Maybe we'll finally get a little balance in the debate...
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.
Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.
My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.
So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.
The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.
Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.
For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.
Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.
But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.
Hoax Slayers: Top Scientists to Scrutinise Dodgy Global Warming Data
by Donna Rachel Edmunds - 26 Apr 2015
A major inquiry has been launched into the reliability of official global surface temperature records following widespread allegations that data has been manipulated to prove that global warming is happening.
According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), from which the US government draws official statistics, 2014 was the hottest year globally since records began in 1880. However, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), both of which rely on satellite systems to gauge global temperatures, show no such warming.
NOAA gathers its data from a network of more than 3,000 weather stations known as the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).However, in the light of the different pictures being painted by the satellites and weather stations, analysts have examined the data and point to hundreds of examples of data from the weather stations being “adjusted”, potentially exaggerating global warming.
Writing in the Telegraph, Christopher Booker explained: “Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.”
In order to determine whether or not the data from the weather stations has been skewed, the Global Warming Policy Foundation has assembled an international team of experts including eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians, to analyse the data and settle the matter.
The inquiry is being chaired by Professor Terence Kealey, former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. Launching the inquiry, Professor Kealey said: “Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising. While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested. We hope to perform a valuable public service by getting everything out into the open.”
He also issued a call for evidence, saying “We hope that people who are concerned with the integrity of climate science, from all sides of the debate, will help us to get to the bottom of these questions by telling us what they know about the temperature records and the adjustments made to them. The team approaches the subject as open-minded scientists – we intend to let the science do the talking. Our goal is to help the public understand the challenges in assembling climate data sets, the influence of adjustments and modifications to the data, and whether they are justifiable or not.”
The Foundation has promised to publish all submissions.
Commenting on the inquiry, Booker said: “only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides.
“If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.”
Indeed, the difference between the pictures emerging from satellite data and from the weather stations is not insignificant. While NOAA is busy proclaiming the hottest years on record, the University of Alabama says there has been no warming for over 18 years.
Asked to comment on the temperature plateau by CNS News, Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville said “That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on.”
He added that current government policy on climate change is a “fools errand” because the climate is too complex a system for humans to set meaningful goals with any chance of attaining them. “Our ignorance is simply enormous when it comes to the climate system, and our understanding is certainly not strong and solid enough to make policy about climate because we don’t even know what it’s going to do, so how can we make a policy that says ‘I want to make the climate do something’ when we don’t know what makes the climate do what it does?” he asked.
However, he noted, “there is still a strong belief system that greenhouse gases control the climate, and so if that is your belief system, then it doesn’t really matter what the evidence shows.”
Maybe we'll finally get a little balance in the debate...
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official suMrface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.
Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.
My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.
So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.
The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.
Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.
For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.
Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.
But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.
The writer of this piece is obviously a climate change denier. He has already decided that the panel will find the figures to be skewed. I would prefer to wait until the panel posts its results before proclaiming victory. However you want to record data, one only has to look at the U.S. To determine that something has changed. The disastrous drought in the southwest, the lack of snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountains plus the brutal winters that the east has dealt with lately seem to indicate that there is credence to the belief that the climate is changing. There is a lot more to it than temperature averages, something the writer does not address.
The koch brothers appreciate the support of science denying fuc#-wits like you two.
Muledouche gets a check from the kocksuckers every month for the work he does here.
If he saves that $1.97 he can eventually move out of mom's basement.
Maybe he can share an apartment with deano.
Maybe we'll finally get a little balance in the debate...
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry
Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official suMrface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.
Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.
My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.
So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.
The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.
Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.
For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.
Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.
But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.
The writer of this piece is obviously a climate change denier. He has already decided that the panel will find the figures to be skewed. I would prefer to wait until the panel posts its results before proclaiming victory. However you want to record data, one only has to look at the U.S. To determine that something has changed. The disastrous drought in the southwest, the lack of snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountains plus the brutal winters that the east has dealt with lately seem to indicate that there is credence to the belief that the climate is changing. There is a lot more to it than temperature averages, something the writer does not address.
___________________________________________________________________
Ah another label by the left: denier.
The writer of the article made no decision as you falsely claim. That non-fact comes from you thinking you know what is in his mind which you do not.
The planets climate has been changing since it’s time began. No one denies that the climate is changing, that is an eco-wacko talking point. Yet these idiots claim climate change is completely to be blamed on man and fossil fuels but no creditable analysis has ever stated so.
Over the last 20 years the earth’s temperature has elevated less than one degree.
According to Al Gore by this year the State of Florida should be completely underwater. It is not.
The Global Warming wackos continue to cite “NASA” reports to support their false claims.
NASA is run by an Obama political appointee. How do you think a report ordered by Obama from NASA on Climate Change would read?
What the people want is factual analysis conducted free of governments and politicians.
Instead the so-called environmentalists scream “we’re all gonna die”, offer no respected examination and insult the people by labeling them deniers.
Ya’ll really need to hire a new PR firm. What you have is not working.
I see pops and ron have chimed in with their usual posts: abusive comments and no opinion or statement on the actual thread. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Sadly, it doesn't matter how many links and articles are posted that spell out man's impact on climate change, or that 95% of the world's climate scientists agree, there are those who will cling to the 5% as an excuse to completely debunk the 95%, no matter what. I don't know why this has become more of a political issue than a scientific one, but just like with most other things once politics is involved the issue at hand becomes clouded by spin and the truth becomes secondary to political agendas.
or that 95% of the world's climate scientists agree
Not criticizing your post or your point of view. Just consider one thing.
Those "climate scientists" don't exist without a global warming agenda. They're out of a job if man-made warming isn't proved and accepted lock, stock, & barrel.
Criticism is instantly thrown towards anyone perceived as selling out on an issue, in other words getting paid to profess a certain point of view. The ex-founder of Greenpeace, who now argues that the man-made impact on climate has been over-stated (and is in favor of modern versions of atomic energy generation) is dismissed out of hand as a sell out.
So why then are these "scientists" who argue the man is the root of the problem, who themselves are funded only to pursue the strengthening of that point of view, not subject to the same scrutiny? After all, you have no career of any note in climate studies unless you fall in line with today's popular belief.
I wouldn't say for a minute that we shouldn't treat the planet better. But twisting this issue to suit political aims - i.e. carbon taxes - is something I find highly dubious.
or that 95% of the world's climate scientists agree
Not criticizing your post or your point of view. Just consider one thing.
Those "climate scientists" don't exist without a global warming agenda. They're out of a job if man-made warming isn't proved and accepted lock, stock, & barrel.
Criticism is instantly thrown towards anyone perceived as selling out on an issue, in other words getting paid to profess a certain point of view. The ex-founder of Greenpeace, who now argues that the man-made impact on climate has been over-stated (and is in favor of modern versions of atomic energy generation) is dismissed out of hand as a sell out.
So why then are these "scientists" who argue the man is the root of the problem, who themselves are funded only to pursue the strengthening of that point of view, not subject to the same scrutiny? After all, you have no career of any note in climate studies unless you fall in line with today's popular belief.
I wouldn't say for a minute that we shouldn't treat the planet better. But twisting this issue to suit political aims - i.e. carbon taxes - is something I find highly dubious.
Really? 95% of the climatologists would lose their jobs over this? That is just another unfounded ludicrous claim. Where do you come up with that? What you are saying is that 95% of the climatologists have no integrity in their chosen profession. Just the claim that 95% of these scientists are employed just to make that claim is basically stupid. No, you are just pulling something out of the air because the evidence does not support your claim.
Eh, hate to piss in your cornflakes Fuji but The Global Warming Policy Foundation are not nonpartisan on this issue and are known climate change deniers so they have an agenda.
They are also are a registered charity but refuse to divulge their contributors. They also seem fond of citing research done by Energy Company funded scientists
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
Move on nothing to see here as they are just another climate denier group with an agenda and with ties to big oil.
[Edited on 4/27/2015 by Bill_Graham]
or that 95% of the world's climate scientists agree
Not criticizing your post or your point of view. Just consider one thing.
Those "climate scientists" don't exist without a global warming agenda. They're out of a job if man-made warming isn't proved and accepted lock, stock, & barrel.
Criticism is instantly thrown towards anyone perceived as selling out on an issue, in other words getting paid to profess a certain point of view. The ex-founder of Greenpeace, who now argues that the man-made impact on climate has been over-stated (and is in favor of modern versions of atomic energy generation) is dismissed out of hand as a sell out.
So why then are these "scientists" who argue the man is the root of the problem, who themselves are funded only to pursue the strengthening of that point of view, not subject to the same scrutiny? After all, you have no career of any note in climate studies unless you fall in line with today's popular belief.
I wouldn't say for a minute that we shouldn't treat the planet better. But twisting this issue to suit political aims - i.e. carbon taxes - is something I find highly dubious.
Really? 95% of the climatologists would lose their jobs over this? That is just another unfounded ludicrous claim. Where do you come up with that? What you are saying is that 95% of the climatologists have no integrity in their chosen profession. Just the claim that 95% of these scientists are employed just to make that claim is basically stupid. No, you are just pulling something out of the air because the evidence does not support your claim.
_____________________________________________________________________
What evidence?
There is no creditable climate change investigation in the public domain.
If you are referring to the reports by pseudo- climatologists that are paid by Al Gore, Obama or the eco-extremists their “analysis” has been repeatedly debunked, ergo the calls for actual scientists to provide real examination.
Again I ask, what evidence do you cite?
or that 95% of the world's climate scientists agree
Not criticizing your post or your point of view. Just consider one thing.
Those "climate scientists" don't exist without a global warming agenda. They're out of a job if man-made warming isn't proved and accepted lock, stock, & barrel.
I am willing to consider this, but you're making a statement not an argument and at face value I have a hard time agreeing with it. The pursuit of scientific discovery is not solely driven by political agendas, although they often get intertwined. In the case of climate science, it can be traced as far back as the ancient Greeks, and certainly by the late 19th-century "modern" scientists were defining the field as part of a broader effort to understand the earth's climate cycles. Were "carbon taxes" on the table then? I wasn't there but I tend to doubt it. I actually think that Al Gore may have been the worst thing to happen to the study of climate change, not because he is right or wrong but because he is such a political lighting rod.
Criticism is instantly thrown towards anyone perceived as selling out on an issue, in other words getting paid to profess a certain point of view. The ex-founder of Greenpeace, who now argues that the man-made impact on climate has been over-stated (and is in favor of modern versions of atomic energy generation) is dismissed out of hand as a sell out.
No argument on this. Sometimes the sellout is obvious, sometimes it is more insidious, but clearly it happens. I just don't believe it defines the entire field, as you seem to be saying.
So why then are these "scientists" who argue the man is the root of the problem, who themselves are funded only to pursue the strengthening of that point of view, not subject to the same scrutiny?
It depends what kind of scrutiny you are talking about. From a scientific standpoint, I believe they have been scrutinized. Most worthwhile scientific reports are peer reviewed, and much of the time the scrutiny flies so far under the radar that most of us never get to hear about it. Now if you are referring to media and/or public scrutiny, that is when the waters get much murkier and agendas start to some into play and it gets much harder to separate the science from the rhetoric.
After all, you have no career of any note in climate studies unless you fall in line with today's popular belief.
I don't know you are basing this on, but I don't believe it to be true. I'm sure it is true about some specific jobs, just as I'm sure there are jobs specifically tailored to climate change deniers as well, but I have a hard time buying that there are no opportunities in this field for young scientists with truly open minds.
I wouldn't say for a minute that we shouldn't treat the planet better. But twisting this issue to suit political aims - i.e. carbon taxes - is something I find highly dubious.
As should anyone, however the problem with what you're saying, as I see it anyway, is that the science was going to be pursued regardless of the politics, as has been the case throughout the evolution of man. The specific example you give, carbon taxes, came about as a result of where the science led, not the other way around. Are there schills on both sides of the issue? Of course. However, it is my opinion that an objective view (if that is even possible anymore, I'm not sure) tilts the scales overwhelmingly in favor of what is currently the majority consensus on climate.
[Edited on 4/27/2015 by gondicar]
Threads on this issue make me miss the Spacemonkey man. 🙁
This is how the climate change argument goes off the rails:
EPA spends $84,000 to study churches that preach climate change
By Elizabeth Harrington - Published April 27, 2015 - Washington Free Beacon
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is spending $84,000 to study how churches can be used to combat climate change.
A taxpayer-funded graduate fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor is examining 17 faith-based institutions that have implemented "sustainability initiatives" in the hopes of developing workshops to teach pastors and other religious leaders how to change the behaviors of their congregants.
"Climate change-which affects traditional faith-based efforts to improve human health, mitigate poverty and redress social inequity-is inspiring religious organizations to advocate for clean air and water, restore ecosystems, and conserve resources," a grant for the project, which began last fall, states. "This project seeks to understand the empirical experiences of faith-based environmental efforts within communities."
"Through what motivations and processes do congregation level sustainability initiatives emerge?" the grant asks. "What factors facilitate and/or hinder implementation of these initiatives? What environmental and community outcomes are perceived to have been achieved through these initiatives?"
"The results will provide insights into the role of religion and faith communities in motivating environmental behavior," it said.
The project, "Sustainability at the Community Level: The Role of Faith-Based Organizations," is scheduled to last through September 2016.
The project sees churches and other religious institutions as an opportunity to reach millions of Americans and promote "more environmentally sustainable behaviors."
Click for more from The Washington Free Beacon.
Yes, education and research are such a horrible things............I can see why you would be against it..........
This is how the climate change argument goes off the rails:
EPA spends $84,000 to study churches that preach climate change
By Elizabeth Harrington - Published April 27, 2015 - Washington Free Beacon
Click for more from The Washington Free Beacon.
Since you love to attack the source of pretty much everything that is posted on this site by people other than you, it is worth noting that the "Washington Free Beacon" is not an objective news outlet. The Washington Free Beacon is web site that publishes news and associated content from a conservative perspective founded by conservative political writers Michael Goldfarb and Matthew Continetti. The site is noted for its aggressive, ideologically driven reporting, and is modeled after liberal counterparts in the media such as Think Progress and Talking Points Memo.
[Edited on 4/27/2015 by gondicar]
This is how the climate change argument goes off the rails:
EPA spends $84,000 to study churches that preach climate change
By Elizabeth Harrington - Published April 27, 2015 - Washington Free Beacon
Click for more from The Washington Free Beacon.
Since you love to attack the source of pretty much everything that is posted on this site by people other than you, it is worth noting that the "Washington Free Beacon" is not an objective news outlet. The Washington Free Beacon is web site that publishes news and associated content from a conservative perspective founded by conservative political writers Michael Goldfarb and Matthew Continetti. The site is noted for its aggressive, ideologically driven reporting, and is modeled after liberal counterparts in the media such as Think Progress and Talking Points Memo.
[Edited on 4/27/2015 by gondicar]
____________________________________________________________________
What crap.
Your diatribe does not change the fact of the EPA’s expenditure.
This is how the climate change argument goes off the rails:
EPA spends $84,000 to study churches that preach climate change
By Elizabeth Harrington - Published April 27, 2015 - Washington Free Beacon
Click for more from The Washington Free Beacon.
Since you love to attack the source of pretty much everything that is posted on this site by people other than you, it is worth noting that the "Washington Free Beacon" is not an objective news outlet. The Washington Free Beacon is web site that publishes news and associated content from a conservative perspective founded by conservative political writers Michael Goldfarb and Matthew Continetti. The site is noted for its aggressive, ideologically driven reporting, and is modeled after liberal counterparts in the media such as Think Progress and Talking Points Memo.
[Edited on 4/27/2015 by gondicar]
____________________________________________________________________
What crap.
Your diatribe does not change the fact of the EPA’s expenditure.
Uh huh. That's about what I expected. lol
or that 95% of the world's climate scientists agree
Not criticizing your post or your point of view. Just consider one thing.
Those "climate scientists" don't exist without a global warming agenda. They're out of a job if man-made warming isn't proved and accepted lock, stock, & barrel.
Criticism is instantly thrown towards anyone perceived as selling out on an issue, in other words getting paid to profess a certain point of view. The ex-founder of Greenpeace, who now argues that the man-made impact on climate has been over-stated (and is in favor of modern versions of atomic energy generation) is dismissed out of hand as a sell out.
So why then are these "scientists" who argue the man is the root of the problem, who themselves are funded only to pursue the strengthening of that point of view, not subject to the same scrutiny? After all, you have no career of any note in climate studies unless you fall in line with today's popular belief.
I wouldn't say for a minute that we shouldn't treat the planet better. But twisting this issue to suit political aims - i.e. carbon taxes - is something I find highly dubious.
Really? 95% of the climatologists would lose their jobs over this? That is just another unfounded ludicrous claim. Where do you come up with that? What you are saying is that 95% of the climatologists have no integrity in their chosen profession. Just the claim that 95% of these scientists are employed just to make that claim is basically stupid. No, you are just pulling something out of the air because the evidence does not support your claim.
The "95%" isn't my number, just one that was previously stated and used for the basis of my reply.
Can't imagine a large percentage of those in a profession having no integrity? Politicians take an oath with their hands on a bible and then break it constantly. The public accepts that with barely a notice.
It doesn't have to be about integrity in this case - it's just a point of view one can take because it isn't science. Science is provable, reproducible, undeniable hard fact. Global warming predictions are based on thousands of measurements (of questionable accuracy) massaged by fudge-factor-filled calculations and judged by a "consensus". Consensus isn't truth or fact or science, it's just opinion. Even Einstein's brilliance wasn't accepted as science until physical and reproducible proof could be obtained.
or that 95% of the world's climate scientists agree
Not criticizing your post or your point of view. Just consider one thing.
Those "climate scientists" don't exist without a global warming agenda. They're out of a job if man-made warming isn't proved and accepted lock, stock, & barrel.
Criticism is instantly thrown towards anyone perceived as selling out on an issue, in other words getting paid to profess a certain point of view. The ex-founder of Greenpeace, who now argues that the man-made impact on climate has been over-stated (and is in favor of modern versions of atomic energy generation) is dismissed out of hand as a sell out.
So why then are these "scientists" who argue the man is the root of the problem, who themselves are funded only to pursue the strengthening of that point of view, not subject to the same scrutiny? After all, you have no career of any note in climate studies unless you fall in line with today's popular belief.
I wouldn't say for a minute that we shouldn't treat the planet better. But twisting this issue to suit political aims - i.e. carbon taxes - is something I find highly dubious.
Really? 95% of the climatologists would lose their jobs over this? That is just another unfounded ludicrous claim. Where do you come up with that? What you are saying is that 95% of the climatologists have no integrity in their chosen profession. Just the claim that 95% of these scientists are employed just to make that claim is basically stupid. No, you are just pulling something out of the air because the evidence does not support your claim.
The "95%" isn't my number, just one that was previously stated and used for the basis of my reply.
Can't imagine a large percentage of those in a profession having no integrity? Politicians take an oath with their hands on a bible and then break it constantly. The public accepts that with barely a notice.
It doesn't have to be about integrity in this case - it's just a point of view one can take because it isn't science. Science is provable, reproducible, undeniable hard fact. Global warming predictions are based on thousands of measurements (of questionable accuracy) massaged by fudge-factor-filled calculations and judged by a "consensus". Consensus isn't truth or fact or science, it's just opinion. Even Einstein's brilliance wasn't accepted as science until physical and reproducible proof could be obtained.
Are you really comparing scientists to politicians? Talk about apples and oranges. Politicians get elected and from day one work on getting reelected. How is that similar to scientists? Without integrity in science, there is no science. As for science being cold hard fact, that is BS. Scientists believe the universe is expanding, but there is no way to prove it. Science has changed the age of the earth many times because as new data becomes available, they change what they believe. Science believes that we someday will travel to different galaxies. Is that definite or theory? Science is hardly always provable. And climatology is based on looking at what has happened in the past looking at what is happening now and using that data to predict the future. Your argument is weak. You are twisting things to meet your agenda.
Can't imagine a large percentage of those in a profession having no integrity? Politicians take an oath with their hands on a bible and then break it constantly. The public accepts that with barely a notice.
I'd have to agree with you on this one. I'm not a global warming denier. I do believe our climate is changing pretty drastically....but as for the cause, who the heck really knows. This is where I have the issue....not that it exists, but defining the real cause of it.
And normally I'd believe our scientists without question, until I witnessed our "doctors" pushing pills on the general public over the past decade. If those "doctors" are willing to sell out and push unecessary pills on people, then scientists could easily do it too. I'm not saying they are, but it's very plausible that we have scientists pushing the global-warming agenda, in the same way those "doctors" are on board with pushing the pills. I can't blame those who are skeptical for this very reason.
or that 95% of the world's climate scientists agree
Not criticizing your post or your point of view. Just consider one thing.
Those "climate scientists" don't exist without a global warming agenda. They're out of a job if man-made warming isn't proved and accepted lock, stock, & barrel.
Criticism is instantly thrown towards anyone perceived as selling out on an issue, in other words getting paid to profess a certain point of view. The ex-founder of Greenpeace, who now argues that the man-made impact on climate has been over-stated (and is in favor of modern versions of atomic energy generation) is dismissed out of hand as a sell out.
So why then are these "scientists" who argue the man is the root of the problem, who themselves are funded only to pursue the strengthening of that point of view, not subject to the same scrutiny? After all, you have no career of any note in climate studies unless you fall in line with today's popular belief.
I wouldn't say for a minute that we shouldn't treat the planet better. But twisting this issue to suit political aims - i.e. carbon taxes - is something I find highly dubious.
Really? 95% of the climatologists would lose their jobs over this? That is just another unfounded ludicrous claim. Where do you come up with that? What you are saying is that 95% of the climatologists have no integrity in their chosen profession. Just the claim that 95% of these scientists are employed just to make that claim is basically stupid. No, you are just pulling something out of the air because the evidence does not support your claim.
The "95%" isn't my number, just one that was previously stated and used for the basis of my reply.
Can't imagine a large percentage of those in a profession having no integrity? Politicians take an oath with their hands on a bible and then break it constantly. The public accepts that with barely a notice.
It doesn't have to be about integrity in this case - it's just a point of view one can take because it isn't science. Science is provable, reproducible, undeniable hard fact. Global warming predictions are based on thousands of measurements (of questionable accuracy) massaged by fudge-factor-filled calculations and judged by a "consensus". Consensus isn't truth or fact or science, it's just opinion. Even Einstein's brilliance wasn't accepted as science until physical and reproducible proof could be obtained.
Are you really comparing scientists to politicians? Talk about apples and oranges. Politicians get elected and from day one work on getting reelected. How is that similar to scientists? Without integrity in science, there is no science. As for science being cold hard fact, that is BS. Scientists believe the universe is expanding, but there is no way to prove it. Science has changed the age of the earth many times because as new data becomes available, they change what they believe. Science believes that we someday will travel to different galaxies. Is that definite or theory? Science is hardly always provable. And climatology is based on looking at what has happened in the past looking at what is happening now and using that data to predict the future. Your argument is weak. You are twisting things to meet your agenda.
There's speculative science and scientific fact. Both may be engaged in by scientists, but they are very different things.
Real climate change has been going on for as long as the planet has existed. Its been warmer and its been colder than present conditions. The current popular description of "climate change" is a term of art more than science. It seeks to generalize specific political aims under the cover of science. 500 years ago, it was priests proclaiming God's wrath. It's speculation, nothing more.
Predictions about mankind's fate due to his deeds or misdeeds has been a powerful and profitable activity for thousands of years, and I expect it will remain so. Believing that these scientists are unaffected by power and/or profit to at least some degree ignores their basic human nature.
or that 95% of the world's climate scientists agree
Not criticizing your post or your point of view. Just consider one thing.
Those "climate scientists" don't exist without a global warming agenda. They're out of a job if man-made warming isn't proved and accepted lock, stock, & barrel.
Criticism is instantly thrown towards anyone perceived as selling out on an issue, in other words getting paid to profess a certain point of view. The ex-founder of Greenpeace, who now argues that the man-made impact on climate has been over-stated (and is in favor of modern versions of atomic energy generation) is dismissed out of hand as a sell out.
So why then are these "scientists" who argue the man is the root of the problem, who themselves are funded only to pursue the strengthening of that point of view, not subject to the same scrutiny? After all, you have no career of any note in climate studies unless you fall in line with today's popular belief.
I wouldn't say for a minute that we shouldn't treat the planet better. But twisting this issue to suit political aims - i.e. carbon taxes - is something I find highly dubious.
Really? 95% of the climatologists would lose their jobs over this? That is just another unfounded ludicrous claim. Where do you come up with that? What you are saying is that 95% of the climatologists have no integrity in their chosen profession. Just the claim that 95% of these scientists are employed just to make that claim is basically stupid. No, you are just pulling something out of the air because the evidence does not support your claim.
The "95%" isn't my number, just one that was previously stated and used for the basis of my reply.
Can't imagine a large percentage of those in a profession having no integrity? Politicians take an oath with their hands on a bible and then break it constantly. The public accepts that with barely a notice.
It doesn't have to be about integrity in this case - it's just a point of view one can take because it isn't science. Science is provable, reproducible, undeniable hard fact. Global warming predictions are based on thousands of measurements (of questionable accuracy) massaged by fudge-factor-filled calculations and judged by a "consensus". Consensus isn't truth or fact or science, it's just opinion. Even Einstein's brilliance wasn't accepted as science until physical and reproducible proof could be obtained.
Are you really comparing scientists to politicians? Talk about apples and oranges. Politicians get elected and from day one work on getting reelected. How is that similar to scientists? Without integrity in science, there is no science. As for science being cold hard fact, that is BS. Scientists believe the universe is expanding, but there is no way to prove it. Science has changed the age of the earth many times because as new data becomes available, they change what they believe. Science believes that we someday will travel to different galaxies. Is that definite or theory? Science is hardly always provable. And climatology is based on looking at what has happened in the past looking at what is happening now and using that data to predict the future. Your argument is weak. You are twisting things to meet your agenda.
There's speculative science and scientific fact. Both may be engaged in by scientists, but they are very different things.
Real climate change has been going on for as long as the planet has existed. Its been warmer and its been colder than present conditions. The current popular description of "climate change" is a term of art more than science. It seeks to generalize specific political aims under the cover of science. 500 years ago, it was priests proclaiming God's wrath. It's speculation, nothing more.
Predictions about mankind's fate due to his deeds or misdeeds has been a powerful and profitable activity for thousands of years, and I expect it will remain so. Believing that these scientists are unaffected by power and/or profit to at least some degree ignores their basic human nature.
Ok, in your first post, you give us an article that says climate change is based on inaccurate data and give the impression that climate change is a hoax started by the vast majority of climatologists because they don't want to lose their jobs. Now you say climate change is occurring.
You say that all science is absolute and provable. Then you say there are two types of science, speculative and fact.
Then you compare todays scientists with priests and shamans who blamed events on God's wrath. Come on, you are smarter than that.
OK, your turn to move the goalposts again.
or that 95% of the world's climate scientists agree
Not criticizing your post or your point of view. Just consider one thing.
Those "climate scientists" don't exist without a global warming agenda. They're out of a job if man-made warming isn't proved and accepted lock, stock, & barrel.
Criticism is instantly thrown towards anyone perceived as selling out on an issue, in other words getting paid to profess a certain point of view. The ex-founder of Greenpeace, who now argues that the man-made impact on climate has been over-stated (and is in favor of modern versions of atomic energy generation) is dismissed out of hand as a sell out.
So why then are these "scientists" who argue the man is the root of the problem, who themselves are funded only to pursue the strengthening of that point of view, not subject to the same scrutiny? After all, you have no career of any note in climate studies unless you fall in line with today's popular belief.
I wouldn't say for a minute that we shouldn't treat the planet better. But twisting this issue to suit political aims - i.e. carbon taxes - is something I find highly dubious.
Really? 95% of the climatologists would lose their jobs over this? That is just another unfounded ludicrous claim. Where do you come up with that? What you are saying is that 95% of the climatologists have no integrity in their chosen profession. Just the claim that 95% of these scientists are employed just to make that claim is basically stupid. No, you are just pulling something out of the air because the evidence does not support your claim.
The "95%" isn't my number, just one that was previously stated and used for the basis of my reply.
Can't imagine a large percentage of those in a profession having no integrity? Politicians take an oath with their hands on a bible and then break it constantly. The public accepts that with barely a notice.
It doesn't have to be about integrity in this case - it's just a point of view one can take because it isn't science. Science is provable, reproducible, undeniable hard fact. Global warming predictions are based on thousands of measurements (of questionable accuracy) massaged by fudge-factor-filled calculations and judged by a "consensus". Consensus isn't truth or fact or science, it's just opinion. Even Einstein's brilliance wasn't accepted as science until physical and reproducible proof could be obtained.
Are you really comparing scientists to politicians? Talk about apples and oranges. Politicians get elected and from day one work on getting reelected. How is that similar to scientists? Without integrity in science, there is no science. As for science being cold hard fact, that is BS. Scientists believe the universe is expanding, but there is no way to prove it. Science has changed the age of the earth many times because as new data becomes available, they change what they believe. Science believes that we someday will travel to different galaxies. Is that definite or theory? Science is hardly always provable. And climatology is based on looking at what has happened in the past looking at what is happening now and using that data to predict the future. Your argument is weak. You are twisting things to meet your agenda.
There's speculative science and scientific fact. Both may be engaged in by scientists, but they are very different things.
Real climate change has been going on for as long as the planet has existed. Its been warmer and its been colder than present conditions. The current popular description of "climate change" is a term of art more than science. It seeks to generalize specific political aims under the cover of science. 500 years ago, it was priests proclaiming God's wrath. It's speculation, nothing more.
Predictions about mankind's fate due to his deeds or misdeeds has been a powerful and profitable activity for thousands of years, and I expect it will remain so. Believing that these scientists are unaffected by power and/or profit to at least some degree ignores their basic human nature.
_____________________________________________________________________
Well said.
Man and his living on the planet does contribute somewhat to climate change but that is not the only reason.
Politicians seize on the issue and use it to control people, force government control of industry and put people out of work all the while blaming conservatives for political advantage.
When a president chooses the companies he wants to promote his environment agenda through the back door he is paying off his campaign supporters. All too often those companies disappear as does the taxpayers money.
Private companies and research can and will develop alternative energy that can provide the power people require. It is not going to happen by next week.
Obama gets up in front of the TV cameras trashing Republicans with “they just want dirty air and dirty water”. And people wonder why so many Americans say he is lying?
If the environmentalists want to pursue an extremist agenda, they will lose.
Warming people to their ideas will garner much more listening. Working with companies and research organizations will produce results. Insulting them will not.
Predictions about mankind's fate due to his deeds or misdeeds has been a powerful and profitable activity for thousands of years, and I expect it will remain so. Believing that these scientists are unaffected by power and/or profit to at least some degree ignores their basic human nature.
Its crazy to think mankind can hurt this big, beautiful planet. It has survived for millennia. Right now I'm enjoying a nightcap of DDT and Leaded Gasoline while eating a plate of bald eagle. What could go wrong?
