35,000 walruses mass on Alaska beach 'due to climate change'

[webfact]

35,000 walruses mass on Alaska beach 'due to climate change'

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - At least 35,000 walruses have beached themselves on a remote Alaskan coastline in a phenomenon blamed on the melting of arctic ice due to climate change, experts said Wednesday.

Initially there had been only 1,500 of the tusked pinnipeds counted on one beach, but in recent days that number has exploded.

"Our best estimate is almost a 24-fold increase," said Megan Ferguson of the Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals.

The walruses "are hauling out on land in a spectacle that has become all too common in six of the last eight years as a consequence of climate-induced warming," the US Geological Survey (USGS) said in a statement.

Beaching on land makes young walruses more susceptible to death by trampling, the agency said, adding that walruses would normally haul out on ice nearer to rich feeding grounds.

The USGS said summer sea ice is retreating far north of the continental shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea, which is in US and Russian waters, "a condition that did not occur a decade ago.

"To keep up with their normal resting periods between feeding bouts to the seafloor, walruses have simply hauled out onto shore," it added.

Ferguson noted that more brown bears than previously estimated were also spotted on the same stretch of coastline, while gray whales that had swum in the area up to the 1990s have disappeared.


-- (c) Copyright AFP 2014-10-02

[RickBradford]

When there’s nothing else we can think of - global warming must be to blame.

Luckily, one of the Arctic's premier scientific specialists, Susan Crockford, has provided explanations of this phenomenon occurring in 1972 and 1978, and shows it has nothing whatever to do with ice extent, or global warming.

http://polarbearscience.com/2014/10/01/mass-haulouts-of-pacific-walrus-and-stampede-deaths-are-not-new-not-due-to-low-ice-cover/

(Extract) "The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science."

The Alarmists are getting ever more desperate.

[chuckd]

When I first read the article, I thought the seals were merely trying to get away from all those polar bears floating around on their own little private ice floes.

Guess I was mistaken.

[Chicog]

When there’s nothing else we can think of - global warming must be to blame.

Luckily, one of the Arctic's premier scientific specialists, Susan Crockford, has provided explanations of this phenomenon occurring in 1972 and 1978, and shows it has nothing whatever to do with ice extent, or global warming.

http://polarbearscience.com/2014/10/01/mass-haulouts-of-pacific-walrus-and-stampede-deaths-are-not-new-not-due-to-low-ice-cover/

(Extract) "The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science."

The Alarmists are getting ever more desperate.

Interesting interpretation of the data.

It indicates that they massed there because they could not go to their usual place, in that event because it was full.

In this case, it would appear they've massed there because they can't mass in their usual place - it's melted.

More importantly, you have quoted a statement by the (clearly anti-climate change) author, and therefore it is not an "extract" of the scientists' paper.

More climate denier horse poo and a feeble attempt by you and the blogger at misrepresenting scientific data.

[RickBradford]

First, she is not just a "blogger", but a respected zoologist with an impressive and long-time track record of publications in this field over her 35 years of work.

Second, I never said it was an extract from a scientific paper. It is an extract from her blog, which I deliberately placed directly under the blog's link address so that people would not be confused. There's always one, though.

The expanded extract is:

Large haulouts of walruses — such as the one making news at Point Lay, Alaska on the Chukchi Sea (and which happened before back in 2009) — are not a new phenomenon for this region over the last 45 years and thus cannot be due to low sea ice levels. Nor are deaths by stampede within these herds (composed primarily of females and their young) unusual, as a brief search of the literature reveals.

The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science.

The Alarmists are constantly wailing that we must "trust the experts". But only, it seems, if they are saying what the Alarmists want to hear.

You say that Crockford is "clearly anti-climate change". What does that have to do with anything?

[attrayant]

Luckily, one of the Arctic's premier scientific specialists, Susan Crockford...

.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

Susan Crockford obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Zoology from the University
of B.C. in 1976 and a Doctorate from the University of Victoria in 2004. She has
devoted most of her professional career to the improvement and use of the comparative
collections at the Royal B.C. Museum (5 years) and the University of Victoria (30 years).

.

A curator. Just who we want to hear from about climate science.

Susan has undertaken the analysis of complex assemblages from both biological and
archaeological contexts and her experience with the identification of all fauna of
western North America is exceptional. In 1990, she initiated an osteometric analysis
of indigenous dogs of the central NW coast, a project that expanded to include genetic
analysis of DNA extracted from bone as well as research on domestication and evolutionary
theory. The topic of her recent dissertation (the role of thyroid hormones in vertebrate
domestication and speciation) is a subject she continues to pursue. Her research interests
are broad and she is able to provide both technical and intellectual support for a wide
variety of client projects. She currently works full time for Pacific ID and holds an
adjunct faculty position in the Departments of Anthropology and Graduate Studies at the
University of Victoria.

I don't see "one of the Arctic's premier scientific specialists" anywhere in there, so I'd like to know where you got that. The way I see it, she's a dog specialist and denier-for-hire who gets paid $750 a month by the Heartland Institute to say the opposite whatever the IPCC says.

[she] has provided explanations of this phenomenon occurring in 1972 and 1978, and shows it has nothing whatever to do with ice extent, or global warming.

.

From your blog cite:

Large haulouts of walruses [...] are not a new phenomenon for this region over the last 45 years and thus cannot be due to low sea ice levels.

This statement is laughable. What it's trying to tell us is this: Something is happening now that has happened in the past, therefore it can't be happening for different reasons.

Unfortunately, what "one of the Arctic's premier scientific specialists" failed to notice is that:

Scientists have seen large haul-outs on the Russian side of the Bering Strait for quite some time, says Anthony Fischbach, a wildlife biologist at the USGS in Anchorage. But since the first recordings of walrus gatherings in Alaska in the 1870s, groups of this size weren't observed until 2007, he said. May 2014 represented the third lowest extent of sea ice during that month in the satellite record, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

.

So "one of the Arctic's premier scientific specialists" is lying by omission. Yes, the haulouts have happened in the past but (1) they have never been this massive, and (2) their increasing numbers seem to correlate with the waning levels of sea ice.

Edited October 3, 2014 by attrayant

[RickBradford]

The way I see it, she's a dog specialist and denier-for-hire who gets paid $750 a month by the Heartland Institute to say the opposite whatever the IPCC says.

Talking of attribution, from where do you get the evidence that the Heartland Institute has told her "to say the opposite whatever the IPCC says"?

Are you really suggesting that Ms Crockford is deliberately falsifying her science for $750 per month?

[MJP]

It's the 3rd of October and it was 24C this afternoon in south west England. September was the driest on record.

No walruses.

[Chicog]

The way I see it, she's a dog specialist and denier-for-hire who gets paid $750 a month by the Heartland Institute to say the opposite whatever the IPCC says.

Talking of attribution, from where do you get the evidence that the Heartland Institute has told her "to say the opposite whatever the IPCC says"?

Are you really suggesting that Ms Crockford is deliberately falsifying her science for $750 per month?

No, she probably gets more from other Koch-funded organisations. She is not required to publicly disclose her sources of income. (Mind you, 9 grand a year is not to be sniffed at).

As for lies, well let's see, you lied when you called her "one of the Arctic's premier scientific specialists".

And she lied by omission when she deliberately left out the 2007 beaching which was tied to climate change even then. I notice she has now added it back in after being challenged on it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22260892/ns/us_news-environment/t/walruses-die-stampedes-tied-climate/#.VDJVMvmSzF2

[chuckd]

The way I see it, she's a dog specialist and denier-for-hire who gets paid $750 a month by the Heartland Institute to say the opposite whatever the IPCC says.

Talking of attribution, from where do you get the evidence that the Heartland Institute has told her "to say the opposite whatever the IPCC says"?

Are you really suggesting that Ms Crockford is deliberately falsifying her science for $750 per month?

No, she probably gets more from other Koch-funded organisations. She is not required to publicly disclose her sources of income. (Mind you, 9 grand a year is not to be sniffed at).

As for lies, well let's see, you lied when you called her "one of the Arctic's premier scientific specialists".

And she lied by omission when she deliberately left out the 2007 beaching which was tied to climate change even then. I notice she has now added it back in after being challenged on it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22260892/ns/us_news-environment/t/walruses-die-stampedes-tied-climate/#.VDJVMvmSzF2

I see you have fallen for the Democrat's Harry Reid "Koch brothers are bad" propaganda. I thought you were more perceptive than that.

Too bad.

[Chicog]

I see you have fallen for the Democrat's Harry Reid "Koch brothers are bad" propaganda. I thought you were more perceptive than that.

Too bad.

These teabaggers-in-chief are against anything that might hinder big business making more profits.

I don't think you need to be perceptive to realise that.

Just an idiot not to.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Chicog

[RickBradford]

No, she probably gets more from other Koch-funded organisations. She is not required to publicly disclose her sources of income.

So it's just a meaningless slur.

I ask again, Are you suggesting that Ms Crockford is deliberately falsifying her science for financial gain?

[tw25rw]

The way I see it, she's a dog specialist and denier-for-hire who gets paid $750 a month by the Heartland Institute to say the opposite whatever the IPCC says.

Talking of attribution, from where do you get the evidence that the Heartland Institute has told her "to say the opposite whatever the IPCC says"?

Are you really suggesting that Ms Crockford is deliberately falsifying her science for $750 per month?

No, she probably gets more from other Koch-funded organisations. She is not required to publicly disclose her sources of income. (Mind you, 9 grand a year is not to be sniffed at).

As for lies, well let's see, you lied when you called her "one of the Arctic's premier scientific specialists".

And she lied by omission when she deliberately left out the 2007 beaching which was tied to climate change even then. I notice she has now added it back in after being challenged on it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22260892/ns/us_news-environment/t/walruses-die-stampedes-tied-climate/#.VDJVMvmSzF2

I see you have fallen for the Democrat's Harry Reid "Koch brothers are bad" propaganda. I thought you were more perceptive than that.

Too bad.

They are bad. Evil in fact. Right up there with Rupert Murdoch.

[Chicog]

No, she probably gets more from other Koch-funded organisations. She is not required to publicly disclose her sources of income.

So it's just a meaningless slur.

I ask again, Are you suggesting that Ms Crockford is deliberately falsifying her science for financial gain?

Suggest it? I'll guarantee the money is a motivator.

Why else would they give her money? Out of the goodness of their stone cold hearts?

Of course she may have other reasons that motivate her to try and contradict scientific evidence with smoke and mirrors.

She might be a teabagger, for instance.

But let's not get away from the fact that her information is bunk, and so was yours.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Chicog

[chuckd]

No, she probably gets more from other Koch-funded organisations. She is not required to publicly disclose her sources of income.

So it's just a meaningless slur.

I ask again, Are you suggesting that Ms Crockford is deliberately falsifying her science for financial gain?

Suggest it? I'll guarantee the money is a motivator.

Why else would they give her money? Out of the goodness of their stone cold hearts?

Of course she may have other reasons that motivate her to try and contradict scientific evidence with smoke and mirrors.

She might be a teabagger, for instance.

But let's not get away from the fact that her information is bunk, and so was yours.

Who is giving her the money?

You have guaranteed that money is motivating her so somebody is giving her a stipend.

You say "probably" the Hoch brothers foundations, so where is the proof?

What it really amounts to is you don't have a clue what her financial condition is, you are merely throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks.

Typical Harry Reid inspired politics/

[Chicog]

No, she probably gets more from other Koch-funded organisations. She is not required to publicly disclose her sources of income.

So it's just a meaningless slur.

I ask again, Are you suggesting that Ms Crockford is deliberately falsifying her science for financial gain?

Suggest it? I'll guarantee the money is a motivator.

Why else would they give her money? Out of the goodness of their stone cold hearts?

Of course she may have other reasons that motivate her to try and contradict scientific evidence with smoke and mirrors.

She might be a teabagger, for instance.

But let's not get away from the fact that her information is bunk, and so was yours.

Who is giving her the money?

You have guaranteed that money is motivating her so somebody is giving her a stipend.

You say "probably" the Hoch brothers foundations, so where is the proof?

What it really amounts to is you don't have a clue what her financial condition is, you are merely throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks.

Typical Harry Reid inspired politics/

I realise that you have this heartfelt belief that the Koch teabaggers do what they do for the benefit of the nation, but they do it for their own interests and you just won't see it.

As for proof that the Koch Brothers have funded this lying climate denier, here it is.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/1-15-2012-2012-Fundraising-Plan.pdf

Given that the Koch Brothers have a network of "special interest" groups trying to buy elections and any other opinion than benefits their corporations, it isn't rocket science to deduce that other funds may wing their way to Crockford via other sources.

You need to stop being so defensive and start looking at the big picture.

This isn't a GOP vs Dem issue, it's a greedy billionaire vs democracy issue.

[RickBradford]

Suggest it? I'll guarantee the money is a motivator.

Well, having established that scientists will falsify their science for financial gain, I wonder if there are some other scientists whose work we can dismiss on the same grounds.

Let's try Michael Mann, he of Hockey Stick fame. Does he have the motivation to falsify science for financial gain? Does he receive any grants for his research?

2009-2013 Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, NSF-EF [Principal Investigator: M. Thomas; Co-Investigators: R.G. Crane, M.E. Mann, A. Read, T. Scott (Penn State Univ.)] $1,884,991

2009-2012 Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann; Co-Investigators: K. Keller (Penn State Univ.), A. Timmermann (Univ. of Hawaii)] $541,184

2008-2011 A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices, DOE [Principal Investigator: T. Wagener; Co-Investigators: M. Mann, R. Crane, K. Freeman (Penn State Univ.)] $330,000

2006-2009 Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana, USAID [Principal Investigator: P. Tschakert; Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, W. Easterling (Penn State Univ.)] $759,928

2006-2009 Analysis and testing of proxy-based climate reconstructions, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $459,000

Nice work if you can get it, but obviously scientifically worthless, since money is the motivator, just as you say it is for Susan Crockford.

So much, too, for that 97% of scientists who "believe" in climate change -- all paid shills, motivated by the money. We obviously can't trust those scientists, so the climate scare ends straight away.

[pitrevie]

Suggest it? I'll guarantee the money is a motivator.

Well, having established that scientists will falsify their science for financial gain, I wonder if there are some other scientists whose work we can dismiss on the same grounds.

Let's try Michael Mann, he of Hockey Stick fame. Does he have the motivation to falsify science for financial gain? Does he receive any grants for his research?

2009-2013 Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, NSF-EF [Principal Investigator: M. Thomas; Co-Investigators: R.G. Crane, M.E. Mann, A. Read, T. Scott (Penn State Univ.)] $1,884,991

2009-2012 Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann; Co-Investigators: K. Keller (Penn State Univ.), A. Timmermann (Univ. of Hawaii)] $541,184

2008-2011 A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices, DOE [Principal Investigator: T. Wagener; Co-Investigators: M. Mann, R. Crane, K. Freeman (Penn State Univ.)] $330,000

2006-2009 Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana, USAID [Principal Investigator: P. Tschakert; Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, W. Easterling (Penn State Univ.)] $759,928

2006-2009 Analysis and testing of proxy-based climate reconstructions, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $459,000

Nice work if you can get it, but obviously scientifically worthless, since money is the motivator, just as you say it is for Susan Crockford.

So much, too, for that 97% of scientists who "believe" in climate change -- all paid shills, motivated by the money. We obviously can't trust those scientists, so the climate scare ends straight away.

I am not sure what any of that means. Presumably these people are funded to carry out research and their conclusions will be based on where the evidence leads.

Now if Susan Crockford is getting financed by the Koch brothers and produces research which supports climate change how long do you think she will continue to receive that funding?

In fact a Koch funded scientist Richard Muller who had been a climate skeptic after examining much of the evidence was forced to reverse his opinion. I doubt that he is now funded by the Koch brothers.

Read any comments by the top people in the USA Navy who are dealing with this problem, are they all lying or misinformed?

America’s top military officer Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, in charge of monitoring hostile actions by North Korea, escalating tensions between China and Japan, and a spike in computer attacks traced to China provides an unexpected answer when asked what is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region: climate change, is he lying or misinformed?

“There are multiple, independent lines of evidence that the climate is changing, and that the primary cause is a change in atmospheric composition caused by the burning of fossil fuels.”

David Titley, rear admiral (ret.) is an expert in the field of climate, the Arctic and national security. He served as a naval officer for 32 years, rising to the rank of rear admiral. Titley’s naval career included postings as commander of the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, Navy oceanographer and navigator and deputy assistant chief of naval operations for information dominance, is he lying or just misinformed?

[RickBradford]

I am not sure what any of that means. Presumably these people are funded to carry out research and their conclusions will be based on where the evidence leads.

Now if Susan Crockford is getting financed by the Koch brothers and produces research which supports climate change how long do you think she will continue to receive that funding?

That conclusion is straight out of a kindergarten Goodies v Baddies game -- "our" scientists use research money to nobly and impartially follow where the evidence leads, but "their" evil scientists take money to advance a sinister political agenda.

That's cops and robbers thinking, cowboys and Indians stuff, and should be left in the school playground where it belongs.

[Chicog]

Suggest it? I'll guarantee the money is a motivator.

Well, having established that scientists will falsify their science for financial gain, I wonder if there are some other scientists whose work we can dismiss on the same grounds.

Let's try Michael Mann, he of Hockey Stick fame. Does he have the motivation to falsify science for financial gain? Does he receive any grants for his research?

2009-2013 Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, NSF-EF [Principal Investigator: M. Thomas; Co-Investigators: R.G. Crane, M.E. Mann, A. Read, T. Scott (Penn State Univ.)] $1,884,991

2009-2012 Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann; Co-Investigators: K. Keller (Penn State Univ.), A. Timmermann (Univ. of Hawaii)] $541,184

2008-2011 A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices, DOE [Principal Investigator: T. Wagener; Co-Investigators: M. Mann, R. Crane, K. Freeman (Penn State Univ.)] $330,000

2006-2009 Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana, USAID [Principal Investigator: P. Tschakert; Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, W. Easterling (Penn State Univ.)] $759,928

2006-2009 Analysis and testing of proxy-based climate reconstructions, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $459,000

Nice work if you can get it, but obviously scientifically worthless, since money is the motivator, just as you say it is for Susan Crockford.

So much, too, for that 97% of scientists who "believe" in climate change -- all paid shills, motivated by the money. We obviously can't trust those scientists, so the climate scare ends straight away.

It would be nice if you could identify which of this groups funding came from a political action group funded by billionaires who have massive financial interests that would be impacted by climate change legislation?

Not to say that I agree with all research grants.

Further, if the research is "scientifically worthless", perhaps you could explain how?

In Ms. Crockford's case, we already pointed out that she is not "one of the Arctic's premier scientific specialists" and that she deliberately edited supporting examples that she gave so as to paint a false picture of what was actually happening.

I should add that I am in no doubt about climate change. It is happening and action needs to be taken to mitigate the effects.

I am not entirely convinced, however, that 100% of it is man made. But I don't think that many scientists do research in this field simply to get grants.

I do believe, however, that the opposite side are interested in disproving such a link simply because it will cost them.

Which is why so many of the big fossil fuel companies pour money into climate science deniers.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Chicog

[chuckd]

Suggest it? I'll guarantee the money is a motivator.

Why else would they give her money? Out of the goodness of their stone cold hearts?

Of course she may have other reasons that motivate her to try and contradict scientific evidence with smoke and mirrors.

She might be a teabagger, for instance.

But let's not get away from the fact that her information is bunk, and so was yours.

Who is giving her the money?

You have guaranteed that money is motivating her so somebody is giving her a stipend.

You say "probably" the Hoch brothers foundations, so where is the proof?

What it really amounts to is you don't have a clue what her financial condition is, you are merely throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks.

Typical Harry Reid inspired politics/

I realise that you have this heartfelt belief that the Koch teabaggers do what they do for the benefit of the nation, but they do it for their own interests and you just won't see it.

As for proof that the Koch Brothers have funded this lying climate denier, here it is.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/1-15-2012-2012-Fundraising-Plan.pdf

Given that the Koch Brothers have a network of "special interest" groups trying to buy elections and any other opinion than benefits their corporations, it isn't rocket science to deduce that other funds may wing their way to Crockford via other sources.

You need to stop being so defensive and start looking at the big picture.

This isn't a GOP vs Dem issue, it's a greedy billionaire vs democracy issue.

So, you have no proof whatsoever that Crockford actually received any funds from the Kochs?

Just for those who don't want to wade through your link, let me provide this little gem.

Koch Industries donated zero in 2010, $25,000 in 2011 and Thinkprogress.org was shooting to get $200,000 in 2012. Do you have any current links for 2012 and beyond to see what Koch Industries actually gave or is your imagination still running wild?

Now, let's look at the "greedy billionaire vs. democracy issue".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From an article of four years ago linked below, you will find a partial listing of donations made that were "other than political".

New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell: $15 million

M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: $25 million

The Hospital for Special Surgery: $26 million

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center: $30 million

Prostate Cancer Foundation: $41 million

Deerfield Academy: $68 million

Lincoln Center's NY State Theater: $100 million

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $139 million

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/02/koch-brothers-give-more-to-charity-than-to-right-wing-causes/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since this article, they have continued to donate to "other than political" groups, although they have been roundly criticized by the liberal lefties for their donations.

Some examples are:

New York Presbyterian Hospital - 2013 - $100 Million

Catholic University of America - 2013 - $1 Million

United Negro College Fund - 2014 - $25 Million

Your ridiculous assertion the Koch's somehow influenced the writing of the walrus article with a "known" donation of $25,000 is laughable.

[Chicog]

A lengthy, if fairly depressing read.

Not to be taken as a scientific paper, but much of it is obvious.

A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms

[RickBradford]

But I don't think that many scientists do research in this field simply to get grants.

I do believe, however, that the opposite side are interested in disproving such a link simply because it will cost them.

Well, if you believe in this infantile Goodies v Baddies scenario, there is little more to be said.

It's worth noting, though, that former US President Dwight Eisenhower thought that the bigger danger came from the potential capture of science by Government.

In his farewell address, he said:

"In this [technological] revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

...

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Prescient words.

[JDGRUEN]

A lengthy, if fairly depressing read.

Not to be taken as a scientific paper, but much of it is obvious.

A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms

The earth has not been warming for 18 years now ... a published scientific fact... The prior warm was just a cyclic norm for the earth as heated by the Sun... the sun gets very active - the earth heats up ... the Suns cycles to being less active - the heating slows down and stops then cycles into a cool period... I can get you the link or perhaps a Google will get you a computer full of links... Global Warming is a Natural Occurrence that happens in a broad long period cycles... There are Natural Occurrence Deniers - NOD's who will never stop worshiping their invisible god... man made global warming.

[NeverSure]

A lengthy, if fairly depressing read.

Not to be taken as a scientific paper, but much of it is obvious.

A degree by degree explanation of what will happen when the earth warms

I don't see anything that's "obvious." Just a lot of supposition IF it happened with no proof that it will.

Talking about the dust bowl of the 1930's is hardly an analysis of what's happened to global temperatures for thousands or even millions of years.

In the US there are some massive redwood trees that are a couple of thousand years old or more. Within those trees are growth rings. In good years with plenty of rain and sunshine, the tree grows better and the growth rings are thicker. During times of drought they are thinner. It is possible to count the growth rings and get a fairly accurate count of the age of the trees. It is also possible, when seeing a period of poor growth to count back and determine when that was. The one thing that's constant is that it has been fluctuating for thousands of years.

[Chicog]

Your ridiculous assertion the Koch's somehow influenced the writing of the walrus article with a "known" donation of $25,000 is laughable.

So because they donate to causes you (and I) consider worthy, it's OK for them to put money into Ms. Crockford ($9,000 a year that we know about)?

Whilst it is admirable that they have donated so much to a worthy cause (noting that Koch is a prostate cancer survivor, so a vested interest), does that then give them the right to manipulate politics and scientific research to benefit their behemoth of companies that are trousering profits galore while there is no meaningful legislation against climate change?

And they deliberately obfuscate both the source and the destination of their funding. How about they publish the things they support other than good causes?

Going back to Climate change, the topic of this thread, Greenpeace did the work analysing the Koch Tax returns and some of their findings are below:

From our 2011 report update:

• Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal new!
• Koch Front Groups Attack RGGI—The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
• Koch Industries Backs California Proposition 23
• The Kochtopus Media Network

From our 2010 report:

• The Koch-funded "ClimateGate" Echo Chamber
• Polar Bear Junk Science and Koch Industries
• The "Spanish Study" on Green Jobs and Koch Industries
• The "Danish Study" on Wind Power and Koch Industries
• Koch Organizations Instrumental in Dissemination of ACCF/NAM Claims

Download our full reports:

• Koch Industries: Still Fueling Climate Denial, 2011 Update (PDF)
• Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine (PDF)

They conclude that the Koch Brothers spent $67 million from 1997-2011 funding anti-climate change organisations.

One of those is ALEC:

"No one knows how much the Kochs have given ALEC in total, but the amount likely exceeds $1 million--not including a half-million loaned to ALEC when the group was floundering. ALEC gave the Kochs its Adam Smith Free Enterprise Award, and Koch Industries has been one of the select members of ALEC's corporate board for almost twenty years. The company's top lobbyist was once ALEC's chairman. As a result, the Kochs have shaped legislation touching every state in the country. Like ideological venture capitalists, the Kochs have used ALEC as a way to invest in radical ideas and fertilize them with tons of cash. [The Nation, 7/12/11 ]"

They've used ALEC to try and squash incentives for homeowners to use renewables:

"For the last few months, the Kochs and other big polluters have been spending heavily to fight incentives for renewable energy, which have been adopted by most states. They particularly dislike state laws that allow homeowners with solar panels to sell power they don't need back to electric utilities. So they've been pushing legislatures to impose a surtax on this increasingly popular practice, hoping to make installing solar panels on houses less attractive.

Oklahoma lawmakers recently approved such a surcharge at the behest of the American Legislative Exchange Council , the conservative group that often dictates bills to Republican statehouses and receives financing from the utility industry and fossil-fuel producers, including the Kochs. As The Los Angeles Times reported recently , the Kochs and ALEC have made similar efforts in other states, though they were beaten back by solar advocates in Kansas and the surtax was reduced to $5 a month in Arizona. [New York Times, 4/27/14 ]"

They fund organisations like Americans For Prosperity to act as a pseudo-independent body to further their interests:

"Koch Front Group Americans For Prosperity Denies That Oil And Gas Subsidies Exist. A statement from Americans for Prosperity denied that the oil and gas industry receives subsidies, calling said subsidies a "myth" that "has been repudiated many times." [AmericansForProsperity.org, 3/31/14 ]

...

Koch Has Received Millions Of Dollars In Subsidies. The taxpayer watchdog Good Jobs First has a subsidy tracker database detailing the amount of subsidies big corporations have received through state and local economic development awards. According to their database, Koch Industries has received over $89 million in subsidies since 1990. [Good Jobs First, accessed 8/26/14 ]"

So don't be fooled by their generous donations to worthy causes. As long as they are trousering the profits from their environmentally-unfriendly businesses, I think they can afford them.

More importantly, they can use their sophisticated money laundering network to get money to pseudo-scientists such as Crockford to come out and amateurishly try and ridicule scientific evidence.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure if Climate science wasn't pointing the finger so stiffly at fossil fuels as the biggest climate change factor, they might even be donating money to Climate science research.

But you don't need to be a rocket scientist (or a curator) to see that not only do they have a vested interest in squashing climate science, but they also have the financial infrastructure to do it.

Added: Edited to add quotes instead of blocks because of a limitation on TV.

[Chicog]

It's a bit too leftie in place even for my taste, but you might want to watch it Chuck; there are some revealing titbits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9NAiojPzro

[Chicog]

Livermore scientists suggest ocean warming in Southern Hemisphere underestimated
by Staff Writers
Livermore CA (SPX) Oct 07, 2014

Using satellite observations and a large suite of climate models, Lawrence Livermore scientists have found that long-term ocean warming in the upper 700 meters of Southern Hemisphere oceans has likely been underestimated.

"This underestimation is a result of poor sampling prior to the last decade and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimated temperature changes in data-sparse regions," said LLNL oceanographer Paul Durack, lead author of a paper appearing in the October 5 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Livermore_scientists_suggest_ocean_warming_in_Southern_Hemisphere_underestimated_999.html?

And for more on the general subject:

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

Edited October 7, 2014 by Chicog

[pitrevie]

I am not sure what any of that means. Presumably these people are funded to carry out research and their conclusions will be based on where the evidence leads.

Now if Susan Crockford is getting financed by the Koch brothers and produces research which supports climate change how long do you think she will continue to receive that funding?

That conclusion is straight out of a kindergarten Goodies v Baddies game -- "our" scientists use research money to nobly and impartially follow where the evidence leads, but "their" evil scientists take money to advance a sinister political agenda.

That's cops and robbers thinking, cowboys and Indians stuff, and should be left in the school playground where it belongs.

And the two senior naval officers both experts in their fields also playground thinkers?

And Richard Muller a Koch funded scientist also a playground thinker.

Perhaps you should give us some quotes from that doyen of climate deniers Lord Christopher Monkton that should be worth a laugh.

[KarenBravo]

For me, it's simple. How does throwing up billions of tons of greenhouse gases NOT affect the climate?