Thank you for reading the MtDemocrat.com digital edition. In order to continue reading this story please choose one of the following options.
If you are a current subscriber and wish to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com, please select the Subscriber Verification option below. If you already have a login, please select "Login" at the lower right corner of this box.
Special Introductory Offer
For a short time we will be offering a discount to those who call us in order to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com and start your print subscription. Our customer support team will be standing by Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm to assist you.
If you are not a current subscriber and wish not to take advantage of our special introductory offer, please select the $12 monthly option below to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com and start your online subscription
An editorial in the July 2 issue of the Mountain Democrat stated, “We are being fed a line about global warming that so far is based on secret science from the EPA.” This would seem outlandish, if that were true. However, it appears that just the opposite is the case.
In 2013, researchers reported they analyzed 11,944 peer-reviewed climate-related papers written from 1991 through 2011 by 29,083 authors and published in 1,980 journals. The researchers found that 66.4 percent of the papers’ abstracts expressed no position on global warming, 32.6 percent endorsed global warming, 0.7 percent rejected global warming and 0.3 percent were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on global warming, 97.1 percent endorsed the position that humans are causing global warming. (See iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article).
That is 3,896 scientific papers that endorsed the idea that human activity affects climate change and 78 that did not.
As for data being kept secret, it appears that the data that the Environmental Protection Agency was keeping confidential was personal health information (see yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/8d49f7ad4bbcf4ef852573590040b7f6/2c0a15a30105f16185257cc8004be075!OpenDocument). It is common practice to protect the confidentiality of data that can provided information about the health of participants who are identifiable. How sneaky of the government to hide their studies, without including some very limited identifiable health data, by offering those studies for both peer and public review.