies that the proposed rulemaking applies to data and models underlying both pivotal science and pivotal regulatory science. In this SNPRM, EPA is also proposing a modified approach to the public availability provisions for data and models that would underly significant regulatory decisions and an alternate approach. Finally, EPA is taking comment on whether to use its housekeeping authority independently or in conjunction with appropriate environmental statutory provisions as authority for taking this action.” click here

Polar bears are doing just fine…withholding bear health and survival data does not change reality

Crockford, S.J. 2020. State of the Polar Bear Report 2019. Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 39, London.

Screen Shot 2020-02-27 at 8.49.04 PM

Screen Shot 2020-02-27 at 8.49.28 PM

Everyone other than the “climate scientists” who depend on government funding seems to know there is no climate crisis.

“In other words, another long-running US poll tells us the public’s climate concerns are weak. Ask people if they care about it, and many will say ‘yes.’ But they feel more urgency about a long list of other issues.” click here

Small epidemiological associations do not imply a significant risk

“When effects are this small, it is extremely possible that the effects are not real, but are artifacts of the statistical methods used in the original analysis.  If these findings had had Relative Risks or Risk Ratios of 4.0 or 7.9 or any value that might indicate a strong association, then I would be more convinced.  But with so many of the metrics not even passing the most basic test of significance, I am concerned that the findings represent only what John P.A. Ioannidis has termed “simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” “  click here

Here’s why the Clean Air Act (CAA) needs a ‘best available science’ clause.

To avoid basing rules on marginal or flawed science (e.g. here) as described below a “best available science” clause is needed in the Clean Air Act (CAA) — and other environmental laws — as in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA”)”:

“To the degree that an Agency action is based on science, the Administrator shall use (1) the best available, peer-reviewed science and supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific practices; and (2) data collected by accepted methods or best available methods (if
the reliability of the method and the nature of the decision justifies use of the data”. Public Law 104-182. Section 1412(b)(4)(D).

EPA-CASAC-20-001

Click here to read the full report.

 

Climategate was real. Don’t be a Climategate denier!

happy-bouncing-smilie

McIntyre and Mckitrick (here) correct climate gate myths:

“Given the importance of climate science in today’s society, all of us expect more of climate scientists than merely that they not commit “outright fraud.” Exoneration at such a low threshold would be small exoneration indeed.
However, rather than confronting the corruption and misconduct apparent throughout the Climategate emails, the climate academic community shut their eyes to the affair, eventually even persuading itself that the offending scientists were victims, rather than offenders.This re-framing was made possible by numerous myths propagated about the affair, of which the following were especially important:
Myth #1: The Climategate scandal arose because “cherrypicked” emails were taken “out of context”.
Myth #2: The Climategate correspondents were “exonerated” following “thorough” and impartial investigations.
Myth #3: Scientific studies subsequent to Climategate have “confirmed” and “verified” the original Mann hockey stick.
These are only the major myths from a veritable tsunami of disinformation from the academic community. The myths are untrue and, in this article, we will explain why.”  (click here)