Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

[RickBradford]

Why defend people like the Koch brothers if you are not a family member or shareholder?

I don't have shares in Microsoft, either, but I'm quite happy to defend Bill Gates, and his habit of making lots of money.

Simply put, what is good for Gates and Microsoft is good for me, too. Their tech developments over the past 30 years have enormously enhanced my ability to lead a productive life.

So has Google, so has Apple, Mitsubishi, Boeing, Siemens, Electrolux and all the other companies who make useful things. For all I know, that list may include Koch Industries as well.

Who would you cheerlead for -- Ban Ki-Moon? Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? Jean-Claude Juncker? Nancy Pelosi? Ward Churchill? Desmond Tutu?

As a personal choice, I prefer people and companies which Do Things and Make Things that benefit my life, over publicly funded parasites who are constantly trying to stop the rest of us Doing & Making Things through excessive legislation, regulation and taxation.

The same people, in fact, who would be in favour of fiddling climate change numbers to try and create the impression that there's a global crisis which needs (as always) a giant bureaucratic solution.

[arjunadawn]

I am aware that the climate change issue seems black and white to many posters but as I have noted previously I think it is far more diabolical than that, and contrived to a point of being virtually choreographed. So, allow my post on fiddled global warming be the one out there that suggests this is not simply a matter of differences of opinions; there are many people who are fully behind the "climate change" debacle and know darn well its Horsefeathers! You will never see Prince Charles, Philip, or prince Gore reducing consumption, for example.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/bill-gates-microsoft,5242.html

https://conservativecritic.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/famous-environmental-hypocrites-and-their-carbon-indulgences-all-here-for-you-to-see-in-broad-daylight-3-2/

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146265/Prince-Charles-Executive-jet-with-big-carbon-footprint-gets-him-to-climate-change-talks

My links above do not make an argument; that is a fallacy of hypocrisy; but [they] are hypocrites and that for which they have hypocrisy is otherwise contrived. It is a political agenda. A political agenda without a religious component would fail. Must have religious leaders on board too. See Club of Rome, Goals of Mankind. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-true-story-of-the-bilderberg-group-and-what-they-may-be-planning-now/13808 (Bilderberg).

I do not fancy conspiracy however, by definition, this cannot be avoided after a point with regard to climate change because central to the debate is ulterior motive. I will only ever post what has been objectively verified and related to the OP. So, now, enter religion: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/vatican-u-n-team-climate-change-against-skeptics-130501161.html http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/04/28/un-chief-praises-pope-for-framing-climate-change-as-moral-imperative-says/

(Ok, regarding conspiracy, I highly recommend two youtube movies: Kymatica and Esoteric Agenda. There are a few places in these movies I cringed. It is not so much the premises, but there are a few conclusions I dismiss (such as admiralty law and soverign citizen issues; there is just no use for it). However, one or both of these movies contain such a vast expanse of related information that informs the "climate change" genesis that it can hardly be overlooked if one wants to really grasp what is going on and why this is being foisted upon the population. If you watch, just employ the same detachment you use reading my posts ).

[Mrjlh]

One does not need to be a scientist or expert to realize something is changing. Just look around you and you see it all over. Droughts have been more severe than previous years in all places, from Africa to Australia to the US. Flooding is happening ore often when it does rain. Growing seasons have dramatically changed all across the Midwest states in the US. We have a current serious drought in California and adjacent states with severe thunder storms across on the East Coast. It’s been going on for the last three years or even longer now. Thailand itself is experiencing severe changes in the weather and has been for years.

Just look at the poles. Ice is melting faster than before and not recovering during the “winter season”. What you see happening you cannot deny. What is causing all this? It surely isn’t just one thing; it’s a combination of things. Notice more volcanos have been erupting? Notice that the droughts have caused large forest fires across the globe? Is man the cause? We are just part of the problem as our populations grow dramatically and resources available are expended.

We could make changes to improve our situation but that takes the whole group not just a few. Let’s face it we (us humans) are only on this planet for the ride. One meteor, one Super Nova, and one who knows what else…it’s all over. So enjoy while you can.

[RickBradford]

One does not need to be a scientist or expert to realize something is changing. Just look around you and you see it all over

<snip>

Just look at the poles. Ice is melting faster than before and not recovering during the “winter season”. What you see happening you cannot deny.

That is very interesting. When exactly were you last in either of the poles to make your observations?

Or maybe I have misunderstood you, and you haven't actually been to the poles, and are repeating what somebody has told you.

If that is the case, then you will have to understand that there are many people saying different things about the poles, about droughts, floods and storms.

For example, on Oct 8, 2014, NASA reported that Antarctic sea ice, measured by satellites, had reached an all-time record high. Whether that observation falls into your category of "What you see happening you cannot deny", I don't know.

But undoubtedly, you have simply chosen to believe a certain subset of the stories being told.

[Steely Dan]

The saddest thing to see is science becoming politicized. Politics is the dark art of disguising the truth for some alterior, usually ideological motive. The parallels between this 'debate' and the debate about whether or not multiculturalism is a good thing is indeed striking. In both cases one side has prematurely declared victory and walked off the pitch with the ball under their arm, much as the ball owner might in a school playground.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Steely Dan

[arjunadawn]

One does not need to be a scientist or expert to realize something is changing. Just look around you and you see it all over. Droughts have been more severe than previous years in all places, from Africa to Australia to the US. Flooding is happening ore often when it does rain. Growing seasons have dramatically changed all across the Midwest states in the US. We have a current serious drought in California and adjacent states with severe thunder storms across on the East Coast. It’s been going on for the last three years or even longer now. Thailand itself is experiencing severe changes in the weather and has been for years.

Just look at the poles. Ice is melting faster than before and not recovering during the “winter season”. What you see happening you cannot deny. What is causing all this? It surely isn’t just one thing; it’s a combination of things. Notice more volcanos have been erupting? Notice that the droughts have caused large forest fires across the globe? Is man the cause? We are just part of the problem as our populations grow dramatically and resources available are expended.

We could make changes to improve our situation but that takes the whole group not just a few. Let’s face it we (us humans) are only on this planet for the ride. One meteor, one Super Nova, and one who knows what else…it’s all over. So enjoy while you can.

I Liked your post and quote it because it is just true! Period!

But I would like to invite you to consider a few things (your observations still remain 100% valid). It is arrogant for any of us, scientists or otherwise, to consider our limited window on the world and proclaim our wisdom, or how our 40-80 seasons have concluded really anything. There are cycles of sleep, cycles of REM, cycles of melatonin, cycles of growth hormones, cycles of 90 min blocks of sleep, cycles of circadian rhythms, cycles of lunar activity, 11 year cycles (and others) or solar activity, cycles of ice ages, cycles of electromagnetic shifts, cycles of polar shifts, even 20,000 year cycle of the procession through the galaxy (actually this is amazing the ancients knew this). So, there are cycles upon cycles upon cycles all the way down to the atomic and subatomic level cycling at constant or varying vibrations. Women have cycles, men have them too, we note our children have cycles, and women in the same house sync and cycle together. Basically, we live in a world of cycles.

Now, your post: It all seems true enough, to me at least. My problem is not your observations. You actually are fairly wise or clever because you leave the conclusion to the reader. I will go with wise. But most people will presume you mean that these observations conclude we are insulting the earth in an irreparable way. Man can certainly not be causing volcanoes to erupt, these too likely operate according to lunar and solar cycles of push pull upon molten ore and tectonic plates- there is probably a cycle there too. If I may conclude for you without insult I think it is arrogant to conclude that the changes taking place are caused by humans, wholly, or demonstrably. Or, if partially or wholly, that the earth cannot recover. Do humans really know so much?

[arjunadawn]

The saddest thing to see is science becoming politicized. Politics is the dark art of disguising the truth for some alterior, usually ideological motive. The parallels between this 'debate' and the debate about whether or not multiculturalism is a good thing is indeed striking. In both cases one side has prematurely declared victory and walked off the pitch with the ball under their arm, much as the ball owner might in a school playground.

Yep, this is the thing that pisses me off the most. I can usually be led where science leads. But increasingly I find objectionable politics leading the science and then coercion "inviting" me to see similarly. If the scientific community loses its independence from polity than so much more is lost because there is no other objective, secular replacement for divining the world other than a return to... yea... religions, priests, dark ages, and chicken blood and runes.

[RickBradford]

Ice is melting faster than before and not recovering during the “winter season”. What you see happening you cannot deny.

And right on cue...

Anyone who says "the science is settled" knows nothing about science.

[sirineou]

Never Sure is going to enjoy this one.

All of us with more than half a brain are.

Perhaps they could also look into whether the Nepal earthquake was caused by fracking.

how much more than half a brain?

[RickBradford]

The saddest thing to see is science becoming politicized. Politics is the dark art of disguising the truth for some alterior, usually ideological motive. The parallels between this 'debate' and the debate about whether or not multiculturalism is a good thing is indeed striking. In both cases one side has prematurely declared victory and walked off the pitch with the ball under their arm, much as the ball owner might in a school playground.

Yep, this is the thing that pisses me off the most. I can usually be led where science leads. But increasingly I find objectionable politics leading the science and then coercion "inviting" me to see similarly. If the scientific community loses its independence from polity than so much more is lost because there is no other objective, secular replacement for divining the world other than a return to... yea... religions, priests, dark ages, and chicken blood and runes.

Australia's universities are full of Left-leaning academics (is that a tautology?), and thus climate change alarmists, yet the appointment of a single scientist who believes in man-made global warming but disagrees with methods proposed to curb it, has sent Australian academia into a rage-filled tailspin.

A biologist has claimed that the presence of Dr Bjorn Lomborg at her university will "tarnish their [students] accomplishments as graduates from this university ".

Tim Flannery, a political appointee as 'climate advisor' under the Socialist former Rudd/Gillard government has hilariously called Lomborg's appointment "politically motivated".

The bottom line: the Green/Left cannot bear to be challenged to the slightest degree by people who disagree with any part of their agenda.

Control and suppress, control and suppress ...............

Edited April 29, 2015 by RickBradford

[GanDoonToonPet]

Why do they need another team of 'top scientists' to investigate this again? Is it because, a few years ago, the Koch brothers funded a similar study a few years ago & didn't get the answer they wanted?

Here's the project leader, Richard Muller, discussing his findings:

Here are the results of their (Berkeley Earth) study, compared to the 'fiddled' results by GISS, NOAA & Hadley:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/02/10/global_warming_adjusting_temperature_measurements.html

No difference.

Edited April 29, 2015 by GanDoonToonPet

[arjunadawn]

The saddest thing to see is science becoming politicized. Politics is the dark art of disguising the truth for some alterior, usually ideological motive. The parallels between this 'debate' and the debate about whether or not multiculturalism is a good thing is indeed striking. In both cases one side has prematurely declared victory and walked off the pitch with the ball under their arm, much as the ball owner might in a school playground.

Yep, this is the thing that pisses me off the most. I can usually be led where science leads. But increasingly I find objectionable politics leading the science and then coercion "inviting" me to see similarly. If the scientific community loses its independence from polity than so much more is lost because there is no other objective, secular replacement for divining the world other than a return to... yea... religions, priests, dark ages, and chicken blood and runes.

Australia's universities are full of Left-leaning academics (is that a tautology?), and thus climate change alarmists, yet the appointment of a single scientist who believes in man-made global warming but disagrees with methods proposed to curb it, has sent Australian academia into a rage-filled tailspin.

A biologist has claimed that the presence of Dr Bjorn Lomborg at her university will "tarnish their [students] accomplishments as graduates from this university ".

Tim Flannery, a political appointee as 'climate advisor' under the Socialist former Rudd/Gillard government has hilariously called Lomborg's appointment "politically motivated".

The bottom line: the Green/Left cannot bear to be challenged to the slightest degree by people who disagree with any part of their agenda.

Control and suppress, control and suppress ...............

It is surely an oxymoron if not tautology. However, allow me to run a bit toward absurdity and a bit of hilarity. I suspect I am already known for posts people just skip but I feel better expressing and articulating (clarifying) my observations for me alone.

Your post highlights a consistent theme of the left, hostility and zero compromise; I find this increasingly true wherever I look. There is rarely discourse or moderation with such people. For example, this is the core essence of how the Obamacare health act was actually stripped out of an appropriations bill (bills must originate in congress. The congressional makeup changed during election, but before this bill was passed; therefore it had no chance of being sent back to congress to be generated there again, thus they took an appropriates bill earmarked for something else, (these bills must originate in the house), made it entirely naked of everything except a resolution number, filled it in with Obamacare ACA data after the Senate seat loss of Kennedy meant they would now loss the bill's support if left to its own, and legal, devices, and it was this wholly absurd legal finesse that enabled liberals to pass legislation, in the dead of night, under the color of appropriations, in committee. This exemplifies the intolerance and actual war footing modern politics has come to; this is not Machiavellian, this is one act short of the "nuclear option." for senate rules. It is to realities such as this that conservatives around the world battle but under delusion, and fail miserably and constantly. They constantly wonder why the shift to the left seems so inexorable. After all, poll after poll shows, at least the USA, to be a center right nation. How the hijacking? Besides the media and academia being long ago compromised they are battling opposition forces that are markedly of this era and not the golfing buddies era of Tip O'Neil.

It is because liberals push 2-3 steps forward and when conservatives are in power they halt or step back one foot only. Invariably, over time, you are still shifting irrevocably to the left. Academia is one location where these rules don't apply not because they are not valid but because academia was bought and paid for so long ago by interests that are so old that "Workers of the World Unite" and "Ten Days that Shook The World' were the political capital of the day (the public education system and media entities only came later). Liberals effectively own academia and by this defective mechanism discourse and reason has long ago been lost to the post enlightenment world. This arrangment of bedfellows has big pharma and R&D sleeping intimately and chain hospitals and big pharma pushing drugs in the recoupment phase of post trials. It is in this arena that climatologists seek to make a name, a splash, discover something, and grow. But no one wants new data or findings. they only want confirmatory data and this is unremarkable science. It is in essence a faulty paradigm that provides little quality of life).

(Note: it is to this reality noted in a concurrent post that calls into question all scientific query because it can only ever be approved secondary to a political imperative guiding its science. Objectively, this is pure intellectual treason. From Socrates to Newton, from Einstein to Heisenberg all wold be equally appalled science has become no more than a modern priestly class replete with orthodoxy, Holy See, and secret oaths ( I dont know the last part for sure but as a 32 degree mason I feel qualified to suspect as much). If "making the worse argument seem the better" Socrates would still be tried today.

These types of stories are ubiquitous and actually demonstrate a profound intolerance, but "it is not a lifestyle choice, they are born like this." Where as the gay gene is still coy and evasive not so with the defect that afflicts liberals, or better put, the defect that makes normal people liberals. It is quite disingenuous for liberals to assert this position with gay life being a choice when their own predispositions are in fact related to defective brains ( http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/obama-now-says-being-gay-is-a-lifestyle-choice/ ). A defective 17th autosomal chromosome makes regular folks turn into liberals- progressives- and are found to have an enlarged and/or hyperactive Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC). So, as conservatives look toward their partners on the other side of the aisle for negotiation, reason, compromise, they realize they are dealing with people who for the most part will likely embrace their disability and claim more government handouts and special accommodations related to it. Of course the chief accommodating would be not protesting the merit of their positions because this instigates their disability. Will liberals continue to protest science and functional MRIs that prove this point or will they at some point embrace this and wave it like an amulet to ward of statements they oppose.

These above passages are noteworthy both as facts and Greek Tragedy. Can the comedy even get any darker? When notes the eugenics fathers, mothers, and now step children are the very same people with the defective gene alarms bells should go off; this rather undocumented eugenics pogrom is very much a part of the the drive to achieve a manageable population less than one billion people. It was this thread of thought that sought to marry the Malthusian rationales for population control with later global warming scenarios. It would simply not do to pass legislation that enabled people to avoid the heartfelt tragedies of rising tides, pestilence, disease and also live longer. At what point does Soylent Green become required? At what point do we reach the no longer sustainable threshold. I personally see the threats as they do. I personally think something has to be done. I personally do not see pleasant options but I also do not think the nations of the earth should be excluded from the discourse, as Bilderbergers, Club of Rome, Trilateraists, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bohemian Grove, and he Bank of International Settlements type folks design the rise and fall of governments and economies. . These choices are being inflicted upon us and the eugenics population agenda will be using such things as fMRI imaging to establish political dispositions (Note: Similar though only suggestive findings are now appearing for conservatives. Both these populations historically are the first people hanging from lampposts,period! I intentionally left off data findings about the conservatives because it is less fun but yes, they are finding some odd changes in brain chemistry that either a conservative has, or one who has such changes becomes a conservative).

So, yes, its funny that science actually declares our camps and notes our differences. But underlying truths will not change. Climate change implementations will happen. People will be ridiculed and put in jail for protesting. the earth will not be our greatest enemy, governments will be living in caves again. Each day further trial balloons are sent aloof measuring the people's response to persecuting climatic change deniers. Thank you for an enjoyable and thorough post.

Note: Rarely when discussing such supra public figures as Kissinger and others do we actually know them or anything meaningful about them. This is not true for me regarding Kissinger. A close friend mine was his AIC, agent in charge of his protective detail. With the actual German jew like accent he could step into Henry's voice and thus his stories were rich and hilarious. Frequently beer was expelled through noses, eyes tearing, and the stories continued. Basically, he was a real SOB. He actually was about as snobbish as w=one could imagine. Beyond the funny, this said all I needed to know about him; my friend too, he quit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200

http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/depopulation.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-population-reduction-agenda-for-dummies.html

[waynposs]

The flat-earthers are still out there. Read about this global Warming Policy Foundation and its kin the Global Policy Warming Forum. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation and at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/27/scepticism-over-rising-temperatures-lord-lawson-peddles-a-fake-controversy

[RickBradford]

The flat-earthers are still out there.

Indeed, The Guardian is still clinging on in the market, but not for much longer, given its precipitous circulation decline.

[Credo]

I don't know if science is political, but politics uses science and in the case of climate change we are dealing with an issue that is so complex it is likely that we will never know what is happening. In a thousand years someone may be able to show change, but even then there is a good chance they won't be able to say why.

The more factors that in play the more room for politics. It's not just climate change, if you look at the disagreements about food, nutrition, vitamins, vaccinations, they all get one group or another wound up.

[Credo]

I don't know if science is political, but politics uses science and in the case of climate change we are dealing with an issue that is so complex it is likely that we will never know what is happening. In a thousand years someone may be able to show change, but even then there is a good chance they won't be able to say why.

The more factors that in play the more room for politics. It's not just climate change, if you look at the disagreements about food, nutrition, vitamins, vaccinations, they all get one group or another wound up.

[thatguy]

http://earthsky.org/earth/watch-the-vanishing-arctic-ice-pack

[pitrevie]

One does not need to be a scientist or expert to realize something is changing. Just look around you and you see it all over

<snip>

Just look at the poles. Ice is melting faster than before and not recovering during the “winter season”. What you see happening you cannot deny.

That is very interesting. When exactly were you last in either of the poles to make your observations?

Or maybe I have misunderstood you, and you haven't actually been to the poles, and are repeating what somebody has told you.

If that is the case, then you will have to understand that there are many people saying different things about the poles, about droughts, floods and storms.

For example, on Oct 8, 2014, NASA reported that Antarctic sea ice, measured by satellites, had reached an all-time record high. Whether that observation falls into your category of "What you see happening you cannot deny", I don't know.

But undoubtedly, you have simply chosen to believe a certain subset of the stories being told.

Not sure where you got that little titbit from but this is an excerpt frpm the NASA report for 2014. "Arctic sea ice coverage in 2014 is the sixth lowest recorded since 1978.

[NickJ]

Global warming is indeed real....every morning when the sun comes up.

I remember reading a Michael Chriton novel years ago and he wrote a pretty decent synopsis on the whole deal. Also touched on eugenics as well.

[Mrjlh]

To answer two different questions posed to me. One: Volcano's are driven by this planet not by man. I did not imply man caused volcanic erruptions. Volcanos in the past recorded hisory have caused havoc on society world wide. This is no secret nor is it anyhing new. And Two: I have been to both "Poles" conducting GPS research with the USGS Survey teams years ago. Pictures of now and then are very telling no matter what any other survey says.

In my view point we are only here for the ride. How long is that ride? Who knows. Only man, no other animal, is using up all the naural resources the planet has at the same time destroying it.. There are still vast resources that have not been explored mainly do to waring nations and groups. But does it matter? If we don't start taking care of our planet nothing we talk about will ever matter. We have failed miserably out of irgnorance and greed.

History has shown the planet works in cycles. Where are we in that cycle? I haven't a clue. But if history truly repeats itself "Man" as we know it will be gone in 10,000 years or even less. JMHO

[pitrevie]

Why do they need another team of 'top scientists' to investigate this again? Is it because, a few years ago, the Koch brothers funded a similar study a few years ago & didn't get the answer they wanted?

Here's the project leader, Richard Muller, discussing his findings:

Here are the results of their (Berkeley Earth) study, compared to the 'fiddled' results by GISS, NOAA & Hadley:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/02/10/global_warming_adjusting_temperature_measurements.html

No difference.

Chief of US Pacific forces calls climate biggest worry

Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, America’s top military officer 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.

[chuckd]

To answer two different questions posed to me. One: Volcano's are driven by this planet not by man. I did not imply man caused volcanic erruptions. Volcanos in the past recorded hisory have caused havoc on society world wide. This is no secret nor is it anyhing new. And Two: I have been to both "Poles" conducting GPS research with the USGS Survey teams years ago. Pictures of now and then are very telling no matter what any other survey says.

In my view point we are only here for the ride. How long is that ride? Who knows. Only man, no other animal, is using up all the naural resources the planet has at the same time destroying it.. There are still vast resources that have not been explored mainly do to waring nations and groups. But does it matter? If we don't start taking care of our planet nothing we talk about will ever matter. We have failed miserably out of irgnorance and greed.

History has shown the planet works in cycles. Where are we in that cycle? I haven't a clue. But if history truly repeats itself "Man" as we know it will be gone in 10,000 years or even less. JMHO

"But if history truly repeats itself "Man" as we know it will be gone in 10,000 years or even less. JMHO"

Then if it is OK with everybody, I think I'll just sit back and relax, ignoring the global warming hoax.

[arjunadawn]

The flat-earthers are still out there. Read about this global Warming Policy Foundation and its kin the Global Policy Warming Forum. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation and at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/27/scepticism-over-rising-temperatures-lord-lawson-peddles-a-fake-controversy

I hope you at least realize the piece from the Guardian is not news; it is not even presented as information as much as it is combative. In fact, it begins the very same way your entry post above begins, by impugning those to whom you wish to present some intelligent observation. By the third para I had already read nearly 4 pejoratives. Your sourcing no doubt reflects why you would open a commentary by insulting those to whom you speak. This is why the climate change debate has less cognition and more agitation.

If you are unaware that Sourcewatch is the wolf and you profess to be guarding the chickens, you are being duped. Sourcewatch is a product of the Center for Media and Democracy, an activist progressive front which moves considerable liberal dark money through its coffers. Among the stars funding Sourcewatch, BanksterUSA, and directly the Center for Media and Democracy is George Soros, through is various Tides Foundations and Open Society groups. Think- color revolution, Arab Spring, Purple revolution, people rioting, tanks in streets, being disappeared, over throwing of governments with cleaver Fist Icons, protests in Hong Kong, trying to steal the entire country of Thailand, Ferguson, Baltimore... ad naseum. When you post a source that received funds from known instigators of bloodshed and revolution throughout the world you disqualify any point you sought to make- but then you did that when you addresses the readers as "flat earthers." How ironic; pretty sure you are unaware the world is actually shaped like I described.

[arjunadawn]

Why do they need another team of 'top scientists' to investigate this again? Is it because, a few years ago, the Koch brothers funded a similar study a few years ago & didn't get the answer they wanted?

Here's the project leader, Richard Muller, discussing his findings:

Chief of US Pacific forces calls climate biggest worry

Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, America’s top military officer 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.

I dont agree with Muller but this is a very well presented, intelligent argument he makes. Its curious because many of his past comments have been very agreeable to me regarding his associations with Vedanta, the perception of the earth, etc. But Muller also has as his baggage the desire to see humanity forcibly moved into a divine religious relationship with earth, which of course means there will be billions of not pleased people. Real science, false science, at some point one must consider the various yet consistent motivations behind the climate change salesmen. It is virtually always governmental or religious, in the case of Muller, it is religious. While a thought provoking and disarming conversation the data remains, wholly debatable, not settled. His one repeated reference to "one parameter" with regard to volcanic activity might confuse many people and they conclude then "whatever the hell that means its pretty clear he considered that too." Wrong! This is not correct. You cannot create a model to evaluate whether there is warming and plug in only "one (subjective and selective) parameter" for vulcan activity. This point is perhaps central. Volcanic activity is not caused by man. Volcanic activity is variously known to cool the earth. Muller presents, under the cover of his great credentials, hogwash. Volcanic activity is one of the central issues for a false positive and he assigns it one datum parameter. Perhaps his desire to see his manifest "Brahma" come true before his death (his own words).

Note: It is been a while since the pogroms have purged field grade officers who know how to fight wars and replaced them with those who know how to kiss ass! Under Obama alone the largest purge of military officers, and field grade officers has taken place. How do you suppose that works the next day, when they must replace someone in that position? There is a reason previously silent (by explicit and implicit) policy military folks remain silent of cultural and civilian affairs; now they do not! The military has been turned into a media action arm of the white house. Indeed, even the military mouthpieces were employed to push Michele's school lunch program by going on a speaking tour warning of obesity as a national security threat. Might be true, but it was savagely used politically.

Wars for resources and water and oil and land that is not under water has variously taken place forever. A military who does not foresee that is inferior. With 7+ billion people on earth it is no surprise these concerns would mount. But the military should not be presented as the neutral independent arbiter of science. The military does not enjoy the near universal respect it once did, and does still in many countries in the world, and in the days ahead, will be even less respected by America as they come to fear the military. This is the nature of those pogroms, this is the source of your information.

[GanDoonToonPet]

Australia's universities are full of Left-leaning academics (is that a tautology?), and thus climate change alarmists, yet the appointment of a single scientist who believes in man-made global warming but disagrees with methods proposed to curb it, has sent Australian academia into a rage-filled tailspin.

A biologist has claimed that the presence of Dr Bjorn Lomborg at her university will "tarnish their [students] accomplishments as graduates from this university ".

Tim Flannery, a political appointee as 'climate advisor' under the Socialist former Rudd/Gillard government has hilariously called Lomborg's appointment "politically motivated".

The bottom line: the Green/Left cannot bear to be challenged to the slightest degree by people who disagree with any part of their agenda.

Control and suppress, control and suppress ...............

I'm not surprised as he's been totally discredited!

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

As an example, from his book 'The Skeptical Environmentalist', Lomborg uses chart 'b' in isolation to argue that current models are unable to explain observed temperature changes; total intellectual dishonesty.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me...

In chart 'a' we see that the increase in temperatures during the period 1920-1960, relative to 1900, is simulated well. This means that natural fluctuations - for example. in the energy of the sunlight and in the amount of dust from volcanic eruptions - can indeed explain some of the variation. But overall, the degree of prediction is poor. We note especially that the unprecedented temperature rise during the last 20 years cannot be explained by natural courses - on the contrary, natural causes would have given a slight cooling.

Chart 'b' gives the effect of anthropogenic, i.e. manmade, causes, including sulphate aerosols. Here, the temperature rise during the last 20 years is simulated quite well, whereas there is considerable deviation from the actual (red) curve during the temporary rise from 1920 to 1960. This is the type of simulation that Lomborg criticizes, telling us that it demonstrates that the modellers in IPCC are not able to simulate the actual temperature fluctuations very well.

Chart 'c' shows the result of combining both natural and manmade causes into the model. In this case the black curves fit the red curve both during the temporary increase in the period 1920-1960 and during the sharp rise from 1980 onwards. The conclusion is that the present understanding of what affects the temperature is sufficient to explain most of the observed fluctuations. It seems obvious that the global temperature is affected by natural as well as manmade causes, but the temperature rise from 1980 onwards is due only to manmade causes. As the level of greenhouse gases is still increasing, it is obvious that the temperature will rise even faster during the next decades.

Edited April 30, 2015 by GanDoonToonPet

[RickBradford]

I'm not surprised as he's been totally discredited!

The Green/Left mentality in action -- on the basis of one website run by an individual, call someone 'totally discredited', (if they don't agree with you, of course).

What next -- a link to a critique of Kim Kardashian?

[GanDoonToonPet]

I'm not surprised as he's been totally discredited!

The Green/Left mentality in action -- on the basis of one website run by an individual, call someone 'totally discredited', (if they don't agree with you, of course).

What next -- a link to a critique of Kim Kardashian?

Please state how many websites & how many people should run each website to establish the criterion of 'totally discredited'; otherwise your statement is nonsense. Give reasons for your answers.

How about a book, or aren't there enough authors?

The Lomborg Deception: Howard Friel - http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300161038

EDIT: Even better, why don't you research Lomborg's book yourself to see if the accusation is true?

Edited April 30, 2015 by GanDoonToonPet

[RickBradford]

The desperate efforts of the Green/Left to deny Lomborg his job at UWA are becoming funnier.

The UWA Student Guild Executive (they sure like those fancy puffed-up names) is now in the business of issuing its own press releases, this one to the effect that Lomborg "has no place" at UWA.

"Dr Lomborg has been internationally criticised and very controversial. Many believe his 'research' downplays the effects of climate change and calls for inaction. While Dr Lomborg doesn’t refute climate change itself, many students question why the Centre’s projects should be led by someone with a controversial track-record."

Well, for anyone who thinks about these things for more than a couple of seconds, universities are exactly the places where multiple views and controversy should be allowed, even encouraged.

So it's not so much about Lomborg being controversial, as him having the temerity to disagree with some aspects of the One True Religion of Global Warming.

It's probably no accident that UWA is the former home of the notorious Stephan Lewandowsky, self-styled climate hero and defrocked peddler of fake, fraudulent data and junk science.

[GanDoonToonPet]

The desperate efforts of the Green/Left to deny Lomborg his job at UWA are becoming funnier.

The UWA Student Guild Executive (they sure like those fancy puffed-up names) is now in the business of issuing its own press releases, this one to the effect that Lomborg "has no place" at UWA.

"Dr Lomborg has been internationally criticised and very controversial. Many believe his 'research' downplays the effects of climate change and calls for inaction. While Dr Lomborg doesn’t refute climate change itself, many students question why the Centre’s projects should be led by someone with a controversial track-record."

Well, for anyone who thinks about these things for more than a couple of seconds, universities are exactly the places where multiple views and controversy should be allowed, even encouraged.

So it's not so much about Lomborg being controversial, as him having the temerity to disagree with some aspects of the One True Religion of Global Warming.

It's probably no accident that UWA is the former home of the notorious Stephan Lewandowsky, self-styled climate hero and defrocked peddler of fake, fraudulent data and junk science.

Being controversial or 'fringe' is one thing but as I said he's been exposed as intellectually dishonest. He is at best guilty of incompetence & at worst fraud. This is not the type of person I'd want to teach in a university.

Regarding my previous post, I have conducted some research & present my findings...

In his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, on page 267 Lomborg shows a graph (Figure 138) comparing the observed global temperature increase to the temperature simulations from the Hadley Centre model. He uses this to illustrate that the models do not correlate with observed temperatures but what he doesn't tell you is that the graph uses anthropogenic (human caused) emission data only.

Here is a copy of the original page from TSE:

Lomborg Pg 267.pdf

He then goes on to say, on the same page:

Incorporating sulphate particles in the simulations has gone some way towards producing a temperature development more closely resembling the observations. In Figure 138 this is demonstrated when the predicted general warming signal is tracking the latter part of the twentieth century pretty well, although the rapid temperature increase from 1910 to 1945 is still left unexplained. ²¹⁷²

Note the reference he gives at the end of the paragraph, ref 2172. Here is the relevant page from TSE:

Lomborg Ref 2172.pdf

2172. As noted earlier, some of this increase might be explained by increased solar irradiance, although the data are very uncertain, IPCC 2001a:6 15.1, 12.2.3.1 , Figure 12.7 , 8.6.4

This refers to the graph in my earlier post, Figure 12.7 from the IPCC 2001 report, which I'll reproduce again here:

Link to Figure 12.7 from the IPCC 2001 report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/fig12-7.htm

In conclusion, Lomborg misrepresents the efficacy of IPCC climate models by using a graph which models only anthropogenic emissions. Not only that, but he references a source (which he must have read) to back up his claims, even though the source shows the opposite of what he is claiming. As you can see from chart 'c', when both natural & anthropogenic sources are included, there is a strong correlation between the model & observed temperatures.

Fool me once...

[RickBradford]

Regarding my previous post, I have conducted some research & present my findings...

Your research is commendably in line with Green/Left principles i.e. cut and pasted with mild paraphrase from exactly the same website you were quoting earlier.

All these matters were examined and ultimately dismissed 10 years ago by the Danish Ministry of Science, and the conclusion could be interpreted as being either:

a) Lomborg was unfairly attacked by an environmentalist cabal (including the above website owner) and successfully defended himself

-- or --

b ) Lomborg was scientifically careless in an attempt to make a name for himself, and got off on a technicality

The truth, as always, is probably somewhere in between.

Considering all the data manipulation, illegal hiding of data and shonky science carried out at the UEA Hadley Centre (described at length in the Climategate papers), Lomborg's peccadilloes look mild by comparison.

But, of course, that's not the point. Lomborg is not singing from the right hymn-sheet, so he has to go.

Edited May 2, 2015 by RickBradford