Posted on Aug 14, 2023
Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’
292
9
2
2
2
0
In addition to scientific arguments about why global warming is overblown, the scientists also cite data showing large discrepancies between global warming models and actual observations. In some cases, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen say, data has been disingenuously manipulated to fit the climate-change narrative.
“The most striking example of that is the temperature record,” Mr. Happer said. “If you look at the temperature records that were published 20 years ago, they showed very clearly that in the United States by far the warmest years we had were during the mid-1930s.
“The most striking example of that is the temperature record,” Mr. Happer said. “If you look at the temperature records that were published 20 years ago, they showed very clearly that in the United States by far the warmest years we had were during the mid-1930s.
Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’
Posted from theepochtimes.comPosted in these groups: 
Environment
Climate Change
Environment Climate Change
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
1
1
0
There for a minute I thought you were going to present something credible .
(1)
(0)
PO1 Kevin Dougherty
So is it not credible because it goes against "consensus"? Many of mankind's greatest discoveries were made by people who challenged the consensus in their day. In fact, that's a major part of science, testing and challenging theories and laws. I would say a paper by couple of PHD professors with lifetimes of research and study, each with a over a hundred peer reviewed papers, and one of whom specialized in atmospheric studies, the other who has specialized in studying atmospheric radiation, have a fair amount of credibility.
If you do not agree with their conclusions, then show where the facts given in the paper are false. Science is done when you compare observations and measurements to your theory. If they don't agree, or are not reproducible, then your theory is incorrect. In the case of the climate models currently in use, they have been consistently wrong. Then why persist in using them despite the clear disparity between predictions and measured results? Just follow the money.
BTW your opinion would be a lot more credible if you were not hiding behind anonymity. Not that it would cause me to change my mind here.
If you do not agree with their conclusions, then show where the facts given in the paper are false. Science is done when you compare observations and measurements to your theory. If they don't agree, or are not reproducible, then your theory is incorrect. In the case of the climate models currently in use, they have been consistently wrong. Then why persist in using them despite the clear disparity between predictions and measured results? Just follow the money.
BTW your opinion would be a lot more credible if you were not hiding behind anonymity. Not that it would cause me to change my mind here.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google